did not the book of John declare this by the Lord Jesus himself? John 3:13 "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven."
There's no Trinity. The verses that are used to try to teach it are all taken out of context, or not understood how the words were used in the culture they were written in, or from a bad translation. It's an evil Catholic concept that was sold to the world mostly by the power of the sword.
Dude, stop playing the Merry Andrew ... it was presented to you:
101G did not ask you that, he already know this.
that's an excuse. read the scriptures without pre-conceived beliefs.
did a mere human man came from heaven? with BLOOD? you know better.
another excuse? James also said, James 1:27 "Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world." so, is God ... and ..... Father two separate persons? your answer please.
According to you, the divine nature makes someone God. According to Scripture, Christians have the divine nature. What you seem to believe is not orthodox Trinitarianism. Do you belong to the Latter-Day Saints?
There isn't a special "Bible logic" or "God language." It's just that you are deceived regarding Trinitarianism. Those who are deceived don't know they are deceived or else they would have already caught the error, revised their beliefs when presented with information that conflicts with their beliefs, etc. The "Bible logic" you are espousing is a contradictory double-standard. It's worth it's own thread and that's probably coming at some point.
I stated much earlier that if someone has a better conception than the Trinitarian doctrine, that would be fine and decent. Nobody has. Yours is consistent with heresies, of obvious errors, the worst is the denial of the divinity of Christ in the Godhead.
I am very honest. There's no teaching on the trinity anywhere in the Bible. No whole paragraph or chapter teaching that we should believe or confess that Jesus is God. You have been taught all your life that a word such as "logos" or 2 little words like "I am" are teachings. They are not. A teaching would be whole paragraphs or chapters and there are none anywhere in the Bible teaching or explaining how the trinity works. John 1:1 does not teach that we should believe or confess that Jesus is God.
I will stick with the best minds rather than follow people's ideas that trample over scripture and deny Christ's Jesus divinity in the Godhead. It is a mystery how come you deny God's nature. The passages that point out the divinity of Christ just get sloppily explained away by the adherents of the unitarianism that they like to say is "biblical." If there is an argument against those passages about Christ's divinity before birth, make some sense in those arguments. It is not for any lacking of trying to find logic in your denials. The logic is just missing-- except when we agree a passage is talking about the humanity of Christ -- but that aspect is not something I dispute.
Trinity folks have been taught all their life that 1 word such as "logos" or 2 little words like "I am" are teachings. They are not. A teaching would be a whole paragraph or chapter and there are none anywhere in the Bible teaching or explaining how the trinity works. There is no single verse that says Jesus was both God and man and that's why the God-man doctrine is built from many verses. Furthermore, scholars admit that there are only about eight verses in the entire New Testament that can be understood to say that Jesus is God, and every one of them can either be translated in a way that supports the Biblical Unitarian position, or disputed textually, or can be explained from the use of the word “God” in the culture. In contrast, the clear verses where Jesus is said to be a “man” such as when Peter or Paul taught their audiences that Jesus was a man appointed by God are not disputed and in the context there does not seem to be any good reason those men would not have said Jesus was a God-man if in fact that is what he is.
That is so ignorant. If I said my wife is a gem, would you go looking in the dictionary to fact check whether the definitions for gems includes "Patricia?" John 1 is a sufficient teaching. This reveals him in the Godhead and the flesh is obviously incarnation. You just cannot wiggle out of that. You only seem to follow humanness passages and just scrap John 1 and other passages. Obviously your arguments do not pass scrutiny. Either you have to improve your arguments or you need to reevaluate your odd beliefs.
What part of the facts are bad arguments? It seems it would have been clearly stated in the Bible and in the earliest Christian creeds if the doctrine of the Trinity was genuine and central to Christian belief and especially if belief in it was necessary for salvation as many Trinitarians teach. God gave the Scriptures to the Jewish people, and the Jewish religion and worship that comes from that revelation does not contain any reference to or teachings about a triune God. Surely the Jewish people were qualified to read and understand it, but they never saw the doctrine of the Trinity, but rather just the opposite as all throughout their history they fiercely defended the fact that there was only one God. Jesus himself tied the greatest commandment in the Law together with there being only one God when an expert in Old Testament law asked him which of the commandments was the most important. Jesus said to him “The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God….” (Mark 12:29-30).
the rubber-stamping of your responses is weak. your philosophical preference against gradual revelation of God's nature is weak. Your rejection of Jewish inquiries into multiple powers in the Godhead is a problem. Your purposeful misidentification of the Trinitarian doctrine as if it were multiple gods is ridiculous for you to do as a self-proclaimed expert on the Trinity.
You see me as someone who should prove that Jesus is not God. And that I should have powerful arguments on this subject. It's just the opposite. There's no trinity. Jesus is not God. There's no evidence in the Bible to disprove the trinity. Because there's no trinity or concept of Jesus being God.
How about Unitarianism? We just believe the Father is the only true God, got tons of verses that directly say or describe such, and it's very easy to explain. It's also very palatable for non-believers. It doesn't require luring people to church to make them sit through dozens of persuasive speeches or indoctrinating them in Sunday school. Jesus being a man through whom God worked, anointed, and empowered is easy to digest and plausible.
The logic in Unitarianism is conventional. For example, when you and I are spoken of in the same sentence, it's intuitive that you and I are distinct persons. When God and Jesus are spoke of in the same sentence, it's intuitive they are not the same person. There isn't a special "Bible logic" used to understand the Bible. The Bible is the common person's book written in a way they can understand. Our God is not a God of confusion. Trinitarian logic has only sown endless chaos and confusion and it is not from God.
Your argument is not very convincing, even after all this practice you have gotten.
It may be plausible on a superficial reading while neglecting critical passages. Too bad you took that path. The Bible is something that requires a deeper and careful study, not a superficial one.
That is pure ignorance expressed. Sure scripture can benefit people who read it at a simple level, but the prophets, for example, have written complex material that requires careful analysis. If you showed ability at the deeper level, you first would find your errors but you also could possibly be convincing.
