Christendom's Trinity: Where Did It Come From?

[Peterlag]

Jesus did not share in the glory of being God...

Why do I post this again? Because Trinitarians continue to say Jesus received worship and so he must be God. Jesus did not receive worship as God. He received worship as the son of God.

He shares the glory of being the son of God, the Messiah to Israel, and the now resurrected Lord Christ to the Christian who sits at the right hand of God as second in command and is the head of the Church that is called the body of Christ.

 

[Doug Brents]

Jesus did not share in the glory of being God...

Why do I post this again? Because Trinitarians continue to say Jesus received worship and so he must be God. Jesus did not receive worship as God. He received worship as the son of God.

It is blasphemy to receive worship of any kind if you ARE NOT GOD!!!

He shares the glory of being the son of God, the Messiah to Israel, and the now resurrected Lord Christ to the Christian who sits at the right hand of God as second in command and is the head of the Church that is called the body of Christ.

John 17:5 says you are wrong.

 

[Runningman]

It is blasphemy to receive worship of any kind if you ARE NOT GOD!!!

John 17:5 says you are wrong.

You're confusing bowing down in reverence to a king or master with God worship. Not the same things. That's why there are no commandments for believers to worship Jesus in all of Scripture. It's neither required nor something anyone was teaching because they didn't believe Jesus was God back in the day.

For example, if your false accusation were true, then you have just accused Jesus of blasphemy, you have just called him a sinner, if you don't rescind your bad talking point.

Revelation 3:9
Behold, I give those from the synagogue of Satan--those declaring themselves to be Jews, and are not, but they lie--behold, I will cause them that they will come and will worship before your feet, and they shall know that I have loved you.

 

[Peterlag]

It is blasphemy to receive worship of any kind if you ARE NOT GOD!!!

John 17:5 says you are wrong.

John 17:5 does not say the son of God cannot be worshipped.

 

[amazing grace]

John 8:58 ("Before Abraham was, I AM"): Jesus uses the divine name revealed to Moses in Exodus 3:14.

Jesus was not claiming the name Yahweh --- Yahweh is the ONE God's personal name AND Yahweh is the Father and I can clearly say that Jesus was NOT claiming to be the Father. Neither is Jesus saying he preexisted Abraham....

Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad.” So the Jews said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?” Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” [John 8: 54-57] Jesus didn't say that he 'had SEEN Abraham' or that Abraham had SEEN him --- he said Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day' and he saw it by faith ---- Hebrews 11:8a, 9,10 By faith Abraham obeyed ...... By faith he went to live in the land of promise, as in a foreign land, living in tents with Isaac and Jacob, heirs with him of the same promise. For he was looking forward to the city that has foundations, whose designer and builder is God. .... By faith Abraham saw Jesus' day when he would come into his kingdom.

John 10:30 ("I and the Father are one"): Jesus asserts his essential unity and equality with God.

Yes, Jesus is one in unity and purpose with God his Father. They have a very unique intimate Father/Son relationship and Jesus prayed that we would be one with them share in that relationship with him and his Father.

John 14:9 ("Whoever has seen me has seen the Father"): Jesus claims to be the visible representation of God.

Yes, Jesus did say that whoever has been me has seen the Father and yes, he was the perfect representation of his Father - after all he did come to make known the Father.

John 10:33 (Claim to divinity recognized by others): While not a direct quote from Jesus, this verse shows the audience understood he was "claiming to be God".

Jesus didn't claim to be God. He claimed to be the Messiah, the Son of God (BOTH MESSIANIC TITLES) - they just didn't believe he was the Messiah. So the Jews gathered around him and said to him, “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly.” Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe."

Mark 14:62 ("I am" - Response to high priest): Jesus affirms he is the Son of God, identifying with the divine power in Daniel 7.

But he remained silent and made no answer. Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” And Jesus said, “I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.”
Jesus was just answering the question the high priest asked him in the affirmative -- he was the Christ the Son of the Blessed. Jesus' enemies charged him with indirectly claiming to be equal with God a claim Jesus NEVER MADE. And the reference to Daniel 7 - any power or position was not innate but give to him by the 'Ancient of Days', i.e God.......

John 20:28-29 (Accepting Thomas's confession): Jesus accepts Thomas calling him "My Lord and my God".

In view of the whole context of Jesus teaching the disciples "whoever has seen me has seen the Father.....Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me." ..... Thomas now saw the Father in Christ in a way he had never done before - therefore he exclaimed "My Lord and My God". Then you have John's purpose statement just a couple of verses later in v31 -- but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. -- So, Thomas wasn't confessing Jesus was God or else John's purpose statement/conclusion would read:
and these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is God, God the Son and by believing you may have life in his name.
Is John deliberately contradicting the statement of Thomas? I don't think so.

John 5:18 (Making himself equal with God): Jesus equates himself with the Father in working and authority.

Jesus refuted their accusation concerning working on the Sabbath in John 7:

Moses gave you circumcision (not that it is from Moses, but from the fathers), and you circumcise a man on the Sabbath.
If on the Sabbath a man receives circumcision, so that the law of Moses may not be broken, are you angry with me because on the Sabbath I made a man's whole body well?

It seemed Jesus was doing both - working on the Sabbath and by claiming God was his Father - in their eyes, he was making himself equal with God. Something Jesus NEVER claimed.

John 17:5 (Glory before the world existed): Jesus claims eternal, pre-existent glory with the Father.

yea, the glory that God had God promised him he would receive when he accomplished the work that God gave him to do. And the glory God has given him --- that same glory, Jesus has given us, although we have not yet received it ---- it is promised that we will share in that glory. Jesus preexisted in prophet and in Gods's foreknowledge.

Mark 2:5-7 (Forgiving Sins): Jesus forgives sins, which the scribes rightly understood only God could do.

Why do the Trinitarians choose to believe what the unbelieving Jews claimed concerning Christ more than what Jesus said of himself? Should have kept reading: But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”—he said to the paralytic—“I say to you, rise, pick up your bed, and go home.” [v10]

Mark 2:23-28 (Lord of the Sabbath): Jesus claims authority over the Sabbath, a divine prerogative .

Jesus is allowing his disciples to eat from the grainfields which was apparently breaking a Sabbath law and Jesus reminded them what David did when he got hungry and ate 'the bread of the Presence, which was not lawful for any but the priests to eat and David also gave to those who were with him...... Then Jesus said: the Sabbath was made for man NOT man for the Sabbath ---so since the Sabbath was made for man -- the Son of Man, the human being, is lord of the Sabbath.

Revelation 1:8, 22:13: Jesus takes the titles "Alpha and Omega" and "the Almighty".

God has the prerogative to share His titles with His Son......Jesus has the prerogative to accept those titles.

As the verses cited above clearly state, Jesus did claim to be God. So, if you accept that Jesus is who He claimed to be, God almighty who created all that was made, who can forgive sin, who is before all things, the Alpha and Omega, then you are choosing option A. If you reject option A, then you are saying that Jesus lied, blasphemed, claimed to be God when He was nothing more than a man, and so must believe in option B. There is no option C.

There are no verses above which clearly state, Jesus claimed to be God.
I accept that Jesus is who he said he was - the Son of God, the Messiah.

 

[FreeInChrist]

The first two commandments were written long before Jesus was born.

The first two commandments were written when the Word was active and well, before he became flesh... see John 1:14. The Word is Jesus. Period

 

[synergy]

The "beginning" in John 1 can be reduced down to Jesus' ministry. For one, we know that there was no pre-existent being in the beginning with God who God created through. Genesis 1 is explicit that God spoke literal audible words from His mouth and created alone. So your forced rendering of John 1:1 doesn't match remote context and isn't a narrative that exists in Scripture.

Elsewhere, the Genesis 1 narrative states in Genesis 1:3 “And God said, ‘Let there be light,’ and there was light.” Do you see how there is no description of God tag-teaming creation together as a group? Continued...“God said… and it was so” (vv. 6, 9, 11, 14, 20, 24, etc.)

Psalm 33:9 “For he spoke, and it came to be; he commanded, and it stood firm.” again another reference to "God opening His mouth and talking" rather than any sort of indicator God was in a group. As you can see, God is a He, not a they or them.

So it wouldn't make sense to abruptly, out of the blue, without any precedent, nor a repeat of John 1:1 ever popping again in Scripture, to to be about John 1:1 referring to the beginning of creation or really anything else you're saying. Exegesis demands consistency, something you don't have on this point. So John 1:1 is a reference to the beginning of Jesus ministry and the creation of Jesus.

Your argument explodes in a big ball of fire the moment you read John 1:2–3, because the text explicitly says that “He was in the beginning with God” and that “all things were made through Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made,” which directly contradicts the claim that the “beginning” is merely Jesus’ earthly ministry—since His ministry did not precede all created things. If everything that came into existence came through the Word, then the Word Himself cannot be part of the created order, or John’s statement becomes self-refuting. Rather than opposing Genesis or Psalm 33:9, John actually explains them: God “speaks” creation into existence through His Word, and John identifies that very Word as a personal, preexistent agent. So instead of “God working alone” excluding the Word, John reveals how God worked—through His Word—making the attempt to reduce John 1:1 to the start of Jesus’ ministry not just strained, but impossible in light of the immediate context.