Christendom's Trinity: Where Did It Come From?

[mikesw]

This is where your denials of Scripture or misunderstandings come in. How do you conclude God is more than one person when the Bible directly says He isn't? More than one person wouldn't be God creating a lone, more than one person isn't a He, Him, His, I. More than one person contradicts the Father's exclusive deity as the one and only true God. For your wildly unconventional logic to work, it would require reinterpreting the Bible to make it say something it never once explicitly states, making your interpretation private. Also, you interpretation ignores all precedent. It's eisegesis to say that the Word is literally God without any precedent in John 1:1, totally out of the blue, for it to never be repeated again by anyone else, and contradicted by John himself in Ats 4:23-24,27 and dozens of other points in Scripture. This is what happens when one's foundation isn't the Bible, this is indoctrination run wild Mike. You don't have to be in bondage to it forever.

You are totally misunderstanding even basic scriptures going back to the OT too. The point is that there are not other gods and especially none that could be called creator of the world. Maybe you just missed that. I will repeat it for you. The point is that there are not other gods and especially none that could be called creator of the world.

The problem is not whether the Father is God. The problem at hand is whether Jesus is somehow a second god. But we know that is not the case. This is not a private, weird interpretation when explaining why Jesus cannot be a separate god since we know there are not multiple gods. It is that concept however that trips up unitarians. They cannot comprehend John 1 since they think it means there are separate gods or they just plain misinterpret the passage into an form unsupportable by the language.

Jesus also forgives sins and speaks the words that make sense only of being the Word who exists before Abraham and John the Baptist. The problem is that you cannot comprehend that critical point so you have to say this means Jesus exists only in prophecy. That is so mundane an idea that it would not have been put into scripture without destroying all trust in scripture.

If you can make a convincing argument against the testimony of scripture, you would have done it by now.

 

[mikesw]

The Bible teaches that God is the “head” of Christ...

“But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God” (1 Corinthians 11:3). The Trinitarian explanation of this verse is that God was the head of Christ only while he was on the earth, but the Bible never says that. In fact, the Bible shows us the opposite: God is still the head of Christ and directing him even after he ascended into heaven. God can be seen to be greater than the Messiah in Psalm 2 when God’s Messiah is called “his anointed” and God says “I have set my King on Zion, my holy hill." The Messiah is not being shown to be a co-equal ruler with God, but God’s under-ruler. God says He fathered the Messiah: “You are my Son; today I have begotten you." It's clear the Messiah was begotten at a specific time in history and that means he's not “eternally begotten” even if commentators argue about which day “today” refers to.

Christ has a different distinction and role because he has become incarnate and walked among humanity. Too bad that is missed by unitarians. Unitarians only call Jesus "Son of God" but deny the meaning of that and the essence of Jesus as God's Son and preexistence with the Father. Too much scripture has to be overlooked or overwritten to support the unitarian view.

 

[Peterlag]

The Cross of Christ represents the Trinity. Without the Holy Spirit you can't read it in the scriptures. Logic does not work in spiritual matters.

1 Corinthians 1:18 - For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

Knowing God probably interacts with me within the same boundaries He set up for me to function in has brought my relationship with Him closer.

 

[Peterlag]

The Bible says the Son will be subject to the Father even in the future “When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him [God] who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all” (1 Corinthians 15:28). The teaching that the two of them are “co-equal” must be wrong if Jesus is subject to the Father even in the eternal future.

“Then cometh the end, when he [Christ] shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he [Christ] shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.

For he [Christ] must reign, till he [God] hath put all enemies under his [Christ's] feet.

The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.

For he [God] hath put all things under his [Christ's] feet. But when he [God] said all things are put under him, [Christ] it is manifest [obvious] that he [God] is excepted, [God is the only exception] which did put all things under him [Christ].

And when all things shall be subdued unto him, [Christ] then [not now, but at some future time] shall the Son also himself be subject unto him [God] that put all things under him, [Christ] that God may be all in all."

 

[Rockerduck]

Knowing God probably interacts with me within the same boundaries He set up for me to function in has brought my relationship with Him closer.

View attachment 2878

1 Corinthians 2:14 - a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.

 

[Runningman]

You are totally misunderstanding even basic scriptures going back to the OT too. The point is that there are not other gods and especially none that could be called creator of the world. Maybe you just missed that. I will repeat it for you. The point is that there are not other gods and especially none that could be called creator of the world.

The problem is not whether the Father is God. The problem at hand is whether Jesus is somehow a second god. But we know that is not the case. This is not a private, weird interpretation when explaining why Jesus cannot be a separate god since we know there are not multiple gods. It is that concept however that trips up unitarians. They cannot comprehend John 1 since they think it means there are separate gods or they just plain misinterpret the passage into an form unsupportable by the language.

Jesus also forgives sins and speaks the words that make sense only of being the Word who exists before Abraham and John the Baptist. The problem is that you cannot comprehend that critical point so you have to say this means Jesus exists only in prophecy. That is so mundane an idea that it would not have been put into scripture without destroying all trust in scripture.

If you can make a convincing argument against the testimony of scripture, you would have done it by now.

You seem to understand basic things like "One God" but you're confusing yourself. So when you read John 17:3 or 1 Corinthians 8:6, what's your opposition to the One and only true God being the Father? Eternal life is knowing the Father as the only true God, Jesus said so. Is Jesus wrong about that and you need to know a trinity instead?

John 17
3Now this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom You have sent.

 

[synergy]

You seem to understand basic things like "One God" but you're confusing yourself. So when you read John 17:3 or 1 Corinthians 8:6, what's your opposition to the One and only true God being the Father? Eternal life is knowing the Father as the only true God, Jesus said so. Is Jesus wrong about that and you need to know a trinity instead?

John 17
3Now this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom You have sent.

Combine John 17:3 with John 1:1 and do the math. Two persons (both God) but only one God. That clearly destroys the Judaizing heresy called unitarianism.

 

[Runningman]

Combine John 17:3 with John 1:1 and do the math. Two persons (both God) but only one God. That clearly destroys the Judaizing heresy called unitarianism.

Eternal life is knowing the Father as the only true God that's the only one you need to know as God. You must also know that Jesus is the one the only true God sent. That's what the Bible says and it utterly destroys the the trinity.

 

[Peterlag]

1 Corinthians 2:14 - a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.

And so what is spiritual?

Since most Christians believe the Trinity is a mystery and not to be understood is a huge reason why doctrinal discussions about it are often avoided or brushed aside and ignored. Worse, the teaching that the Trinity is a “mystery” has been used as a club to beat down doubters and dissenters, and those people are often branded as “heretics” and their role in Christianity minimized.

 

[synergy]

Eternal life is knowing the Father as the only true God that's the only one you need to know as God. You must also know that Jesus is the one the only true God sent. That's what the Bible says and it utterly destroys the the trinity.

You just totally ignored John 1:1. That's exactly what heretics do. They ignore scripture that destroys their heresies. Thank you for confirming you're one of them.

I consider both verses. You should too.

 

[Runningman]

You just totally ignored John 1:1. That's exactly what heretics do. They ignore scripture that destroys their heresies. Thank you for confirming you're one of them.

I consider both verses. You should too.

You said "Combine John 17:3 with John 1:1 and do the math. "

After that I did the math. John 17:3 explicitly states the Father is the only true God, the true God alone. Your interpretation cannot co-exist with this absolutely definitive statement about God.

 

[synergy]

You said "Combine John 17:3 with John 1:1 and do the math. "

After that I did the math. John 17:3 explicitly states the Father is the only true God, the true God alone. Your interpretation cannot co-exist with this absolutely definitive statement about God.

For sure "the Word was God" phrase can coexist with the Monotheism of John 17:3. The only place it can't is in the judaizing heretical mind of a unitarian.

 

[Runningman]

For sure "the Word was God" phrase can coexist with the Monotheism of John 17:3. The only place it can't is in the judaizing heretical mind of a unitarian.

The Father is God alone according to John 17:3 so if the Word is God also, then Jesus lied about who God is. In order to keep a balance, we must look at the ways that John 1:1 is translated and how the rest of the Bible can inform it. We know the Word is not The God so we know that the Word is either indefinite or qualitative. John called the Word a thing in 1 John 1:1-3 and Acts 4:23-27,27 John proved he didn't believe the Word is the Sovereign Lord or Creator. The Word is simply poetic about the God's words, as "word" literally means something said or spoken.

Where you eisegesis comes in is you contradict all of these things and define a god that no one ever even talked about. You are no intellectually honest scholar.

 

[mikesw]

You seem to understand basic things like "One God" but you're confusing yourself. So when you read John 17:3 or 1 Corinthians 8:6, what's your opposition to the One and only true God being the Father? Eternal life is knowing the Father as the only true God, Jesus said so. Is Jesus wrong about that and you need to know a trinity instead?

John 17
3Now this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom You have sent.

That does not say anything about the essence of the preexisting One who is incarnate as Jesus.

 

[Rockerduck]

And so what is spiritual?

Since most Christians believe the Trinity is a mystery and not to be understood is a huge reason why doctrinal discussions about it are often avoided or brushed aside and ignored. Worse, the teaching that the Trinity is a “mystery” has been used as a club to beat down doubters and dissenters, and those people are often branded as “heretics” and their role in Christianity minimized.

Spiritual is being filled with Holy Spirit and God opens the understanding of scripture to the Spirit filled person. A natural man, without the Holy Spirit, cannot understand by logic of scripture. The natural man reads as literal and the Spiritual man sees the spiritual message in scriptures. The natural man has no ability to see the God inspired scripture.

 

[Runningman]

That does not say anything about the essence of the preexisting One who is incarnate as Jesus.

Correct it says absolutely nothing about that Mike. Jesus nor anyone else ever talked about the story you keep writing every where on this board.

 

[Peterlag]

Spiritual is being filled with Holy Spirit and God opens the understanding of scripture to the Spirit filled person. A natural man, without the Holy Spirit, cannot understand by logic of scripture. The natural man reads as literal and the Spiritual man sees the spiritual message in scriptures. The natural man has no ability to see the God inspired scripture.

If the spirit is telling you that Jesus is God. That spirit is not from God. The spirit from God will say that Jesus came in the flesh. The false spirit will say God came in the flesh. There's your test of the spirit.

 

[JesusFan]

If the spirit is telling you that Jesus is God. That spirit is not from God. The spirit from God will say that Jesus came in the flesh. The false spirit will say God came in the flesh. There's your test of the spirit.

The Holy Spitit testifies that Jesus is Lord, which means the true Jesus is God in human flesh

 

[Peterlag]

The Holy Spitit testifies that Jesus is Lord, which means the true Jesus is God in human flesh

The word "Lord" does not mean God.

 

[Peterlag]

Peter’s teaching to the Jews on the Day of Pentecost says “God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.” (Acts 2:36). God must have greater authority than Jesus in order to make him the "Lord." Christ would have already been the “Lord” if he was God—in which case God would not need to “make” him the "Lord." It's also taught that Jesus must be God because he's called the “Lord.” The Greek word for Lord is kurios and is a masculine title of respect and nobility, which is why we see many others besides God and Jesus being called the “Lord."

• Property owners are called the "Lord" (Matthew 20:8) kurios is “owner” in the NIV.
• Heads of households are called the "Lord" (Mark 13:35) kurios is "owner."
• Slave owners were called the "Lord" (Matthew 10:24) kurios is "master."
• Husbands were called the "Lord" (1 Peter 3:6) kurios is "master" in the NIV.
• A son called his father the "Lord" (Matthew 21:30) kurios is "sir."
• The Roman Emperor was called the "Lord" (Acts 25:26) kurios is "His Majesty."
• Roman authorities were called the "Lord" (Matthew 27:63) kurios is "sir."