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

[mikesw]

Literalism is better to understand the Bible with than emotionalism. Would you rather follow the Bible based on what the plain text says or would you rather follow the Bible based on what you "feel" is true?

You show more errors here. Scripture is not to be taken in some single-verse hyperliteralism of unitarians. Scripture has symbolic passages, literal passages, historic passages, and poetic ones. You have limited the text to some weird literalism that denies half of scriptures.

 

[civic]

You show more errors here. Scripture is not to be taken in some single-verse hyperliteralism of unitarians. Scripture has symbolic passages, literal passages, historic passages, and poetic ones. You have limited the text to some weird literalism that denies half of scriptures.

yes piled on top of each other.

a mole hill turned into a Mountain

 

[civic]

If God is infinite and we are finite, we will never be fully able to understand him. The fullness of what he is will exceed our powers to grasp. Thus, we cannot expect ever to resolve fully this great mystery.

As for circular in reasoning lets just do the "Hokey Pokey"

haha good one

 

[amazing grace]

Wrong once again as you are basing it solely on your personal opinion and what you have been taught. I on the other hand can provide sound exegesis of the text below and not eisegesis and bias as you have done.

Oh well, I have to disagree because if anyone is reading into scripture with bias is the Trinitarian.

Jesus is eternal life, He is life. We see this over and over again in the Apostle Johns writings. In Him was LIFE and that LIFE was the light of man. Life of the world, the Bread of LIFE,My words are spirit and they are LIFE, I AM the way,the truth and the LIFE,The LIFE was manifested and we proclaim to you the ETERNAL Life which was with the Father, and was manifested to us- The Prologue of 1st John. So we see that when John uses the phrase True God and Eternal Life together in 1 John 5:20 that He is referring to Christ as the closest antecedent making Him the True God and Eternal Life.

What? Couldn't find a verse referencing Jesus as the "only true God"? Did Jesus lie when he said 'And this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God?
'In him was life and the life was the light of man.' [John 1:4] The use of the masculine pronoun 'HIM' is the personification of the 'word'. BTW, in John 1:4, the subject is the 'word' and the 'word' doesn't become embodied until John 1:14 so you have to read "Jesus" into John 1:4. (that's eisegesis)
Truly, truly, I say to you, and hour is coming, and is now here when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live. For as the Father has life in himself so he has GRANTED the Son ALSO to have life in himself. [John 5:25,26] The life the Son has in himself was given, granted to him by his Father, aka God.
Truly, truly, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven, but my Father gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world. [John 6:32,33] The Father, aka God gives the true bread from heaven and that bread of God is he who came down from heaven, he who was sent by God, he who was conceived and born of a woman.
It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. [John 6:63] It is the Spirit aka God who gives life . . . the words that Jesus spoke gave spiritual life. Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life, and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy one of God. [John 6:63] Whose words did Jesus speak?

The life was manifested to make known the Father, aka God.

Also we see that when we search the NT that Eternal Life is never used of the Father without the Son but we see that Eternal Life is used over and over with Jesus where the Father is never mentioned. This makes a solid case for Jesus in 1 John 5:20 as the True God and Eternal Life.

God is the source of eternal life - He granted His Son to have life in himself also. Again, Jesus did not lie when he said "And this is eternal life, that they may know you the only true God". . . .

1 John 5:20
20 We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true. And we are in him who is true — even in his Son Jesus Christ. He(Jesus) is the true God and eternal life.

On behalf of seeing χριστος as the antecedent are the following arguments: (1) Although it is true that αληθινος θεος is not elsewhere referred to Christ, αληθεια is, and is so in Johannine literature (John 14:6).

29 Winer-Moulton, 195.
Further, αληθινος θεος is not a "constant.. epithet" as Winer supposes, being found only in John 17:3 and 1 John 5:20! (2) Christ is also said to be ζωη in John's writings John 11:25; 14:6; 1 John 1:1-2), an epithet nowhere else used of the Father. (3) The demonstrative pronoun, ουτος, in the Gospel and Epistles of John seems to be used in a theologically rich manner.30 Specifically, of the approximately seventy instances in which ουτος has a personal referent, as many as forty- four of them (almost two-thirds of the instances) refer to the Son. Of the remainder, most imply some sort of positive connection with the Son.31 What is most significant is that never is the Father the referent.For what it is worth, this datum increases the probability that ιησου χριστω is the antecedent in 1 John 5:20. 32 The issue cannot be decided on grammar alone. But suffice it to say here that there are no grammatical reasons for denying that αληθινος θεος is descriptive of Jesus Christ.

John 11:25 - I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me though he die, yet shall he live, and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this? She said unto him, "Yes, Lord, I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God, who is coming into the world. . . . I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. John 14:6 . . . Truly, truly, I say to you, and hour is coming, and is now here when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live. For as the Father has life in himself so he has GRANTED the Son ALSO to have life in himself. [John 5:25,26] The life the Son has in himself was given, granted to him by his Father, aka God.
God is the source of eternal life - He granted His Son to have life in himself also.

My top 10 biblical and exegetical reasons Jesus Christ is the True God and Eternal Life.

1st- Jesus is called God in the writings of John(1:1,20:28,1 John 5:20)

2nd- Jesus is called Eternal Life over and over again in Johns writings

3rd- John opens up his epistle with the Eternal life(Jesus) that was with the Father in the beginning and was manifest to the disciples(1 John 1:1-5)

4th- John ends his epistle with Jesus who is eternal life and only is eternal life found in Him who is the true God.

5th- never is eternal life used of the Father alone. When the Father is included the Son is always mentioned together with the Father making them equal. Equality with the Father was not something Jesus needed to grasp at as He already possessed complete Deity as God.(Phil 2, Col 2:9)

6th- John would not leave his readers with any ambiguity warning them to guard themselves from idols(5:21) So this would be clear his reference was to those who reject Jesus as the true God. They are the idoloters and antichrists John writes of in his epistles.

7th- Jesus is also the True God and the True one in 1 John. Jesus is the true light which brings light to all men (John 1:9) Jesus is the truth (John 14:6)Jesus is the true vine (John 15:1). Jesus is the true witness of God (John 18:37) He who is true (Revelation 3:7) Jesus is the faithful and true witness (Revelation 3:14)Jesus is Lord God Almighty, Just and true are your ways(Revelation 15:3) Jesus is faithful and true(Revelation 19:11).

8th- [In John's writings] Of the approximately 70 instances in which ουτος has a personal referent, as many as 44 of them (almost 2/3 . . . ) refer to the Son. Of the remainder, most imply some sort of positive connection with the Son.31 What is most significant is that NEVER is the Father the referent.FWIW, this datum increases the probability that ιησου χριστω IS the antecedent in 1 John 5:20. Wallace.

9th- Netbible- Wallace
If This one in 5:20 is understood as referring to Jesus, it forms an inclusion with the prologue, which introduced the reader to "the eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested to us." Thus it appears best to understand the pronoun This one in 5:20 as a reference to Jesus Christ. The christological affirmation which results is striking, but certainly not beyond the capabilities of the author (see John 1:1 and 20:28): This One [Jesus Christ] is the true God and eternal life.

10th- This/ He (autos)Jesus Christ (the last-named Person) is the true God

Conclusion: So the most logical conclusion is that it refers to Jesus as the true God. Not only is this Wallace's conclusion from Johns usage of outos but He is the closest antecedent (most times in the NT this principal holds true). Eternal Life is never used of the Father alone in John’s writings and only a couple of times does John include the Father with the Son regarding eternal life. John opens up his epistles describing the "eternal life" who was with the Father in the beginning and then ends his epistle with eternal life identifying Jesus as the true God and eternal life. John then says this in the last verse:

1 John 5:21-Guard yourselves from idols- Now why would he leave any ambiguity in verse 20 as to the identity of the true God and eternal life then turn around commanding them to protect themselves from idolatry? It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever unless John is identifying Jesus as the true God and refuting the Gnostics of his day who denied the Incarnation.This is the last of the contrasts of which the Epistle is so full. We have had light and darkness, truth and falsehood, love and hate, God and the world, Christ and Antichrist, life and death, doing righteousness and doing sin, the children of God and the children of the devil, the spirit of truth and the spirit of error, the believer untouched by the evil one and the world lying in the evil one; and now at the close we have what in that age was the ever present and pressing contrast between the true God Jesus Christ and the idols.

hope this helps !!!

YOUR top ten biblical and exegetical reasons Jesus Christ is the True God and Eternal Life or someone else's?
John 5:20
And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding [Jesus came to make known the Father]
so that we may know him who is true [Jesus told us his Father was the only true God];
and we are in him that is true, in his Son Jesus Christ, [in that same prayer Jesus prayed: that they may all be one just as you Father are in me and I in you that they also may be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. We are in union with both the Father 'him that is true' and 'in his Son Jesus Christ.]
He is the true God and eternal life. [By what Jesus has told us through the scripture - that God has granted him to have life in himself and that his Father is the only true God . . . I would have to say the 'He' is referring to the ONE WHO IS TRUE.]
Little children, keep yourselves from idols . . . Remember, there is no other God besides the one true God, aka the Father.

Eternal life is from the Father, the one true God, given through faith in his Son, Jesus Christ.

 

[amazing grace]

No mediator to be possible between God and the Son within the promise since this promise only has one party. But this only makes sense because the Shema says they are one. Verse 16 had shown that Jesus is a promisee and the promise is fulfilled as shown in v 19. So you miss the basis and subtlety when these details are missed. The Galatians then knew the divinity of Christ beforehands.

Where does Galatians mention a mediator between God and the Son? It says the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring . . .not offsprings referring to many but referring to ONE . . . Who is Christ. . . nothing about a mediator nor Divinity of Christ.

Great. you are a step toward realizing the divinity of Christ. It is not as if Jesus is mere human sandwiched between two divine figures.

Jesus is a human being - not a 'mere' human being but a GREAT human being, one who managed to live his life in total submission and obedience to God, his Father to the point of death, even death on the cross - whom God raised and exalted to his own right hand - That cannot be said of any other human being before nor since.

You fail by missing John 17:5 that shows the preexistence of Christ. You already clarified that a human does not preexist., That is why this confirms Jesus' divine existence. Pretty simple and straightforward observation.

Failed. Prophecy does not create pre-existence

Yes, and I hold to that claim. But things that are prophesied and known beforehand by God, in his foreknowledge, do come to pass.
as it is written, "I have made you the father of many nations----in the presence of the God in whom he believed, who gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist. Abraham had NO offspring when God promised him he would be the father of many nations.

You are half right. Jesus as a human did not pre-exist. But Jesus in divinity pre-exists. It is right when you reject spirits existing in the sky. So you show some insight why Christ's pre-existence makes him different from common humans. You also should know that Paul and John did not follow Greek philosophy. So that sort of philosophy does not play into this discussion.

True, Paul and John did not follow Greek philosophy but Greek philosophy does play into the concept of preexistence.
When you say "But Jesus in divinity preexist" what exactly do you mean by that verbiage?

Uh. Giving this from the Father to the Son is a normal progression. Maybe you have heard of that in scenarios among humans.

Well, if Jesus was God, he would already have this dominion and glory and a kingdom and wouldn't have to have it given to him.

I am saying 6 verses do not deny Matt 28:19-20. You are really getting confused here.

Nope, I am not confused just following our conversation . . . I was accused of denying Jesus's words in favor of 6 verses -- so I just turned it around and asked "Aren't you in a manner, denying the 6 scriptures in Acts in favor of 1 verse?"I

Then your concept of Christ as a separate god is really just making an argument against LDS, not against the Triune nature of God.

Thanks for your concern but I'm not sorry at all! It's great to be clear minded as to who God and Christ are . . .
If the Father is the ONLY TRUE God that excludes Jesus from being God.

Where did I show a concept of Christ as a separate god??? I don't believe Jesus, the Messiah to be 'god' at all.

I believe there is only one God, who is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[FreeInChrist]

@amazing grace ,

Do you deny John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.?

How about John 1: 2 The same was in the beginning with God.

Or John 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Especially John 1:14 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Last question is this....

In Genesis 1 vs 26 KJV (just in case you are a KJV only person.)
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Who is God talking to?

 

[Runningman]

Equal co- Creators who made all things who pre existed creation

The way to resolve the issue without coming up with Oneness theories or multi-person God theories is to just go with what the Bible says. The one God for us is the Father and the one Lord is Jesus Christ. Yes, the Father is also Lord. Context matters and that's why there is a hierarchy. That's what I believe based off of the Biblical proof.

 

[civic]

@amazing grace ,

Do you deny John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.?

How about John 1: 2 The same was in the beginning with God.

Or John 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Especially John 1:14 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Last question is this....

In Genesis 1 vs 26 KJV (just in case you are a KJV only person.)
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Who is God talking to?

Yes the uni has no biblical answer for the US, OUR image in Genesis 1:26 , Genesis 3:22 and Genesis 11:7.

God is Plural , the Shema is Plural.

 

[FreeInChrist]

[Jesus told us his Father was the only true God];

Once upon a time people were baptized into the name of Jesus.

Then Jesus switched it up and said
Matt 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Why? Does that not strike you odd that at one time people were baptised into the name of "our Savior", the Messiah
then they add God's name to it.... fine.... but why in the world would Jesus want the Holy Soirit... who is obviously separate from God to be included? Ideas?

 

[amazing grace]

You reject Dan 7:13,14 and also the biblical recognition of Jesus' claim to divinity shown in Matt 26:64-65 where the High Priest viewed Jesus' claim as blasphemy -- and Matthew did not deny that Jesus was claiming to be God. But bible interpreting itself is not helpful to you.

I did not reject Daniel 7:13,14 nor do I believe that I said I rejected Daniel 7:13,14. If I rejected anything concerning Daniel 7:13,14 it was the fact that it did not show Jesus' divinity.
Jesus did not claim divinity in Matthew 26:64,65 - He claimed to be the Christ, the Son of God. [64:63,64]

Wow. you are going devilish in your argument against the divinity of Christ. Then you treat his divinity as denial of his humanity so you can treat this as impossible for God to do this. Prophecy has mixed descriptions of the divinity of Christ and his humanity and of his victory while also suffering. OT is more complex that you treat it.
For God sending his Son incarnate to die on the cross is the greatest expression of love and of identification with the human experience so that Jesus could be a unique priest to us. Also, that went beyond the sacrifice that Abraham was willing to obey God on in the sacrifice of Isaac. Just pay attention to the details of scripture.

'devilish in my argument'??? I agree: For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. . . . nothing said about God sending himself, i.e. incarnate.
God did not have to become a human being in order to identify with us . . . He created us. . . He knows us.
For every high priest chosen from among men is appointed to act on behalf of men in relation to God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins. (Heb. 5:1) It seems God chooses his high priest from among men . . .
Abraham and Isaac were a foreshadowing of Christ.

That is a bad argument with no logic to it. Jesus could have said that he came in fulfillment of prophecy rather than saying he pre-exists.

The creeds and confessions were updated to expose the heresies against the divinity of Christ.

The unitarian diminishes who Christ is so that the unitarian can claim his own ability to have what are only the divine Son's qualities.

HOW does the Unitarian diminish Christ? Because we do not place him in the position of Almighty God, His Father----maybe we see that as idolatry. HOW does the Unitarian claim his own ability to have what are only the divine Son's qualities?? What does that even mean?

Sorry if John 1:18 is confusing to the unitarian. I think the problem is that you cannot understand two uses of "God" -- one as a person in the Triune God and the other as the Father. Maybe you can explain why you deny this verse.

John 1:18 isn't confusing but this is confusing: "two uses of God -- one as a person in the Triune God and the other as the Father." So, we have God as the Triune God and we have God as the Father?
I didn't deny John 1:18 ---- there are two options in this verse "the only God" or "the only Son" . . . and is noted in my ESV footnotes: Or the only One who is God, some manuscripts, the only Son.
I choose to believe it refers to the only Son who makes God known.

So you play statistics instead of holding to the reality that both versions of John 1;18 are historic and acceptable. It likely wsa that later manuscripts thought that "Son" would make the verse read easier.

Or it could be that it fit within the scope of scripture that the only Son was at the Father's side.

Sure. denial is the easy path.
Sorry if there is a little bit of frustration in my response. Some people have failed to make an convincing argument against the Triune God even after being here upwards from a year and a half. They keep making the same basic exegetical errors and proof texting and do not consider the passages that reject unitarianism.

You did tend to attack me instead of the issues but hey I understand it gets frustrating.
It is also gets frustrating for a Unitarian seeing the same basic exegetical errors and proof texting and don't even consider that NO scripture describes a Triune God. But at least, we all have one savior, Jesus Christ, the Lord's Messiah . . . what is sad is that some know who he is and some don't.

 

[mikesw]

Where does Galatians mention a mediator between God and the Son? It says the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring . . .not offsprings referring to many but referring to ONE . . . Who is Christ. . . nothing about a mediator nor Divinity of Christ.
\

Right Jesus Christ is the promisee in Gal 3:16. I guess you missed that the second or third times I pointed that out. Jesus also manifested on earth as the recipient and fulfillment of that promise. So you are right., Jesus is the promised offspring but no mediator is possible in the promise since it is from the Father to the Son. Maybe you missed verse 19 that says "a mediator is not of one." That excludes the ability to have a mediator in the promise. If Jesus were solely human, a mediator could be in the promise between God and a man but Paul excludes that by saying "but God is one." That refers to Jesus as divinity with the Father. They are one per the shema.

Jesus is a human being - not a 'mere' human being but a GREAT human being, one who managed to live his life in total submission and obedience to God, his Father to the point of death, even death on the cross - whom God raised and exalted to his own right hand - That cannot be said of any other human being before nor since.

That is the typical unitarian error of making Jesus less than his divinity by making him mere man, despite unitarians for some reason denying that concept. They sort of give some unscriptural intermediate level of who he is thought to be. The unitarian denies the meaning of "Son of God" such that it does not mean having divinity from his Father.

Yes, and I hold to that claim. But things that are prophesied and known beforehand by God, in his foreknowledge, do come to pass.
as it is written, "I have made you the father of many nations----in the presence of the God in whom he believed, who gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist. Abraham had NO offspring when God promised him he would be the father of many nations.

Again it is far too weak to be valid to say this is a prophecy about Jesus rather than his actual existence. It is stuff like that which makes the unitarian view utterly nonsensical.

True, Paul and John did not follow Greek philosophy but Greek philosophy does play into the concept of preexistence.
When you say "But Jesus in divinity preexist" what exactly do you mean by that verbiage?

I do not know how you can call Jesus relying on Greek philosophy instead of his actual existence as God. That is another reason why unitarian arguments seem untenable.

Well, if Jesus was God, he would already have this dominion and glory and a kingdom and wouldn't have to have it given to him.

You can complain to God about this. You do not have to make sense of it if scripture is too confusing for you.

Nope, I am not confused just following our conversation . . . I was accused of denying Jesus's words in favor of 6 verses -- so I just turned it around and asked "Aren't you in a manner, denying the 6 scriptures in Acts in favor of 1 verse?"I

I say both exist and are fine. We have the triune God found in Matt 28:19-20 and should not be discarded just because unitarians do not like it.

Where did I show a concept of Christ as a separate god??? I don't believe Jesus, the Messiah to be 'god' at all.

Jesus is either of the same God as the Father or is a separate one. You have to make him a separate god to even build your argument.

I believe there is only one God, who is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Then accept the divinity of Christ as part of the same God.

 

[amazing grace]

@amazing grace ,

Do you deny John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.?

I don't deny any scripture. I deny the Trinitarian interpretation of the Scripture.

For one thing I don't read - In the beginning was Jesus, and Jesus was with God and Jesus was God. I do not believe at this point that the word was a literal person.
John 1:1a ---- In the beginning - Gen. 1 and God said, and God said, and God said, etc. . . i.e. the word as in God's creative power, God's creative speech. 1:1b And the word was with God - just as your word is with you . . . 1:1c and the word was God. The word was fully expressive of God or an expression or reflection of God.

Employing Colwell Definite Article rule: No definite article in front of the word "God" therefore God is used in a adjectival manner.
(William Barclay When in Greek two nouns are joined by the verb to be and when both have the definite article then the one is fully identified with the other; but when one of them is without the article it becomes more an adjective than a noun . . .[Jesus as They Saw Him, pg 21,22; The Restitution; Christology of John pg. 314]

How about John 1: 2 The same was in the beginning with God.

Or John 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Especially John 1:14 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

John 1:2-4 . . . the subject of all the above verses is the word. The 'same' = the word was in the beginning with God. All things were made by the word; and without the word was not anything made that was made. All things were made by the word and without the word was not any thing made that was made. IN THE BEGINNING God created the heavens and the earth . . by his creative powerful speech, i.e. his word - He spoke things into being and nothing was made that was made without him speaking it into being.

Last question is this....

In Genesis 1 vs 26 KJV (just in case you are a KJV only person.)
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Who is God talking to?

His heavenly court - his angels were there in the beginning . . . Who determined its measurements—surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it? On what were its bases sunk, or who laid its cornerstone, when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy? [Job 38:4-7] I don't believe he was speaking to himself as in the second or third member of the Triune God.

 

[mikesw]

I did not reject Daniel 7:13,14 nor do I believe that I said I rejected Daniel 7:13,14. If I rejected anything concerning Daniel 7:13,14 it was the fact that it did not show Jesus' divinity.
Jesus did not claim divinity in Matthew 26:64,65 - He claimed to be the Christ, the Son of God. [64:63,64]

I'm not sure how to help you here. This claim to divinity is made obvious in Matt 26:64-65. It also is apparent that Jesus is not just a human in Dan 7:13-14. I'm not sure where that gets lost on you. His divinity is moderated by saying he appears as a son of man. Then in Jesus' ministry he presents himself specifically as that Son of Man figure.

'devilish in my argument'??? I agree: For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. . . . nothing said about God sending himself, i.e. incarnate.

It does not say God sent another human to earth. It does not say the Father sent the Father. It shows the Father sent the Son. Maybe we can find a logic class for you.

God did not have to become a human being in order to identify with us . . . He created us. . . He knows us.
For every high priest chosen from among men is appointed to act on behalf of men in relation to God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins. (Heb. 5:1) It seems God chooses his high priest from among men . . .
Abraham and Isaac were a foreshadowing of Christ.

God showed his compassion by giving his Son sent from heaven to experience as a human. As Hebrews shows, this was not for the Father's sake but for the outreach to humans. Basic points here.

HOW does the Unitarian diminish Christ? Because we do not place him in the position of Almighty God, His Father----maybe we see that as idolatry. HOW does the Unitarian claim his own ability to have what are only the divine Son's qualities?? What does that even mean?

Seeing God as idolatrous in what he has done through Christ is pretty bad thinking on the unitarian's arguments.
Also if Jesus is not divine, it is the unitarian who can claim to be like Jesus in the flesh.

John 1:18 isn't confusing but this is confusing: "two uses of God -- one as a person in the Triune God and the other as the Father." So, we have God as the Triune God and we have God as the Father?
I didn't deny John 1:18 ---- there are two options in this verse "the only God" or "the only Son" . . . and is noted in my ESV footnotes: Or the only One who is God, some manuscripts, the only Son.
I choose to believe it refers to the only Son who makes God known.

You have to reject the testimony of the ancient scripture that shows Jesus as God here. I'm not sure why you think you can avoid that.

Or it could be that it fit within the scope of scripture that the only Son was at the Father's side.

You did tend to attack me instead of the issues but hey I understand it gets frustrating.

I point out the issues and unitarians just gloss over them

It is also gets frustrating for a Unitarian seeing the same basic exegetical errors and proof texting and don't even consider that NO scripture describes a Triune God. But at least, we all have one savior, Jesus Christ, the Lord's Messiah . . . what is sad is that some know who he is and some don't.

That is the hyperliteralism where unitarians who take John 17:3 as the ultimate point and reject the passages that show the divinity of Christ. What can be worse than that? I can understand if some people temporarily get distracted by unitarian beliefs but hope they can come to know the true Christ.

 

[FreeInChrist]

I don't deny any scripture. I deny the Trinitarian interpretation of the Scripture.

For one thing I don't read - In the beginning was Jesus, and Jesus was with God and Jesus was God. I do not believe at this point that the word was a literal person.

Then who or what was John talking about in vs 14, And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.?

John 1:1a ---- In the beginning - Gen. 1 and God said, and God said, and God said, etc. . . i.e. the word as in God's creative power, God's creative speech. 1:1b And the word was with God - just as your word is with you . . . 1:1c and the word was God. The word was fully expressive of God or an expression or reflection of God.

Employing Colwell Definite Article rule: No definite article in front of the word "God" therefore God is used in a adjectival manner.
(William Barclay When in Greek two nouns are joined by the verb to be and when both have the definite article then the one is fully identified with the other; but when one of them is without the article it becomes more an adjective than a noun . . .[Jesus as They Saw Him, pg 21,22; The Restitution; Christology of John pg. 314]

John 1:2-4 . . . the subject of all the above verses is the word. The 'same' = the word was in the beginning with God. All things were made by the word; and without the word was not anything made that was made. All things were made by the word and without the word was not any thing made that was made. IN THE BEGINNING God created the heavens and the earth . . by his creative powerful speech, i.e. his word - He spoke things into being and nothing was made that was made without him speaking it into being.

His heavenly court - his angels were there in the beginning . . . Who determined its measurements—surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it? On what were its bases sunk, or who laid its cornerstone, when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy? [Job 38:4-7] I don't believe he was speaking to himself as in the second or third member of the Triune God.

Ah, so we look like angels. God looks like an angel. That's cool. Farfetched but cool.

 

[civic]

I don't deny any scripture. I deny the Trinitarian interpretation of the Scripture.

For one thing I don't read - In the beginning was Jesus, and Jesus was with God and Jesus was God. I do not believe at this point that the word was a literal person.
John 1:1a ---- In the beginning - Gen. 1 and God said, and God said, and God said, etc. . . i.e. the word as in God's creative power, God's creative speech. 1:1b And the word was with God - just as your word is with you . . . 1:1c and the word was God. The word was fully expressive of God or an expression or reflection of God.

Employing Colwell Definite Article rule: No definite article in front of the word "God" therefore God is used in a adjectival manner.
(William Barclay When in Greek two nouns are joined by the verb to be and when both have the definite article then the one is fully identified with the other; but when one of them is without the article it becomes more an adjective than a noun . . .[Jesus as They Saw Him, pg 21,22; The Restitution; Christology of John pg. 314]

John 1:2-4 . . . the subject of all the above verses is the word. The 'same' = the word was in the beginning with God. All things were made by the word; and without the word was not anything made that was made. All things were made by the word and without the word was not any thing made that was made. IN THE BEGINNING God created the heavens and the earth . . by his creative powerful speech, i.e. his word - He spoke things into being and nothing was made that was made without him speaking it into being.

His heavenly court - his angels were there in the beginning . . . Who determined its measurements—surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it? On what were its bases sunk, or who laid its cornerstone, when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy? [Job 38:4-7] I don't believe he was speaking to himself as in the second or third member of the Triune God.

Gods word is not God, nice try. My voice is not me, my words are not me. I’m a person not a word or voice.

Another failure .

The word was God.

It does not say the word was the word

 

[Runningman]

You show more errors here. Scripture is not to be taken in some single-verse hyperliteralism of unitarians. Scripture has symbolic passages, literal passages, historic passages, and poetic ones. You have limited the text to some weird literalism that denies half of scriptures.

Scripture speaks of a one person God from cover to cover. You've been indoctrinated into thinking the Bible doesn't say what it says I guess? You have brief moments of clarity when people say what the Bible literally says, but you disparage what the Bible literally says and reject it. Your philosophy is never repeated or explained by anyone in the Bible.

Why would the authors write people things that don't mean what they literally mean without any hint of how to interpret their writings? That would be confusion.

 

[Runningman]

I don't deny any scripture. I deny the Trinitarian interpretation of the Scripture.

Exactly. Trinitarians impose their beliefs on the Bible.

 

[Wholeheart]

God is one essence and three persons.

The concept that the Son of God is “the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature.” This is a clear reference to Jesus’ deity, but the author is also distinguishing the Son of God from the Father in terms of the idea of personhood. The Father’s person is expressed in the person of the Son. So even though both the Father and Son are divine, the author of Hebrews here sets forth the idea of a personal distinction in the Godhead.

IN MANY separate revelations [each of which set forth a portion of the Truth] and in different ways God spoke of old to [our] forefathers in and by the prophets,
2 [But] in the last of these days He has spoken to us in [the person of a] Son, Whom He appointed Heir and lawful Owner of all things, also by and through Whom He created the worlds and the reaches of space and the ages of time [He made, produced, built, operated, and arranged them in order].
3 He is the sole expression of the glory of God [the Light-being, the out-raying or radiance of the divine], and He is the perfect imprint and very image of [God’s] nature, upholding and maintaining and guiding and propelling the universe by His mighty word of power. When He had by offering Himself accomplished our cleansing of sins and riddance of guilt, He sat down at the right hand of the divine Majesty on high,
4 [Taking a place and rank by which] He Himself became as much superior to angels as the glorious Name (title) which He has inherited is different from and more excellent than theirs.
Heb 1:1–4.

The doctrine of the Trinity teaches that God is one in essence and three in person, so He is one in one sense and three in another sense, and that does not violate the categories of rational thought or the law of non-contradiction. Nevertheless, people continue to charge that the Trinity is irrational.

Why do people so consistently make this accusation?

There are three distinct ideas that we need to understand and differentiate: the paradox, the contradiction, and the mystery. Although these concepts are distinctly different, they are closely related. For this reason, they are often confused.

Let’s start with the concept of paradox. The prefix para means “alongside.” The root word here comes from the Greek dokeo, which means “to seem, to think, or to appear.” A paradox, then, is something that seems contradictory when we first encounter it; however, with further scrutiny, the tension is resolved.

The Bible has many paradoxical statements. For instance, Jesus said, “The greatest among you shall be your servant”
Matt. 23:11

At first glance, that sounds contradictory, but on closer examination we see that Jesus is saying that to be great in one sense you have to be a servant in another sense, so there is no violation here of the rules of logic.

 

[Runningman]

God is one essence and three persons.

The concept that the Son of God is “the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature.” This is a clear reference to Jesus’ deity, but the author is also distinguishing the Son of God from the Father in terms of the idea of personhood. The Father’s person is expressed in the person of the Son. So even though both the Father and Son are divine, the author of Hebrews here sets forth the idea of a personal distinction in the Godhead.

IN MANY separate revelations [each of which set forth a portion of the Truth] and in different ways God spoke of old to [our] forefathers in and by the prophets,
2 [But] in the last of these days He has spoken to us in [the person of a] Son, Whom He appointed Heir and lawful Owner of all things, also by and through Whom He created the worlds and the reaches of space and the ages of time [He made, produced, built, operated, and arranged them in order].
3 He is the sole expression of the glory of God [the Light-being, the out-raying or radiance of the divine], and He is the perfect imprint and very image of [God’s] nature, upholding and maintaining and guiding and propelling the universe by His mighty word of power. When He had by offering Himself accomplished our cleansing of sins and riddance of guilt, He sat down at the right hand of the divine Majesty on high,
4 [Taking a place and rank by which] He Himself became as much superior to angels as the glorious Name (title) which He has inherited is different from and more excellent than theirs.
Heb 1:1–4.

The doctrine of the Trinity teaches that God is one in essence and three in person, so He is one in one sense and three in another sense, and that does not violate the categories of rational thought or the law of non-contradiction. Nevertheless, people continue to charge that the Trinity is irrational.

Why do people so consistently make this accusation?

There are three distinct ideas that we need to understand and differentiate: the paradox, the contradiction, and the mystery. Although these concepts are distinctly different, they are closely related. For this reason, they are often confused.

Let’s start with the concept of paradox. The prefix para means “alongside.” The root word here comes from the Greek dokeo, which means “to seem, to think, or to appear.” A paradox, then, is something that seems contradictory when we first encounter it; however, with further scrutiny, the tension is resolved.

The Bible has many paradoxical statements. For instance, Jesus said, “The greatest among you shall be your servant”
Matt. 23:11

At first glance, that sounds contradictory, but on closer examination we see that Jesus is saying that to be great in one sense you have to be a servant in another sense, so there is no violation here of the rules of logic.

Where to begin. You are simply begging the question in the first place. Let's try start with saying what the Bible says. If you could rephrase your comment and remove the following non-Biblical concepts then we can have a productive talk about the Bible.

“God is one essence and three persons.”

“The doctrine of the Trinity teaches that God is one in essence and three in person, so He is one in one sense and three in another sense, and that does not violate the law of non-contradiction.”​

​

“Hebrews here sets forth the idea of a personal distinction in the Godhead.”​

​

“There are three distinct ideas we need to understand: paradox, contradiction, and mystery.”​

And there were several other gray area things you said. For example, the Bible does say ‘The greatest among you shall be your servant.' But it doesn't mean it is paradoxical. I would say the doctrine of the Trinity is a fine paradox though.

 

[mikesw]

Scripture speaks of a one person God from cover to cover. You've been indoctrinated into thinking the Bible doesn't say what it says I guess? You have brief moments of clarity when people say what the Bible literally says, but you disparage what the Bible literally says and reject it. Your philosophy is never repeated or explained by anyone in the Bible.

Why would the authors write people things that don't mean what they literally mean without any hint of how to interpret their writings? That would be confusion.

Funny. you have selective memory. Genesis 1 speaks in plurality. The Angel of the Lord appears as Yahweh such that they are distinct but the same. The Word of the Lord comes to certain people and is distinct from God but is the same as God. Jesus is God in John 1:18 and really in John 1:1-18. But to you that is never plural. Nor do you give any logical alternative meaning to Christ in pre-existence passages. Sure you can have scripture mean whatever you want when you are neglecting half of what scripture says.

Consider that there are reasons that Arianism had not taken hold in the 300s. It was a heretical teaching held by a minority of people. No one has established that this had any related pagan background. In reality, all the pagan similarities have actually been debunked. Plus, neither Paul nor John had pagan backgrounds so as to be fooled into pagan ideas. But the unitarian must make Paul and John susceptible to pagan influence in order to sustain their Arian heresy.