The Trinity and all of its supporting doctrines are all circular in reasoning

[amazing grace]

Jesus stated he came down from heaven, preexisted with God, shared in glory of God , and became human flesh and dwelt among us

Yes, Jesus did 'come down from heaven' aka 'came from God' aka 'the Father sent me'......via conception and birth.
He did not preexist with God. Jesus entered his glory because of his suffering, death, resurrection and ascension where he was crowned with glory and honor.

 

[Doug Brents]

Well, it proves that a spirit didn't descend into Mary's womb which is what you claimed.

How so? How does the genealogy of Jesus prove that He didn't descend from Heaven into Mary's womb, as Scripture says that He did?

He did not literally preexisted his birth. He preexisted in the purpose, plans and forknowledge of God.

That is your opinion. But how can a purpose, plan, and foreknowledge share the same glory as the Father?

I do not build a doctrine upon a few scriptures but the whole of scripture must be in harmony throughout.
I do not ignore John 1:1, 14 and John 17:5 - I just don't understand them in the manner you do because I do not believe that God that God is Triune nor that God became a man therefore, I do not read that INTO the meaning of scripture.

Then you understand those verses improperly; in a manner which ignores, excludes, and contradicts many passages of Scripture.

If I were you I would check my own doctrine before accusing someone else's of being false.

I have, many times. That is one reason I am on sites like this one. I review what others say against what Scripture says and then against what I believe. This forces me to examine what I believe, and find support or contradiction of my belief in Scripture. Then I must subordinate my belief to what Scripture says. When Scripture says clearly that, "The Word was God", and then, "The Word became flesh", and then tells us that the flesh He became is Jesus (John 1) the only conclusion we can come to is that Jesus is God.

If John 1 is not enough for you, then we can go to John 17:5. Here Jesus says that He existed with

Now that we have concluded, based upon Scripture's explicit statements, that Jesus is God, now we are in a position to examine other things Scripture says.

Sorry, Jesus said he had to suffer in order to ENTER into his glory.

Of course He did. He had given up His glory, and had to suffer for man's sins in order to regain/reenter His glory.

I AM - I WILL BE WHO I WILL BE - is what Yahweh said of himself. Yahweh is the Father, Jesus is NOT.

Oh really. Are you sure that wasn't Jesus speaking from the Bush? Exodus doesn't say that the Father was the one speaking.

Then why use that analogy and say it is the same with God?

No analogy for God is completely valid, because God transcends anything we can dream up, much less what we know. But He has given us glimpses of Him nature in our nature.

You do know what a soul is right? Wouldn't that be your breath life? Isn't that how Adam became a living soul, a living person, when God breathed the breath of life into his nostrils? I quit breathing, I am dead, I am buried and I will sleep the sleep of death (Ps. 13:3) until I am resurrected.

Your soul is the immortal spiritual body that is you. It and your spirit (your personality) will be resurrected, to eternal life or eternal death. It is not the physical act of breathing that this mortal body exhibits.

What does my being composed of a spirit and soul and body have to do with knowing God?

It is an analogy for the nature of God: three in one.

 

[amazing grace]

How so? How does the genealogy of Jesus prove that He didn't descend from Heaven into Mary's womb, as Scripture says that He did?

The Greek word for genealogy is genesis and it means origin, source. So the source or origin of Jesus was from the lineage of Abraham, Jacob, Isaac, David, etc. God did not originate from Abraham or Jacob or Isaac or David!
Mary was of the lineage of David - God created Jesus within the womb of Mary therefore Jesus is a descendant of David. 2 Samuel 7 was fulfilled in Jesus - When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son.......And your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me. Your throne shall be established forever.’” Where in the birth records does scripture say Jesus descended from heaven into Mary's womb?

That is your opinion. But how can a purpose, plan, and foreknowledge share the same glory as the Father?

God had a plan for the redemption of humanity. The plan originated in his mind, i.e. his foreknowledge. In that plan, God's Son would receive glory, the glory God had promised before the world existed, the glory God had in store for him. Jesus would receive that promised glory, enter his glory, receive glorification after his suffering, death, resurrection and ascension to the right hand of God his Father when he was crowned with glory and honor.

Then you understand those verses improperly; in a manner which ignores, excludes, and contradicts many passages of Scripture.

I have, many times. That is one reason I am on sites like this one. I review what others say against what Scripture says and then against what I believe. This forces me to examine what I believe, and find support or contradiction of my belief in Scripture. Then I must subordinate my belief to what Scripture says. When Scripture says clearly that, "The Word was God", and then, "The Word became flesh", and then tells us that the flesh He became is Jesus (John 1) the only conclusion we can come to is that Jesus is God.

If John 1 is not enough for you, then we can go to John 17:5. Here Jesus says that He existed with

Now that we have concluded, based upon Scripture's explicit statements, that Jesus is God, now we are in a position to examine other things Scripture says.

Of course He did. He had given up His glory, and had to suffer for man's sins in order to regain/reenter His glory.

I disagree and have used scripture to show when Christ would enter into his glory and when he was crowned with glory and honor - You're hung up on John 17:5 - yes, he had glory with the Father before the world existed - the glory that he was going to receive when he accomplished what God gave him to do.......Just like we have the glory Christ has given us but it is in store for us through his promise in John 17:22.

Oh really. Are you sure that wasn't Jesus speaking from the Bush? Exodus doesn't say that the Father was the one speaking.

If Jesus was an angel then Jesus could have been speaking from the bush but Jesus is not an angel.

No analogy for God is completely valid, because God transcends anything we can dream up, much less what we know. But He has given us glimpses of Him nature in our nature.

Correct there is no analogy of a Triune God because a Triune God does not exist.

Your soul is the immortal spiritual body that is you. It and your spirit (your personality) will be resurrected, to eternal life or eternal death. It is not the physical act of breathing that this mortal body exhibits.

Does scripture talk about an immortal soul or does it talk about sleep as a metaphor for death?
If my immortal soul, my spiritual body is already in heaven what sense is their in a resurrection - why a resurrection at all?

It is an analogy for the nature of God: three in one.

But God is three persons in one --- my body is not a person like the Father is supposedly a 'person' the first person of the Trinity. My soul is not a person like the Son is supposedly a 'person' the second person of the Trinity.
And my spirit is not a person like the Holy Spirit is supposedly a 'person', the third person of the Trinity ---- a Triune God who is supposedly ONE God. Your analogy doesn't work.

 

[Peterlag]

The first red flag for the Trinitarian should have been that they are believing the same doctrine the Catholics believe and the Catholics have never been correct about anything. Much of the Roman Catholic doctrine was assimilated into Protestantism and is still being passed along as Christian groups continue to split off from one another. In a nutshell that is why even the independent church in your neighborhood today most probably believes that there is a trinity, dead people are alive, God is in control of everything that happens, the four gospels are written to Christians, and water baptism is relevant. And then there's everything that you know about our sin nature was taught to you by them.

The Catholics are not the only ones who say it's a mystery or God did not mean for us to understand. We have to go to a Bible college to figure out how to make the Bible difficult. Then when we can't put it together and understand the simple truth. We then say wow this is too deep or we are only human and so we can't understand. I wrote a book not to teach the Bible, but to try to unteach the religion of the world. It's an online book that I think cannot be all that bad since I mention the word "Jesus" 434 times and the word "Christ" 842 times in a paper that has 157 pages.

 

[mikesw]

The first red flag for the Trinitarian should have been that they are believing the same doctrine the Catholics believe and the Catholics have never been correct about anything. Much of the Roman Catholic doctrine was assimilated into Protestantism and is still being passed along as Christian groups continue to split off from one another. In a nutshell that is why even the independent church in your neighborhood today most probably believes that there is a trinity, dead people are alive, God is in control of everything that happens, the four gospels are written to Christians, and water baptism is relevant. And then there's everything that you know about our sin nature was taught to you by them.

the red flag for unitarians is that they, like the JWs, treat the Christians of all eras as if under the influence of the RCC. Unitarians blend everything together so nothing has any meaning.

The Catholics are not the only ones who say it's a mystery or God did not mean for us to understand. We have to go to a Bible college to figure out how to make the Bible difficult. Then when we can't put it together and understand the simple truth. We then say wow this is too deep or we are only human and so we can't understand. I wrote a book not to teach the Bible, but to try to unteach the religion of the world. It's an online book that I think cannot be all that bad since I mention the word "Jesus" 434 times and the word "Christ" 842 times in a paper that has 157 pages.

It is foolish to say the Bible is simple, as if only written superficially for the fancy of unitarians. There remain details across scripture that have not been understood except by people who errantly think they have figured things out. There are even people who reject the testimony of scriptures of the deity of Christ. Go figure.

 

[Runningman]

the red flag for unitarians is that they, like the JWs, treat the Christians of all eras as if under the influence of the RCC. Unitarians blend everything together so nothing has any meaning.

It is foolish to say the Bible is simple, as if only written superficially for the fancy of unitarians. There remain details across scripture that have not been understood except by people who errantly think they have figured things out. There are even people who reject the testimony of scriptures of the deity of Christ. Go figure.

Jesus refutes your claims, in Matthew 13:10-17, saying "The knowledge of the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them..." because Jesus generally spoke to people in parables, but plainly to his disciples.

Jesus plainly taught his followers that the Only God is known as the Father (Matthew 19:17; Mark 10:18; John 5:44; John 8:54; John 17:3; John 20:17)

Jesus plainly speaks of or to the Only God as someone other than himself (Matthew 6:9; Matthew 7:21; Matthew 10:32; Matthew 11:25; Matthew 18:10; Matthew 24:36; Matthew 26:39; Matthew 26:42; Matthew 27:46; Mark 14:36; Mark 15:34; Luke 6:12; Luke 22:42; Luke 23:46; John 5:19; John 5:23–24; John 5:26; John 5:30; John 6:38; John 7:28–29; John 8:16; John 8:42; John 8:54; John 10:29; John 12:49; John 13:3; John 14:28; John 16:28; John 17:1–26; John 20:17; Matthew 28:18)

So what Jesus plainly said in non-parable format needs to be taken literally, explicitly, not reinterpreted, not added to, not taken away from, not changed in any way because Jesus' non-parable statements are the revelation already provided and they do not require an interpretation because he plainly stated what his points about God were, no trinity or binity mentioned.

When I was a child I believed every word my dad said, without question, or arguing, or debating, and with a smile on my face to boot. Jesus asks us to do something similar, if you can find it within you to try. Come as a child, wide-eyed and believing, trusting what Jesus said about the Father's exclusive deity, among many other things.

Don't come as Mike the Trinitarian theologian and forum debater. Jesus detested the attitude of the scribes, lawyers, and theologians from the sect of the Pharisees because they were always distorting what he said. Come as as a child, Mike. It is a commandment, meaning it is not an option. Jesus said so: “Truly I tell you,” He said, “unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."

 

[mikesw]

Jesus refutes your claims, in Matthew 13:10-17, saying "The knowledge of the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them..." because Jesus generally spoke to people in parables, but plainly to his disciples.

Jesus plainly taught his followers that the Only God is known as the Father (Matthew 19:17; Mark 10:18; John 5:44; John 8:54; John 17:3; John 20:17)

Again you flatten scripture and do it very blatantly. Do you even know what those mysteries are? haha. I tried to say that with a straight face.

Jesus plainly speaks of or to the Only God as someone other than himself (Matthew 6:9; Matthew 7:21; Matthew 10:32; Matthew 11:25; Matthew 18:10; Matthew 24:36; Matthew 26:39; Matthew 26:42; Matthew 27:46; Mark 14:36; Mark 15:34; Luke 6:12; Luke 22:42; Luke 23:46; John 5:19; John 5:23–24; John 5:26; John 5:30; John 6:38; John 7:28–29; John 8:16; John 8:42; John 8:54; John 10:29; John 12:49; John 13:3; John 14:28; John 16:28; John 17:1–26; John 20:17; Matthew 28:18)

Uh. It must seem so odd to you that the Son speaks to his Father. Maybe you are of a culture that lacks familial relationships.

So what Jesus plainly said in non-parable format needs to be taken literally, explicitly, not reinterpreted, not added to, not taken away from, not changed in any way because Jesus' non-parable statements are the revelation already provided and they do not require an interpretation because he plainly stated what his points about God were, no trinity or binity mentioned.

When I was a child I believed every word my dad said, without question, or arguing, or debating, and with a smile on my face to boot. Jesus

You have just proven that you do not understand language or interpretation of language. All language is interpreted. Language consists of "signs" that carry meaning but must be properly interpreted by the one seeking to understand those signs. The very fact of people not understanding points indicates how interpretation can wrong.

asks us to do something similar, if you can find it within you to try. Come as a child, wide-eyed and believing, trusting what Jesus said about the Father's exclusive deity, among many other things.

The failure of such a proposal is when the child does not even understand language. Thanks for demonstrating that failure.

Don't come as Mike the Trinitarian theologian and forum debater. Jesus detested the attitude of the scribes, lawyers, and theologians from the sect of the Pharisees because they were always distorting what he said. Come as as a child, Mike. It is a commandment, meaning it is not an option. Jesus said so: “Truly I tell you,” He said, “unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."

Ah. So I should listen to a person who fails to understand language and then I will know everything. I do not follow that advice. Sorry.

 

[Runningman]

Again you flatten scripture and do it very blatantly. Do you even know what those mysteries are? haha. I tried to say that with a straight face.

Uh. It must seem so odd to you that the Son speaks to his Father. Maybe you are of a culture that lacks familial relationships.

You have just proven that you do not understand language or interpretation of language. All language is interpreted. Language consists of "signs" that carry meaning but must be properly interpreted by the one seeking to understand those signs. The very fact of people not understanding points indicates how interpretation can wrong.

The failure of such a proposal is when the child does not even understand language. Thanks for demonstrating that failure.

Ah. So I should listen to a person who fails to understand language and then I will know everything. I do not follow that advice. Sorry.

You have proven that you would argue with Jesus. Jesus typically replied to mocking, condescending, and arrogant people, such as yourself, calmy while focusing on their heart rather than trying to "win" the arguments against him. People who attack the truth, like you do, do not have it in them to do anything differently and arguing with you will only radicalize you further; you are playing directly into your human nature. This is why you must focus on humility, sincerity, and truth. Practice agreeing with Jesus, even if just about little things, which could be a major step up for you. I am not asking you to do anything differently than what you should already be doing.

 

[mikesw]

You have proven that you would argue with Jesus. Jesus typically replied to mocking, condescending, and arrogant people, such as yourself, calmy while focusing on their heart rather than trying to "win" the arguments against him.

So you will be a superficial reading of scripture that rejects Christ Jesus. You reject context and flatten scripture. That is the Christadelphian approach instead of deep study of scripture.
I have basically skipped what you share as proof texts since they are simply weak attempts to deny Christ in the way you use them.

People who attack the truth, like you do, do not have it in them to do anything differently and arguing with you will only radicalize you further; you are playing directly into your human nature.

haha. Indeed Christianity is radical to the atheist unitarians.

This is why you must focus on humility, sincerity, and truth. Practice agreeing with Jesus, even if just about little things, which could be a major step up for you. I am not asking you to do anything differently than what you should already be doing.

i will indeed agree with Jesus over against unitarian views. You have had two years to make an argument against the deity of Christ but have not even begun to make an argument. That puts you on sinking sand.

 

[mikesw]

The argument required by unitarians has to be against the testimony of the deity of Christ and a denial of the preexisting One that became incarnate. If that were simple to do, the unitarians would have achieved that a long time ago.

 

[Runningman]

So you will be a superficial reading of scripture that rejects Christ Jesus. You reject context and flatten scripture. That is the Christadelphian approach instead of deep study of scripture.
I have basically skipped what you share as proof texts since they are simply weak attempts to deny Christ in the way you use them.

haha. Indeed Christianity is radical to the atheist unitarians.


i will indeed agree with Jesus over against unitarian views. You have had two years to make an argument against the deity of Christ but have not even begun to make an argument. That puts you on sinking sand.

You're still clinging to pride as it is clear your faith rests in your arguments, not the words of Jesus who never said any such things you place your faith in. You trust in your ability to argue, but you cannot change what Jesus explicitly stated about the Only God he called Father. If your God is not the God of Jesus, then you are not a follower of Jesus and are, therefore, not a Christian by sheer definition of the word. You issue right now is a spiritual obstacle of pride and rebellion. Maybe you think if you argue long enough that things will start going your way, but as you have learned the past couple years that isn't happening.

I believe Jesus was referring to your kind when he said in Matt 11:25, “I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because You have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children." and in John 6:44 where Jesus said “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day."

You may have been called to Jesus at some point, but you have completely disregarded his teachings at some point and responded like "the wise and learned" rather than with child-like belief as Jesus has called for. It is my understanding that you are a self-confessed apostate Christian since you abandoned the faith and converted to trinitarianism. Jesus also spoke of those unfortunate souls, as well, saying "The seed sown on rocky ground is the one who hears the word and at once receives it with joy. But since he has no root, he remains for only a season. When trouble or persecution comes because of the word, he quickly falls away."

 

[amazing grace]

'God has made him both Lord and Christ' (Acts 2:36); it is not least for this very reason that the Father is both 'the God and Father of our Lord Jesus'. This makes it clear that the early church did not see "Lord" as a divine title in the Trinitarian sense. How different things are today in that Christians cannot think of Jesus as "Lord" except in the sense that he is God. ..... Unless we are, by the grace of God, freed from this bondage, we still not be able to understand the word of God correctly, but in seriously distorted terms. How much of the present spiritual condition of the church today can be attributed to this sad and dangerous condition, when the church can no longer hear the word of God as it was meant to be heard? They worship three persons instead of one, and mostly one person----Jesus. (The Only True God: A Study of Biblical Monotheism; Eric Chang, pg. 79)

How can we reconcile, on the one hand, the Trinitarian notion of Jesus as equal with Yahweh and, on the other hand, the fact that Yahweh is Jesus' God? Will it again be by way of the usual double-talk: the latter applies to him as man, but not as God (otherwise Yahweh would be the God of God)?In other words, trinitarianism involves the necessity of cutting Jesus into two when it comes to the exegesis of verses in Scripture: In one place something is said to apply to Jesus as a man, and in another place Jesus as God. It is by this kind of hopping back and forth that the dogma is maintained. Yet the separation of God and man in the Trinitarian Christ is actually not permitted by the Trinitarian Creed itself, for this kind of separation of God and man in Christ is what is condemned as heretical under the name "Nestorianism", bringing with it excommunication.

"Eutychianism and Nestorianism were finally condemned at the Council of Chalcedon (451) which taught one Christ in two natures united in one person or hypostasis, yet remaining 'without confusion, without conversion, without division, without separation." (Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, W.A. Elwell, Baker, article Christology, p.225; italics and bold added). ​

Thus the self-contraditory character of Trinitarianism is exposed by Trinitarian double-talk. For if God and man in Christ can be separated by saying that this verse applies to Jesus as God, then he is not one person but two, and this is contrary to the Trinitarian dogma that Jesus is both "true God, true man" in one person. (The Only True God: A Study of Biblical Monotheism; Eric Chang, pg. 79)

I thought what this author had to say in the above paragraph was very enlightening since I have seen this 'double-talk' a lot of times in this forum. I didn't know that it was considered heretical.

[Author Eric Chang ---- First as a divinity student and later as a pastor, Chang had been a staunch trinitarian for several decades, having done much to promote trinitarianism in his teaching and preaching. But around 2005, through a restudy of the Bible, he began to question his own trinitarian perspective on things such as the deity of Christ, concluding that it is not supported by the biblical data.]

 

[mikesw]

'God has made him both Lord and Christ' (Acts 2:36); it is not least for this very reason that the Father is both 'the God and Father of our Lord Jesus'. This makes it clear that the early church did not see "Lord" as a divine title in the Trinitarian sense. How different things are today in that Christians cannot think of Jesus as "Lord" except in the sense that he is God. ..... Unless we are, by the grace of God, freed from this bondage, we still not be able to understand the word of God correctly, but in seriously distorted terms. How much of the present spiritual condition of the church today can be attributed to this sad and dangerous condition, when the church can no longer hear the word of God as it was meant to be heard? They worship three persons instead of one, and mostly one person----Jesus. (The Only True God: A Study of Biblical Monotheism; Eric Chang, pg. 79)

How can we reconcile, on the one hand, the Trinitarian notion of Jesus as equal with Yahweh and, on the other hand, the fact that Yahweh is Jesus' God? Will it again be by way of the usual double-talk: the latter applies to him as man, but not as God (otherwise Yahweh would be the God of God)?In other words, trinitarianism involves the necessity of cutting Jesus into two when it comes to the exegesis of verses in Scripture: In one place something is said to apply to Jesus as a man, and in another place Jesus as God. It is by this kind of hopping back and forth that the dogma is maintained. Yet the separation of God and man in the Trinitarian Christ is actually not permitted by the Trinitarian Creed itself, for this kind of separation of God and man in Christ is what is condemned as heretical under the name "Nestorianism", bringing with it excommunication.

"Eutychianism and Nestorianism were finally condemned at the Council of Chalcedon (451) which taught one Christ in two natures united in one person or hypostasis, yet remaining 'without confusion, without conversion, without division, without separation." (Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, W.A. Elwell, Baker, article Christology, p.225; italics and bold added). ​

Thus the self-contraditory character of Trinitarianism is exposed by Trinitarian double-talk. For if God and man in Christ can be separated by saying that this verse applies to Jesus as God, then he is not one person but two, and this is contrary to the Trinitarian dogma that Jesus is both "true God, true man" in one person. (The Only True God: A Study of Biblical Monotheism; Eric Chang, pg. 79)

I thought what this author had to say in the above paragraph was very enlightening since I have seen this 'double-talk' a lot of times in this forum. I didn't know that it was considered heretical.

[Author Eric Chang ---- First as a divinity student and later as a pastor, Chang had been a staunch trinitarian for several decades, having done much to promote trinitarianism in his teaching and preaching. But around 2005, through a restudy of the Bible, he began to question his own trinitarian perspective on things such as the deity of Christ, concluding that it is not supported by the biblical data.]

Thanks. this shows the unitarian doctrine misunderstanding is rather flat. The problem here is that Chang has not added any further argument against the scriptural testimony of the deity of Christ than previously proffered on this website. Now if someone really addressed the divinity passages with some plausible alternative, that would be progress for the unitarian belief system.
I do mention on occasion that if some sufficient alternative to the basic understanding of the Triune God were offered -- maybe an adjustment here or there, maybe a clearer doctrine -- that could be followed instead. That just never happens.

A better option than unitarianism would be to correct any misconceptions of how the preexistence of Jesus as the Word allows the relevance of the divinity without contradicting monotheism.

 

[amazing grace]

Thanks. this shows the unitarian doctrine misunderstanding is rather flat. The problem here is that Chang has not added any further argument against the scriptural testimony of the deity of Christ than previously proffered on this website. Now if someone really addressed the divinity passages with some plausible alternative, that would be progress for the unitarian belief system.
I do mention on occasion that if some sufficient alternative to the basic understanding of the Triune God were offered -- maybe an adjustment here or there, maybe a clearer doctrine -- that could be followed instead. That just never happens.

A better option than unitarianism would be to correct any misconceptions of how the preexistence of Jesus as the Word allows the relevance of the divinity without contradicting monotheism.

Your welcome. Chang brings about a refreshing honesty into his insight regarding the Trinity doctrine which he left. It's hard for someone to admit when they were wrong and address top Trinitarian issues up front - he can clearly present both sides having argued these issues himself from the Trinitarian standpoint and especially since he preached this exact perspective from from the pulpit!

 

[mikesw]

Your welcome. Chang brings about a refreshing honesty into his insight regarding the Trinity doctrine which he left. It's hard for someone to admit when they were wrong and address top Trinitarian issues up front - he can clearly present both sides having argued these issues himself from the Trinitarian standpoint and especially since he preached this exact perspective from from the pulpit!

if you are so happy about admission of being wrong, we can look forward to your admission of errant doctrine you have formed. Although it is decent if someone is willing to admit being wrong, it is not very helpful when they have incorrectly admitted they are wrong. lol

My point was that the quotes you shared did nothing to overcome the testimony of scripture about Jesus being the incarnation of the preexisting One of divine essence shared in John 1.

 

[amazing grace]

if you are so happy about admission of being wrong, we can look forward to your admission of errant doctrine you have formed. Although it is decent if someone is willing to admit being wrong, it is not very helpful when they have incorrectly admitted they are wrong. lol

Did you read correctly - I am not happy about an admission of being wrong - I am happy to see honesty.
If I had formed inerrant doctrine then hopefully, I would admit it when presented with truth....... Oh, I did! I was once a Trintiarian.
Apparently Eric Chang SAW the inconsistencies of what he knew regarding the Trinitarian doctrine - in what he was taught and in what he inerantly taught others.

My point was that the quotes you shared did nothing to overcome the testimony of scripture about Jesus being the incarnation of the preexisting One of divine essence shared in John 1.

Some choose to remain indoctrinated.

 

[Runningman]

Thanks. this shows the unitarian doctrine misunderstanding is rather flat. The problem here is that Chang has not added any further argument against the scriptural testimony of the deity of Christ than previously proffered on this website. Now if someone really addressed the divinity passages with some plausible alternative, that would be progress for the unitarian belief system.
I do mention on occasion that if some sufficient alternative to the basic understanding of the Triune God were offered -- maybe an adjustment here or there, maybe a clearer doctrine -- that could be followed instead. That just never happens.

A better option than unitarianism would be to correct any misconceptions of how the preexistence of Jesus as the Word allows the relevance of the divinity without contradicting monotheism.

It seems your continual responses to Jesus' plain teachings about the Father's exclusive deity are never ending:

Jesus plainly taught his followers that the Only God is known as the Father (Matthew 19:17; Mark 10:18; John 5:44; John 8:54; John 17:3; John 20:17)

Jesus plainly speaks of or to the Only God as someone other than himself (Matthew 6:9; Matthew 7:21; Matthew 10:32; Matthew 11:25; Matthew 18:10; Matthew 24:36; Matthew 26:39; Matthew 26:42; Matthew 27:46; Mark 14:36; Mark 15:34; Luke 6:12; Luke 22:42; Luke 23:46; John 5:19; John 5:23–24; John 5:26; John 5:30; John 6:38; John 7:28–29; John 8:16; John 8:42; John 8:54; John 10:29; John 12:49; John 13:3; John 14:28; John 16:28; John 17:1–26; John 20:17; Matthew 28:18)

This is because you reject the truth as it was taught to Jesus by the Father and, in turn, taught to his disciples. You act as though the kingdom of God is built upon your arguments rather than the teachings Jesus delivered to others. In other words, you are not doing the will of God, you are doing the will of Mike the forum-debater, acting as a propaganda arm for your organization. It is easy to see that Jesus' teachings are from God and that your teachings are from the devil. In order to know the truth, you must be willing to do God's will.

In Matt 11:25, “I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because You have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children." The truth is hidden to you because you have filled your head with too much baloney about the trinity. Thinking you became wise, you did not, while those who believe and receive Jesus' teachings for the simplicity that they have will enter the kingdom of heaven as Jesus said: “Truly I tell you,” He said, “unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."

 

[Runningman]

if you are so happy about admission of being wrong, we can look forward to your admission of errant doctrine you have formed. Although it is decent if someone is willing to admit being wrong, it is not very helpful when they have incorrectly admitted they are wrong. lol

My point was that the quotes you shared did nothing to overcome the testimony of scripture about Jesus being the incarnation of the preexisting One of divine essence shared in John 1.

This reads as though if you were talking to Jesus that your answer to his teachings regarding the Father's exclusive deity would be to gaslight him into questioning himself. This is similar to what Jesus' opponents did in his day. The religious establishment basically told Jesus in more ways than one that he was either deceived, demon possessed, or ignorant of Scripture. They used similar tactics that you do, trying to psychologically invalidate Jesus, i.e., no one admitted to being wrong about the Father's exclusive deity and neither did Jesus, but you are essentially saying that Jesus admitted to being wrong or lying about who God is. That is your construct.

The issue is that you honor a different father than Jesus. Jesus honored God the Father and you dishonor Jesus by being so combative about everything he said. You try to make everything spiral into an argument, seeming to hope you can make people prove themselves after you explicitly deny everything they said, and mock them when or if they do. I see what you're doing clearly now as you are trying to reverse this onto those who repeat Jesus' teachings. It isn't that people need to prove what Jesus said as right or wrong, it is just that you possess the inability to receive the truth.

 

[mikesw]

Did you read correctly - I am not happy about an admission of being wrong - I am happy to see honesty.
If I had formed inerrant doctrine then hopefully, I would admit it when presented with truth....... Oh, I did! I was once a Trintiarian.
Apparently Eric Chang SAW the inconsistencies of what he knew regarding the Trinitarian doctrine - in what he was taught and in what he inerantly taught others.

Like mentioned earlier, there is no benefit of improperly finding yourself wrong when you have the right doctrine and then switch to a new one that is wrong.
Like I further mentioned, there were no persuasive arguments by Chang. They are the same tired, weak, failed arguments of the unitarians posting here. It was useless then to share those arguments as his strong ones. haha

Some choose to remain indoctrinated.

That is the problem I have noticed of the unitarians. Many are Christadelphians who think some superficial reading of scripture gives them the special insight they need to reject much of the rest of scripture.

 

[mikesw]

It seems your continual responses to Jesus' plain teachings about the Father's exclusive deity are never ending:

Jesus plainly taught his followers that the Only God is known as the Father (Matthew 19:17; Mark 10:18; John 5:44; John 8:54; John 17:3; John 20:17)

Jesus plainly speaks of or to the Only God as someone other than himself (Matthew 6:9; Matthew 7:21; Matthew 10:32; Matthew 11:25; Matthew 18:10; Matthew 24:36; Matthew 26:39; Matthew 26:42; Matthew 27:46; Mark 14:36; Mark 15:34; Luke 6:12; Luke 22:42; Luke 23:46; John 5:19; John 5:23–24; John 5:26; John 5:30; John 6:38; John 7:28–29; John 8:16; John 8:42; John 8:54; John 10:29; John 12:49; John 13:3; John 14:28; John 16:28; John 17:1–26; John 20:17; Matthew 28:18)

That plainspeak assumption about scripture is the unitarian basis for disregarding the deeper scriptures that contradict their own view. You reduce scripture because you cannot understand how a Son speaks to his Father. That may be unnatural for you but others see the cutoff of communication as an undesirable outcome. Maybe the unitarians do not see that has undesirable to that they are willing to cutoff communications.
I cannot accept the reductionist, one-verse unitarianism that you have shared. Again, because you forget it so often, John 17:3 proceeds John 17:5 where Jesus has had glory with the Father before incarnation.

This is because you reject the truth as it was taught to Jesus by the Father and, in turn, taught to his disciples. You act as though the kingdom of God is built upon your arguments rather than the teachings Jesus delivered to others. In other words, you are not doing the will of God, you are doing the will of Mike the forum-debater, acting as a propaganda arm for your organization.

Hmm. You are talking about Christianity. Indeed I seek to stand for the truth and shared that. otherwise, I would not be exposing the deceptive doctrines of the unitarians.

It is easy to see that Jesus' teachings are from God and that your teachings are from the devil. In order to know the truth, you must be willing to do God's will.

That is evil for you to call the teaching of scripture as from the devil. Similarly, Jesus said those who attribute the work of God to the devil will not be saved.

In Matt 11:25, “I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because You have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children." The truth is hidden to you because you have filled your head with too much baloney about the trinity. Thinking you became wise, you did not, while those who believe and receive Jesus' teachings for the simplicity that they have will enter the kingdom of heaven as Jesus said: “Truly I tell you,” He said, “unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."

I guess you are not as little children. Sorry to hear taht