Jesus denied being God

I should add the question about what is more important the message of the gospel or the One about whom the gospel speaks?
Obviously the glory goes to Christ. There could be some emphasis on the gospel at times. But only inasmuch as the preaching points to the glory of Christ at the highest aspect and the focus of the gospel.
 
I should add the question about what is more important the message of the gospel or the One about whom the gospel speaks?
Obviously the glory goes to Christ. There could be some emphasis on the gospel at times. But only inasmuch as the preaching points to the glory of Christ at the highest aspect and the focus of the gospel.
Yes we cannot separate the gospel from the person whom the gospel is all about. :)
 
You still don't know translation. It would be awkward translating as feminine when Christ came incarnate as a man. Not sure why that is confusing to you except that you do not comprehend nuances in the scriptures. The pronouns typically are translated according to the gender. I already shared this with you. I'm not sure why you cannot add that detail to your mode of thinking. We already know in John 1 Jesus is the Message to us.
Jesus did not change his nature when recognized as the Word, or Word of Life, to the time he came to earth. So he exists at the beginning but not in physical form. Nor did John touch and see Jesus at the start of creation. None of that should be confusing once you sort it out.
Let's try a different angle with more scripture and more points to see if we can get through to you.

1 John 1:1-2 equates the Word of life to the eternal life that was with the Father only and as something that was revealed. Who revealed it? Jesus revealed it. Eternal life is a thing, not a person, hence why the Word of life is called a thing throughout 1 John 1.

John 1 refers to life being in God and the life is the light of men and that the light is a thing again.
John 1​
5The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.
John was sent by God to testify about the light because during John's ministry was the time the True Light was coming into the world. The True Light was coming into the world when John and Jesus were both around 30 years old according to Luke 3:23. So Jesus was already 30 years old and the true Light wasn't in the world yet.

John 1​
9The true Light who gives light to every man was coming into the world.

So the True Light who gives light to every man is God the Father. God the Father gives life to every man, including Jesus.

John 5​
26For as the Father has life in Himself, so also He has granted the Son to have life in Himself.

So the Word, even though John 1 refers to as a "he" isn't really God. It's a literary device to personify God. John 1:1 actually clues us in to this because the Word is a god or someone/something godly that was with the definitive God. It also says the "Word was God" in the past tense. Hello. God isn't a past-tense God.

So, yes, it's quite clear, at least to me, that the Word of life is eternal life and it was revealed in Jesus' ministry by Jesus. It's a thing, not a person.
 
Yes we cannot separate the gospel from the person whom the gospel is all about. :)
We know Jesus is the Word. He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. It would be odd to take those concepts away from him in 1 John 1.
Furthermore we see in 1 John 2:13
13I am writing to you, fathers, because you know him who is from the beginning. I am writing to you, young men, because you have overcome the evil one. I write to you, children, because you know the Father.

Again, we see Christ who is from the beginning.
 
Let's try a different angle with more scripture and more points to see if we can get through to you.

1 John 1:1-2 equates the Word of life to the eternal life that was with the Father only and as something that was revealed. Who revealed it? Jesus revealed it. Eternal life is a thing, not a person, hence why the Word of life is called a thing throughout 1 John 1.

John 1 refers to life being in God and the life is the light of men and that the light is a thing again.
John 1​
5The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.
John was sent by God to testify about the light because during John's ministry was the time the True Light was coming into the world. The True Light was coming into the world when John and Jesus were both around 30 years old according to Luke 3:23.

John 1​
9The true Light who gives light to every man was coming into the world.

So the True Light who gives light to ever many is God the Father. God the Father gives life to every man, including Jesus.

John 5​
26For as the Father has life in Himself, so also He has granted the Son to have life in Himself.

So the Word, even though John 1 refers to as a "he" isn't really God. It's a literary device to personify God. John 1:1 actually clues us in to this because the Word is a god or someone/something godly that was with the definitive God. It also says the "Word was God" in the past tense. Hello. God isn't a past-tense God.

So, yes, it's quite clear, at least to me, that the Word of life is eternal life and it was revealed in Jesus' ministry by Jesus. It's a thing, not a person.
You don't understand the sense of expression of the Father-Son relationship expressed in scripture. If you have some better way of expressing the deity of Christ than the Trinitarian concept, you will have to start developing that in a cohesive fashion.
You don't understand translation either. In John 1:5, the gender of φῶς is neuter, thus the pronoun likewise follows as neuter. This is especially an unusual phenomenon when using nouns in an atypical concept -- like Jesus as the light.
 
Last edited:
You don't understand the sense of expression of the Father-Son relationship expressed in scripture. If you have some better way of expressing the deity of Christ than the Trinitarian concept, you will have to start developing that in a cohesive fashion.
I understand how you view it and I disagree with that. I am not a Trinitarian, for the record, just in case I didn't outright say that yet. I am a Unitarian Christian. No, I am not a "Unitarian Universalist" and I say that because multiple people have misunderstood that. My theology of God and Jesus is just Scripture. John 17:3 is extremely direct about the Father being the only God. I have no other choice but to accept that.
 
I understand how you view it and I disagree with that. I am not a Trinitarian, for the record, just in case I didn't outright say that yet. I am a Unitarian Christian. No, I am not a "Unitarian Universalist" and I say that because multiple people have misunderstood that. My theology of God and Jesus is just Scripture. John 17:3 is extremely direct about the Father being the only God. I have no other choice but to accept that.
That is helpful for you to note. I was not confusing this with a unitarian universalist -- if that is helpful to note. I take it also that you are not a JW then.
 
My theology of God and Jesus is just Scripture. John 17:3 is extremely direct about the Father being the only God. I have no other choice but to accept that.
if that's the case, 1 Timothy 6:13 "I give thee charge in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and before Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession;" 1 Timothy 6:14 "That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukeable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ:" 1 Timothy 6:15 "Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords;" 1 Timothy 6:16 "Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen."

"Who only hath immortality?". and only means, "and no one or nothing more besides; solely or exclusively:". so the Lord Jesus is the "ONLY" one who is ETERNAL.

101G.
 
I understand how you view it and I disagree with that. I am not a Trinitarian, for the record, just in case I didn't outright say that yet. I am a Unitarian Christian. No, I am not a "Unitarian Universalist" and I say that because multiple people have misunderstood that. My theology of God and Jesus is just Scripture. John 17:3 is extremely direct about the Father being the only God. I have no other choice but to accept that.
No. you are wrong.

You hang your belief on every word you believe comes from the Holy Bible, or whatever form of the scriptures you read come in.

WE ALL KNOW you are ANTI- Trinitarian.

John 17:3 is important to you????? “This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.??? Really.

Read on......, then read it again.....,, and again....

The full John 17 says Jesus spoke these things; and lifting up His eyes to heaven, He said, “Father, the hour has come; glorify Your Son, that the Son may glorify You,

(Self Jesus goes on to say)
2 even as You gave Him authority over all flesh, that to all whom You have given Him, He may give eternal life. (Jesus could give eternal life)

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

4 I glorified You on the earth, having accomplished the work which You have given Me to do.

The following verse has Jesus wanting to be rejoined with the Father, as they were before the world was.
That is straight from Jesus....

5 Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.

NOW PAY ATTENTION>>>

6 “I have manifested Your name to the men whom You gave Me out of the world; they were Yours and You gave them to Me, and they have kept Your word.

7 Now they have come to know that everything You have given Me is from You;

8 for the words which You gave Me I have given to them; and they received them and truly understood that I came forth from You, and they believed that You sent Me.

9 I ask on their behalf; I do not ask on behalf of the world, but of those whom You have given Me; for they are Yours;

10 and all things that are Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine; and I have been glorified in them.

11 I am no longer in the world; and yet they themselves are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep them in Your name, the name which You have given Me, that they may be one even as We are.

12 While I was with them, I was keeping them in Your name which You have given Me; and I guarded them and not one of them perished but the son of perdition, so that the Scripture would be fulfilled.

From Jesus' own mouth... that they may be one even as We are. EVEN AS WE ARE. God and Jesus ARE one.
 
No. you are wrong.

You hang your belief on every word you believe comes from the Holy Bible, or whatever form of the scriptures you read come in.

WE ALL KNOW you are ANTI- Trinitarian.

John 17:3 is important to you????? “This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.??? Really.

Read on......, then read it again.....,, and again....

The full John 17 says Jesus spoke these things; and lifting up His eyes to heaven, He said, “Father, the hour has come; glorify Your Son, that the Son may glorify You,

(Self Jesus goes on to say)
2 even as You gave Him authority over all flesh, that to all whom You have given Him, He may give eternal life. (Jesus could give eternal life)

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

4 I glorified You on the earth, having accomplished the work which You have given Me to do.

The following verse has Jesus wanting to be rejoined with the Father, as they were before the world was.
That is straight from Jesus....

5 Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.

NOW PAY ATTENTION>>>

6 “I have manifested Your name to the men whom You gave Me out of the world; they were Yours and You gave them to Me, and they have kept Your word.

7 Now they have come to know that everything You have given Me is from You;

8 for the words which You gave Me I have given to them; and they received them and truly understood that I came forth from You, and they believed that You sent Me.

9 I ask on their behalf; I do not ask on behalf of the world, but of those whom You have given Me; for they are Yours;

10 and all things that are Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine; and I have been glorified in them.

11 I am no longer in the world; and yet they themselves are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep them in Your name, the name which You have given Me, that they may be one even as We are.

12 While I was with them, I was keeping them in Your name which You have given Me; and I guarded them and not one of them perished but the son of perdition, so that the Scripture would be fulfilled.

From Jesus' own mouth... that they may be one even as We are. EVEN AS WE ARE. God and Jesus ARE one.
So, in summary, it seems you don't believe the Father is the only true God. The Bible says He is.

We might have a different perspective on who God is. When you see the word God, you're possibly thinking of a a concept or a group of persons who make up your God. However, when I see the word God I am not thinking of an assembly or a compound being or a being who indwells three members. I am thinking of God as a singular person because that's how Scripture describes God.

So John 17:3 describes the person named the Father as the only true God. When I say person, I am not saying the Father is a human. Just so I am clear about what I am saying.

Yes and I see you have posted a bunch of verses and ideas to explain why you believe what you do, but they don't really explain John 17:3a way. It's still there and Jesus wasn't the only one who talked about it. The Father's personal name can be proven to be YHWH. He was extremely direct about their not being any other God aside from Him in the OT. In the NT, Jesus agrees as well and John, Paul, and Peter.

It's quite evident, at least to me, that Jesus and all of the original disciples were Unitarians and monotheist. They didn't teach anything about the Trinity or say God is who the Trinity doctrine says God is, yet they believe identically what I do regarding the Father being the only true God. That's why I believe what I do.

If I may, why are you a Trinitarian when it's wrong and the Bible doesn't explain or describe it?
 
So, in summary, it seems you don't believe the Father is the only true God. The Bible says He is.

We might have a different perspective on who God is. When you see the word God, you're possibly thinking of a a concept or a group of persons who make up your God. However, when I see the word God I am not thinking of an assembly or a compound being or a being who indwells three members. I am thinking of God as a singular person because that's how Scripture describes God.

So John 17:3 describes the person named the Father as the only true God. When I say person, I am not saying the Father is a human. Just so I am clear about what I am saying.

Yes and I see you have posted a bunch of verses and ideas to explain why you believe what you do, but they don't really explain John 17:3a way. It's still there and Jesus wasn't the only one who talked about it. The Father's personal name can be proven to be YHWH. He was extremely direct about their not being any other God aside from Him in the OT. In the NT, Jesus agrees as well and John, Paul, and Peter.

It's quite evident, at least to me, that Jesus and all of the original disciples were Unitarians and monotheist. They didn't teach anything about the Trinity or say God is who the Trinity doctrine says God is, yet they believe identically what I do regarding the Father being the only true God. That's why I believe what I do.

If I may, why are you a Trinitarian when it's wrong and the Bible doesn't explain or describe it?
duh. Jesus is not a separate God. He is part of the same Godhead. You miss the nuances of scripture and cling to the superficial ideas to the extent you can. John 3:5 also points to the deity of Christ more clearly. But you keep pushing precarious interpretation on others here. This is not some new concept. It is the same concept held by a minority of people a long time ago. I have shared on Gal 3:19-20 which only makes sense of Christ in unity with the Father in the Godhead.
If you have a better understanding of Jesus' pre-existence, you have not shared it.
If someone develops a strong theory that includes the pre-existence of Jesus, that person needs to develop a big theory that covers everything about God. Until then, all that is done is an array of useless challenges to the edges of the Trinitarian concept.
 
Last edited:
duh. Jesus is not a separate God. He is part of the same Godhead. You miss the nuances of scripture and cling to the superficial ideas to the extent you can. John 3:5 also points to the deity of Christ more clearly. But you keep pushing precarious interpretation on others here. This is not some new concept. It is the same concept held by a minority of people a long time ago. I have shared on Gal 3:19-20 which only makes sense of Christ in unity with the Father in the Godhead.
If you have a better understanding of Jesus' pre-existence, you have not shared it.
If someone develops a strong theory that includes the pre-existence of Jesus, that person needs to develop a big theory that covers everything about God. Until then, all that is done is an array of useless challenges to the edges of the Trinitarian concept.
The problem with the Trinity is, just like any other philosophy, we could find a way to word-smith, argue, deduce, or imply a great number of other ideas in the Bible.

So while the only true God being the Father may seem superficial to you, it grounds us and anchors us to what is concrete and explicit. It gives us something unconditional and objective to understand the Scriptures with.

Otherwise, people end up with ideas like the Trinity that no one ever seemed to suggest or talk about in Scripture. It’s s philosophical doctrine and there are many. There’s a way to imply a lot of things using the Bible. They aren’t all true either and even if they were it wouldn’t be wise to insist they are.
 
The problem with the Trinity is, just like any other philosophy, we could find a way to word-smith, argue, deduce, or imply a great number of other ideas in the Bible.

So while the only true God being the Father may seem superficial to you, it grounds us and anchors us to what is concrete and explicit. It gives us something unconditional and objective to understand the Scriptures with.

Otherwise, people end up with ideas like the Trinity that no one ever seemed to suggest or talk about in Scripture. It’s s philosophical doctrine and there are many. There’s a way to imply a lot of things using the Bible. They aren’t all true either and even if they were it wouldn’t be wise to insist they are.
Like mentioned earlier. If someone can develop a better sense of God and Christ in the scriptures, they should make a good argument for it on the issues addressed in the Trinitarian concept. That is something that someone should be able to do if they have a different philosophical concept of how to summarize details of scripture.
One problem of not identifying God's nature from scripture in a decent fashion is that there are many groups that deny who Christ is and do not even accommodate the details in scripture. At some point, that can be denying the gospel itself and make it so fewer people come to know Christ.
 
So John 17:3 describes the person named the Father as the only true God. When I say person, I am not saying the Father is a human. Just so I am clear about what I am saying.

Yes and I see you have posted a bunch of verses and ideas to explain why you believe what you do, but they don't really explain John 17:3a way. It's still there and Jesus wasn't the only one who talked about it. The Father's personal name can be proven to be YHWH. He was extremely direct about their not being any other God aside from Him in the OT. In the NT, Jesus agrees as well and John, Paul, and Peter.
What was the prevailing issue at that time? What does Commandment #1 forbid? Idolatry and polytheism. That's what is being spoken against in John 17:3. It can't be Trinitarianism because John 17:1,2,5 clearly supports the fact that Jesus is given non-idolatrous Glory by the Father (non-idolatrous only because Jesus is God), gives eternal life as only God can, and preexisted with the Father, as the Word of God who is God (John 1:1).

In fact, the Father called the Son "God" in Heb 1:8. So Trinitarianism is not what is spoken against in John 17:3. Only if one runs away from John 17:1,2,5, Heb 1:8 and the whole Bible can one keep this unsupported hostile view of the Trinity.
 
Last edited:
In the present tense, referring to the "that which" was from the beginning, they could see, hear, and touch it. That implies that what John is referring to is touchable in the beginning just as it was in John's present. So it didn't change and is still tangible now and has always been tangible. John is referring to the Word of Life in this entire context. He isn't describing an incarnating, but rather something that was revealed by Jesus. The entire narrative about John 1's Word should incorporate what John also wrote in 1 John 1. I believe this only clarifies what he meant. He also calls the Word of Life an it in this passage. Most translators I have seen say this.
No it does not

It just notes a continuity of that which was from the beginning with that which they could hear and touch

The word becoming flesh is the incarnation

You denying this is an obvious denial of scripture

You will notice the word became. That indicates a change

But how does what you state now line up with the idea presented here that the word was an impersonal thing or a plan as at least one claimed
 
Like mentioned earlier. If someone can develop a better sense of God and Christ in the scriptures, they should make a good argument for it on the issues addressed in the Trinitarian concept. That is something that someone should be able to do if they have a different philosophical concept of how to summarize details of scripture.
One problem of not identifying God's nature from scripture in a decent fashion is that there are many groups that deny who Christ is and do not even accommodate the details in scripture. At some point, that can be denying the gospel itself and make it so fewer people come to know Christ.
Why involve the Trinitarian concept at all? I believe that would be to put the cart in front of the horse. If the Trinitarian concept is disproven, contradicted, or invalidated by Scripture then it doesn't even deserve any recognition in rightly handling the Scripture. We are discussing it, not to find a way to justify it, but rather to see if it's even biblically viable. So far there's nothing I have seem that comes remotely close to stating what the creeds about the Trinity do.
 
What was the prevailing issue at that time? What does Commandment #1 forbid? Idolatry and polytheism. That's what is being spoken against in John 17:3. It can't be Trinitarianism because John 17:1,2,5 clearly supports the fact that Jesus is given non-idolatrous Glory by the Father (non-idolatrous only because Jesus is God), gives eternal life as only God can, and preexisted with the Father, as the Word of God who is God (John 1:1).
False premise using the glory Jesus was given to support the idea of deity since the same glory was given to the disciples. There is God's exclusive glory that He shares with none and then there is glory He gives to others.

John 17
22I have given them the glory You gave Me, so that they may be one as We are one—

In fact, the Father called the Son "God" in Heb 1:8. So Trinitarianism is not what is spoken against in John 17:3. Only if one runs away from John 17:1,2,5, Heb 1:8 and the whole Bible can one keep this unsupported hostile view of the Trinity.
Hebrews 1:8 is quoted from Psalm 45:6 where the originally context was regarding a king with a queen. The original context isn't about God Almighty. It's about a human who was married to a real woman. It doesn't describe Jesus. In transferring Psalm 45:6 to Jesus, it is not in the messianic prophecy sense, but rather to denote Jesus as a king or a god with a little g, just like the original context is about.
 
No it does not

It just notes a continuity of that which was from the beginning with that which they could hear and touch

The word becoming flesh is the incarnation

You denying this is an obvious denial of scripture

You will notice the word became. That indicates a change

But how does what you state now line up with the idea presented here that the word was an impersonal thing or a plan as at least one claimed
Then what do you say was "from the beginning" they could see, hear, and touch then?
 
So, in summary, it seems you don't believe the Father is the only true God. The Bible says He is.

First. When you get to the other side of this life and have the opportunity, make sure you take that up with John.

It was John who quoted allegedly Jesus when he wrote...

10 and all things that are Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine; and I have been glorified in them.

11 I am no longer in the world; and yet they themselves are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep them in Your name, the name which You have given Me, that they may be one even as We are.

12 While I was with them, I was keeping them in Your name which You have given Me; and I guarded them and not one of them perished but the son of perdition, so that the Scripture would be fulfilled.
We might have a different perspective on who God is.

Might? Guaranteed. There is but one God. No one argues that point.

But why do you think that the reference to "Godhead" in The Holy Bible is necessary if there is only one?

Monotheism is the belief in one God, in contrast to polytheism, the notion that numerous gods exist. Unquestionably, the Bible affirms the concept of monotheism.

In the first commandment of the Decalogue, Jehovah charges, “You shall have no other gods before me” (Exodus 20:3). Again, “Hear, O Israel: Jehovah our God is one Jehovah” (Deuteronomy 6:4). Or, “Jehovah, he is God; there is none else besides him” (Deuteronomy 4:35, 39; 1 Kings 8:60; 1 Chronicles 17:20; Isaiah 43:11; Zechariah 14:9).

In the New Testament, Paul says that “God is one” (Galatians 3:20), while James notes: “You believe that God is one; you do well: the demons also believe, and shudder” (James 2:19).

Clearly, therefore, the oneness of God, in some sense, is a biblical truth. The question is: what does Scripture mean by one God?

In the Old Testament, the words el, eloah, and elohim, from related roots, are generic designations of God. The New Testament term is theos.

These appellations, when used of the true God, simply suggest the nature or quality of being divine—deity. The word “God” is not the name of a personality; it is the name of a nature, a quality of being.

When it is said, therefore, that there is but one God, the meaning is: there is but one divine nature. There is a unified set of traits or characteristics that distinguish a personality as God.

The Divine Three​

It is also clear that the Scriptures teach that there is a personal distinction between those individuals identified in the New Testament as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and these persons are in some sense three.

Study very carefully the following passages in which the persons of the divine Godhead are distinguished: Matthew 3:16-17; 28:19; Luke 1:35; John 14:26; 15:26; 2 Corinthians 13:14; Ephesians 2:18; 4:4-6; 1 Peter 1:2; Jude 20-21; Revelation 1:4-5.

It is obvious that these inspired verses reveal three separate persons.

Furthermore, additional biblical data reveal that each of these three persons is God—i.e., each possesses the quality or nature of deity. The Father is deity (Ephesians 1:3), as is the Son (Hebrews 1:8), and so also the Holy Spirit (Acts 5:3-4).

Any elementary student of logic knows perfectly well that the Godhead cannot be both one and three without a logical contradiction being involved—if the adjectives “one” and “three” are employed in the identical sense.

But the fact of the matter is, they are not used in the same sense. There is but one divine nature, but there are three distinct personalities possessing that unified set of infinite qualities. Thus, there is no contradiction at all.

Without a recognition of the above principle, some Bible passages would be difficult to harmonize.

For example, in Isaiah 44:24 Jehovah affirms that he “stretches forth the heavens alone; that spreads abroad the earth (who is with me?).” So, God was alone.

Yet in John 8:29 Christ said, “And he [the Father] that sent me is with me; he has not left me alone.” And so, Jesus was not alone, for the Father was with him; correspondingly, the Father was not alone.

The question is: how can God be both alone and not alone?

In Isaiah’s passage, God (the one divine nature) was being contrasted with the false gods of paganism; the personalities of the Godhead were not a consideration there. In John 8:29, the relationship of two divine personalities (Father and Son) was in view. Different subjects, but no discrepancy.

Similarly, when a certain scribe affirmed that “he [God] is one; and there is none other but he” (Mark 12:32), he was correct. He was declaring monotheism, as suggested above.

In another setting though, Christ, revealing a distinction between himself and the Father, said: “It is another that bears witness of me; and I know that the witness which he witnesses of me is true” (John 5:32).

Do you understand this ?

Colossians 2:9
For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form,

When you see the word God, you're possibly thinking of a a concept or a group of persons who make up your God. However, when I see the word God I am not thinking of an assembly or a compound being or a being who indwells three members. I am thinking of God as a singular person because that's how Scripture describes God.

So John 17:3 describes the person named the Father as the only true God. When I say person, I am not saying the Father is a human. Just so I am clear about what I am saying.

Yes and I see you have posted a bunch of verses and ideas to explain why you believe what you do, but they don't really explain John 17:3a way. It's still there and Jesus wasn't the only one who talked about it. The Father's personal name can be proven to be YHWH. He was extremely direct about their not being any other God aside from Him in the OT. In the NT, Jesus agrees as well and John, Paul, and Peter.

It's quite evident, at least to me, that Jesus and all of the original disciples were Unitarians and monotheist. They didn't teach anything about the Trinity or say God is who the Trinity doctrine says God is, yet they believe identically what I do regarding the Father being the only true God. That's why I believe what I do.

If I may, why are you a Trinitarian when it's wrong and the Bible doesn't explain or describe it?
Because it is totally clear to me. As is briefly explained above.

When my Savior states....
11 I am no longer in the world; and yet they themselves are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep them in Your name, the name which You have given Me, that they may be one even as We are....
I would not dare doubt what He has said.
And understanding there IS but one divine nature, but there are three distinct personalities... there is no question.

The Peshitta states John 17:11 this way 11“From now on, I do not dwell in the world, but these are in the world, and I am coming to join you. Holy Father, keep them in your Name- that Name which you have given me, so that they shall be one, just as we are.”

The Complete Jewish Bible states John 17:11 this way 11 Now I am no longer in the world. They are in the world, but I am coming to you. Holy Father, guard them by the power of your name, which you have given to me, so that they may be one, just as we are.


He does not lie. For it is impossible for Him to do so.
And finally because Paul said

3 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, 4 in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving [c]so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

And so I place my trust in the righteousness that the Holy Spirit has guided and shown me to know what is true and what is not.
 
The problem with the Trinity is, just like any other philosophy, we could find a way to word-smith, argue, deduce, or imply a great number of other ideas in the Bible.

So while the only true God being the Father may seem superficial to you, it grounds us and anchors us to what is concrete and explicit. It gives us something unconditional and objective to understand the Scriptures with.

Otherwise, people end up with ideas like the Trinity that no one ever seemed to suggest or talk about in Scripture. It’s s philosophical doctrine and there are many. There’s a way to imply a lot of things using the Bible. They aren’t all true either and even if they were it wouldn’t be wise to insist they are.
Love by definition takes another person to know, share and experience what love is at its very core.

God is love eliminates a unitarian god from being true. This god cannot know, experience or share love with another since it is alone by itself.

God is love necessitates there be another to share, experience, know love and express that love with another person. The Plural God of the Bible known as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit know, experience, enjoy and share that love between Them.

hope this helps !!!
 
Back
Top Bottom