And that Word became fleah and dwelt among us as Jesus
Christendom's Trinity: Where Did It Come From?
- Thread starter Alter2Ego
- Start date
Peterlag
Active Member
That's what you are saying. That's not what I'm saying. Words are not living creatures and things don't become people.
Runningman
Active Member
So God is flesh? Doesn't that contradict God and everyone else in the Bible? You think John went rogue and was perpetuating a new doctrine about God that hints at idolatry? Exegesis demands consistency. No one ever repeated what John 1 says, ever, not one time.
i see what you mean. For the Word to become flesh would indicate that God has the ability to interact with his creation in a loving fashion and in the way he has planned it. That would mean that God is Creator and has the sufficient knowledge and power to do that. However, that contradicts the unitarian belief system and thus would interfere with their concept of scriptures and their god. It would be idolatry to worship God in their system and they must avoid any true interaction with the true God.
As to John 1, this was an appeal to both Jews and Greeks within their cultures so they could understand the incarnation. Not every NT writer was able to share insight even at a philosophical level. For the sake of Christians who read this, the other gospels were essentially testimonies of the life, words, and works of Jesus to address roughly from the situation of his birth to the resurrection. John shares the deeper details behind the narratives of the other gospels.
Paul's writings, although addressing the deity of Christ and oneness existence in the Godhead, essentially addresses problems happening in various church locations. He does not address doctrines except as needed to resolve issues.
Last edited:
This is the repeated example of hyperliteralism and a flattening of reading by the removal of metalepsis and other allegorical forms. Linguistically words are signs that trigger meaning within the reader's mind. the unitarian however removes half of the signs from consideration.
Second person of the trinity became human flesh
So your so called god was not able to assume Human Flesh to walk among us, was too limited, was really like Muslim Allah?
Runningman
Active Member
You have exchanged the truth of God for a lie and are worshipping created flesh, which is idolatry. @mikesw @synergy @civic
Romans 1
25They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
Ready to know who God is yet?
synergy
Active Member
You are in continuous denial of the fact that the Word, who was God, tabernacled as Jesus without ever ceasing to be God. “In the beginning was the Word… and the Word was God” (John 1:1), and then “the Word became flesh” (John 1:14).
Flesh, by itself is creaturely but Christ’s flesh is the assumed human nature of the divine Word who was God. So when true Believers worship Jesus, they are not bowing to mere humanity, but to Immanuel—God with us. If your argument were true, then Thomas committed idolatry when he said to the risen Christ, “My Lord and my God!” (John 20:28), yet Jesus accepted that worship instead of rebuking him. The real lie is not that Christians worship Christ, but that men deny the Son’s true identity and then call biblical worship “idolatry.” If Jesus is truly God incarnate—as Scripture repeatedly teaches—then refusing Him worship is not faithfulness to Romans 1, but rebellion against God who revealed Himself in the flesh.
Runningman
Active Member
"The Word became flesh" in trinitarian theology means your god is flesh. Flesh is a creation. Creations aren't God. Paul has condemned your organization as sinful. What is your answer to Paul regarding your idolatry? And more importantly, do you think your arguments are going to gaslight the real God into thinking He's flesh?
synergy
Active Member
You're confusing what Christ is by nature with what the Word became in history. When John 1:14 says “the Word became flesh,” it is not teaching that God’s divine nature turned into flesh or ceased to be spirit (which would contradict passages like John 4:24), but that the eternal Word personally took on a real human nature in addition to His divine nature. In other words, Trinitarian theology does not say “God is flesh” as an absolute statement; it says the Word, who is God, tabernacled as Jesus—fully human while remaining fully divine—so your heretical claim misrepresents the doctrine by flattening the incarnation into a crude transformation instead of a union of natures.
Peterlag
Active Member
Some data on the Holy Spirit...
We have no evidence in the Bible that “the Holy Spirit” was ever used as a name because no one ever used it in a direct address. Many people spoke or prayed directly to God, starting out by saying “O Yahweh” (translated as “O LORD” in almost all English versions). Furthermore, the name “Jesus” is a Greek form of the name “Joshua” (in fact, the King James Version confuses “Joshua” and “Jesus” in Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8) and many people spoke “to Jesus” in the Bible. But no one in the Bible ever used “the Holy Spirit” in a direct address because there's simply no actual name for any “Person” known as “the Holy Spirit” anywhere in the Bible.
The “holy spirit” God gave in the Old Testament was God’s nature, but after the Day of Pentecost He gave His nature in a new and fuller way than He had ever given it before and this is what was foretold in the Old Testament (Ezekiel 11:19; 36:26). It was because this new spirit was promised in the Old Testament that the New Testament calls it “the promised holy spirit” Ephesians 1:13; Acts 2:33; Galatians 3:14). We have the “firstfruits” of the spirit (Romans 8:23) because Christians are the first to receive this new spirit and that's why we have the guarantee that we will be in the coming Messianic Kingdom.
The gift of the holy spirit that Christians have is a gift and thus an “it.” Jesus told the apostles that the spirit would be “in” them (John 14:17)—which is what happened on the Day of Pentecost when the holy spirit went from being with or “upon” people in the Old Testament and Gospels to being born “in” people on and after the Day of Pentecost. The spirit is sent by the Father (John 14:16-17) and Jesus (John 16:7). It does not speak on its own, but it speaks only what it hears (John 16:13). Thus, the gift of the holy spirit is directed by God and Jesus, which is what we would expect since it's God’s nature born in us. The gift of the holy spirit is the nature of God, and when it's born in us it becomes part of our very nature (2 Peter 1:4).
We have no evidence in the Bible that “the Holy Spirit” was ever used as a name because no one ever used it in a direct address. Many people spoke or prayed directly to God, starting out by saying “O Yahweh” (translated as “O LORD” in almost all English versions). Furthermore, the name “Jesus” is a Greek form of the name “Joshua” (in fact, the King James Version confuses “Joshua” and “Jesus” in Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8) and many people spoke “to Jesus” in the Bible. But no one in the Bible ever used “the Holy Spirit” in a direct address because there's simply no actual name for any “Person” known as “the Holy Spirit” anywhere in the Bible.
The “holy spirit” God gave in the Old Testament was God’s nature, but after the Day of Pentecost He gave His nature in a new and fuller way than He had ever given it before and this is what was foretold in the Old Testament (Ezekiel 11:19; 36:26). It was because this new spirit was promised in the Old Testament that the New Testament calls it “the promised holy spirit” Ephesians 1:13; Acts 2:33; Galatians 3:14). We have the “firstfruits” of the spirit (Romans 8:23) because Christians are the first to receive this new spirit and that's why we have the guarantee that we will be in the coming Messianic Kingdom.
The gift of the holy spirit that Christians have is a gift and thus an “it.” Jesus told the apostles that the spirit would be “in” them (John 14:17)—which is what happened on the Day of Pentecost when the holy spirit went from being with or “upon” people in the Old Testament and Gospels to being born “in” people on and after the Day of Pentecost. The spirit is sent by the Father (John 14:16-17) and Jesus (John 16:7). It does not speak on its own, but it speaks only what it hears (John 16:13). Thus, the gift of the holy spirit is directed by God and Jesus, which is what we would expect since it's God’s nature born in us. The gift of the holy spirit is the nature of God, and when it's born in us it becomes part of our very nature (2 Peter 1:4).
360watt
Active Member
How does Jesus direct the Holy Spirit if you say He is just a man?
Peterlag
Active Member
Word's like "just a man" or "a mere man" or "a common man" are not words used by me. Those are Trinitarian words.
360watt
Active Member
If he is not God..there is no other option than mere man. Jesus wasn't an angel. And if you call him a prophet ..that's a mere man..or 'just' a man.
Here is the conclusion:
Philippians 2:10-11 KJV
That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; [11] And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Runningman
Active Member
"The Word became flesh" seems to be a roadblock that you can't argue around. When are you going to admit that your god is created flesh in your religion? Since that's all wrong, ready to know what the "Word became flesh" means?
Runningman
Active Member
Bolded and highlighted in red to make it trinitarian proof. Who is the only God mentioned getting glory in the entire chapter?
Peterlag
Active Member
Only Trinitarians believe Jesus had to be a "common man" because they do not believe Christ came in the flesh.
And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God:
Jesus is 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.
synergy
Active Member
“Became flesh” does not mean the Word turned into a created being or ceased to be what He was. It means the Word, who was God, took on human nature. You’re forcing a false dilemma—either created flesh or nothing—while ignoring the plain teaching that the Word already was God (John 1:1) and then entered into creation without becoming a creature in His divine nature. Calling it “your god is created flesh” is simply a blatant categorical error on your part. Christianity teaches tabernacling, not transformation of deity into a created thing. And your tone about a “roadblock” only highlights that you’re not engaging the text as it stands. Instead, you’re redefining it so you can knock down a position no one is actually arguing.
Similar threads
