ok. Maybe we can make a trinitarian bible for you and include a book on that topic. kidding
Do Trinitarians really know their foundational core doctrines and their impact on their beliefs and others?
- Thread starter APAK
- Start date
civic
Well-known member
Yes 1 Cor 8:6 is the NT Shema with the One Lord/God as Father/Son being the Co-Creator of all things as the passage states so clearly.
Peterlag
Well-known member
There are also verses in the New Testament that clearly speak of “God” being the“God” of Jesus Christ. Romans 15:6 says “...you can, with one mouth, glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.” 2 Corinthians 1:3, Ephesians 1:3, and 1 Peter 1:3 all say “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.” So the “one God and Father” (Ephesians 4:6) is the God of Jesus Christ. The “one God” of the Bible never says He has a God because He is God, the Father, the Creator, “the Most High God” and He has no equals. Jesus is not “God” because he's a man, the last Adam, the created Son of God, and the God of Jesus is God the Father.
In John 5:44 Jesus called the Father “the only God” and The New American Standard Bible goes so far as to translate it as “the one and only God.” The straightforward reading of this verse is that Jesus did not think of himself as God. Jesus prayed to God on the night he was arrested that people would “know you, the only true God”(John 17:3). It seems disingenuous or at least confusing that Jesus would refer to his Father as “the only true God” if he knew that both he and “the Holy Spirit” were also “Persons” in a triune God and that the Father shared His position as “God” with them. It seems much more likely that Jesus spoke the simple truth when he called his Father “the only true God."
Colossians 1:15 calls Jesus “the firstborn of all creation.” Scholars disagree on what this phrase means, but that is primarily because the doctrine of the Trinity obscures its simple meaning. Trinitarian doctrine states that Jesus is “eternal” but if that is true then he cannot be the firstborn “of all creation” because that would make him part of the creation. But the simple reading of Colossians 1:15 seems clear: Jesus is a created being. The BDAG Greek-English lexicon [entry under “creation”] explains the Greek word translated “creation”as “that which is created… of individual things or beings created, creature.” Not only was Jesus a created being, but he's also called the “firstborn” from the dead because he was the first one in God’s creation who was raised from the dead to everlasting life—a point that is also made in Colossians 1:18.
God is eternal and was not born. In contrast to the eternal God, Christ is “begotten” that is born meaning Jesus Christ had a beginning. Jesus is never called “God the Son” in the Bible, but he's called the “Son of God”more than 50 times, and a “son” has a beginning. The very fact that Jesus is the “Son of God” shows he had a beginning. Trinitarian doctrine denies this and invents the phrase “eternally begotten" but “eternally begotten” is not in the Bible, but was invented to help explain the Trinity and is actually a nonsensical phrase because the words are placed together but they cancel each other out. “Eternal” means without beginning or end and something that is “begotten” by definition has a beginning.
In John 5:44 Jesus called the Father “the only God” and The New American Standard Bible goes so far as to translate it as “the one and only God.” The straightforward reading of this verse is that Jesus did not think of himself as God. Jesus prayed to God on the night he was arrested that people would “know you, the only true God”(John 17:3). It seems disingenuous or at least confusing that Jesus would refer to his Father as “the only true God” if he knew that both he and “the Holy Spirit” were also “Persons” in a triune God and that the Father shared His position as “God” with them. It seems much more likely that Jesus spoke the simple truth when he called his Father “the only true God."
Colossians 1:15 calls Jesus “the firstborn of all creation.” Scholars disagree on what this phrase means, but that is primarily because the doctrine of the Trinity obscures its simple meaning. Trinitarian doctrine states that Jesus is “eternal” but if that is true then he cannot be the firstborn “of all creation” because that would make him part of the creation. But the simple reading of Colossians 1:15 seems clear: Jesus is a created being. The BDAG Greek-English lexicon [entry under “creation”] explains the Greek word translated “creation”as “that which is created… of individual things or beings created, creature.” Not only was Jesus a created being, but he's also called the “firstborn” from the dead because he was the first one in God’s creation who was raised from the dead to everlasting life—a point that is also made in Colossians 1:18.
God is eternal and was not born. In contrast to the eternal God, Christ is “begotten” that is born meaning Jesus Christ had a beginning. Jesus is never called “God the Son” in the Bible, but he's called the “Son of God”more than 50 times, and a “son” has a beginning. The very fact that Jesus is the “Son of God” shows he had a beginning. Trinitarian doctrine denies this and invents the phrase “eternally begotten" but “eternally begotten” is not in the Bible, but was invented to help explain the Trinity and is actually a nonsensical phrase because the words are placed together but they cancel each other out. “Eternal” means without beginning or end and something that is “begotten” by definition has a beginning.
Jesus is also a man.
101G
Well-known member
ERROR, that violated scripture. because of Isaiah 44:24 "Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;"
1 Corinthians 8:6 "But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him." and the term "BY" .. HIMSELF (as in Isaiah 44:24), means just that "ALONE". and that ERROR of Co-CREATOR is just that, an ERROR. so, both you and Fred are in ERROR.
101G.
101G
Well-known member
not like you and I, he's the NEW MAN, or the Glorified Man in Amalgamation of his own Spirit.
101G.
You want to reduce God to be in man's image. That is not a good way to work out one's sense of God. The issues you raise are the perhaps the distinction verses. However, you have to reconcile that with the equivalence verses that show Christ as one in the Godhead. That is what the Trinitarian doctrine encompasses. This does not mean that the awareness of the Trinitarian nature of God is fully understood. So when we hear of Christ as the Son of God, we are given some sort of relationship concept we perceive in part in our human concept. It is understood analogically such that the time-sequence elements you rely upon are likely the inapplicable details of the analogy. If somehow you have a better theory than the Trinitarian concept, you need to encompass a better comprehension of such analogical understanding of the Godhead.
Until you share that or formulate that convincingly, we have no reason to change our understanding of the deity of Christ.
dwight92070
Well-known member
Did you notice Hebrews 1:8? "But of the Son, He (God) says, 'Your throne, O God, is forever and ever ... Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You with the oil of gladness.' " So here we have God calling His Son "God".
Also in John 5:18, the apostle John tells us that Jesus made "Himself equal with God" - "... but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God."
I notice in John 17:3, you conveniently left out the last phrase. "This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, AND JESUS CHRIST WHOM YOU HAVE SENT." So eternal life is knowing the Father AND the Son. Regarding Jesus' prayer to His Father, it really doesn't matter that "it seems disingenuous or at least confusing" to you that Jesus would refer to His Father as "the only true God". God never promised that the makeup of His own person or persons would be totally understandable to us. In fact, it makes more sense that the person of the God of all creation would be incomprehensible vs. a Being that we can explain and understand.
Psalm 2:7 (" ... You are My Son, today I have begotten You.") is quoted by Paul in Acts13:32-34. There Paul clearly explains the verse in Psalms. He says that "today I have begotten You" refers to the Father raising His Son Jesus from the dead.
You said that Jesus "was the first one in God's creation who was raised from the dead to everlasting life." That's true but we must also mention that He was the first to receive a glorified body when He was raised. ALL the other godly men and women since creation who have died and gone on to heaven, still do not have a glorified body, which is described in 1 Corinthians 15:42-44. They must wait for the 2nd Coming to receive their glorified bodies.
So the "firstborn of all creation" Col. 1:15 and the "firstborn from the dead" mean the same thing - that Jesus was the first person raised from the dead to receive a glorified body. Several persons were raised from the dead before Jesus was raised, but they returned to their original bodies. The gospels and Acts record several of these. Not Jesus - He alone has a glorified body, but when He returns, we will also be getting our new bodies.
When God became a man - that is, when the Word who was God (John 1:1) became flesh (John 1:14), He is called "the only begotten from the Father". This baby was given the name Jesus. Prior to His birth, He was called "the Word", which was in fact God. At His birth, He was also called the Son of God. We don't have any Old Testament appearance of the words "the Son of God" or even "the Word of God".
Jesus made it clear that He pre-existed. John 17:5 "Now Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You BEFORE THE WORLD WAS." However, in His pre-existence, He was not called Jesus - apparently He was called the Word, even though the Old Testament never uses that title.
John the Baptist tells us that Jesus existed before he did, even though John was born six months before Jesus. John 1:30
Jesus Himself tells us He pre-existed: John 3:13; John 6:33,38, 62; John 8:23; John 16:28
Jesus, as the begotten Son of God had a beginning in Bethlehem, when Mary was impregnated by the Holy Spirit. But the spirit of Jesus existed from all eternity - He was the Word, He was God. He was the only begotten of the Father. God never impregnated Mary or any other woman again. When Jesus tells us He existed before, we understand that He was not called Jesus at that time.
Last edited:
Peterlag
Well-known member
I don't conveniently leave things out. I post what I post. If you want me to conveniently commit on a verse. Just ask.
Peterlag
Well-known member
I think what you're asking is something like this: Since I do not believe there's such a thing as a square circle. Then I need to come up with a better idea on how a circle can be square. It seems to me that you have to have some kind of a version of a trinity. If not this one then another one. Am I right about how you're thinking? That you cannot conceive that there is no such thing of a trinity.
Wow. You waiver between seeming to know stuff and being totally ignorant. Right now you have swung to the ignorant side. You are trying to limit who God is and to restrict him to your constraints. If you can explain the divinity of Christ in relationship with the Father in some other fashion, have at it.
Last edited:
Peterlag
Well-known member
Um, so I am correct. You have to have some kind of a version of a trinity. If not this one then another one. Because you cannot conceive there is no such thing as a trinity.
You have helped verify that alternative theories still don't work. Maybe if you find some alternative that explains what God has done and the Son he has sent to earth and died and was resurrected, you can present that. There also is the anticipated need to explain how Jesus became the means of reconciliation with the Father.
It is God's choice. I did not really have a role in that decision. Anyhow the other stuff you have failed to remember for the discussion includes:
It seems in part to demonstrate that sending his Son would result in the same rejection of the rejection of the prophets before him. Their killing of him is demonstrated as the greatest affront to God. The people could know his divinity since he is the image of God, the logos, the message of God to the people. Yet, they still rejected him.
Also, if Jesus were just a man and was killed for challenging the religious leaders, he would just be a common martyr -- someone who simply died for his beliefs or cause. His death would only have the influence of man upon other men and would not be a unique death in the history of humanity.
This also was a caring act, that God could sympathize from experience the life of man. He is a priest that understands our weaknesses. There also may be the confrontation with Satan and destroying Satan's work and stronghold in the earth. Some people speak of this as a retaking the earth in a legal sense. I'm not settled on that sense though. God takes on certain obligations that he must be faithful to, just as he had the covenants with Abraham, Jacob, Moses and David. God then may have to operate within those constraints.
This is probably too much, since your goal seems to deny Christ's divinity.
101G
Well-known member
Question, A. to remiss our sins that was past. and to provide by his blood the way to salvation. for it was he who establish the
Question B. Holiness.
101G
Peterlag
Well-known member
Your answer to question A cannot be correct because Romans 5:15 says “For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many.” Some theologians teach that only God could pay for the sins of mankind, but the Bible specifically says that a man must do it. The book of Corinthians makes the same point Romans does when it says “For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead” (1 Corinthians 15:21).
Peterlag
Well-known member
I don't think you answered my question, but instead gave a bit of a teaching of your own. And that's okay with me, but since you brought up them killing God. Doesn't that sound a tad bit ridicules? Killing God?
dwight92070
Well-known member
You are a "My way or the highway" "Christian". A genuine believer would not be afraid to have his points compared with scripture and he would engage in an exchange of interpretation. Apparently you're not up for that.
Actually you sound very much like an atheist.
Actually you sound very much like an atheist.
Similar threads
