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

[Runningman]

How many times must we go through this?
I am getting very tired of your forced ignorance and willful blindness.

As many times as it takes for you to get it. Let's pretend your interpretation is correct. Each example you have said means Jesus is the Creator say the exact opposite. If God created "through" Jesus (John 1:2,3, Colossians 1:16) then "through" refers to instrumentality, a medium acting as a channel. God isn't a medium or channel, God is the Potter, the clay is a medium or channel for creation. God isn't clay is He Doug?

Jesus, the Son of God, is the incarnate Logos of God, which is God. This makes them one and the same.

Not according to John 1:2,3,14. It says "all things are made" then it says "the Word was made flesh" and Revelation 3:14 explicitly states Jesus is the creation of God and Colossians 1:15 places Jesus within the creation of God as well.

Revelation 3
14“And to the angel of the church in Laodicea write: ‘The words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of God’s creation.

Colossians 1
15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.

So how are you going to sit here and tell us that someone who is created is God and the Creator? Doesn't make sense.

Jesus is like the manna from Heaven in that He came from Heaven, and feeds us and sustains us.

And the Israelites had to go out and gather the manna, refine it, cook it, and eat it. The manna was plant seeds that presumably grew naturally and became something useful, just like Jesus. Can't cherry pick how the comparison works and disregard whatever doesn't fit your narrative.

 

[Doug Brents]

Let's pretend your interpretation is correct. Each example you have said means Jesus is the Creator say the exact opposite. If God created "through" Jesus (John 1:2,3, Colossians 1:16) then "through" refers to instrumentality, a medium acting as a channel. God isn't a medium or channel, God is the Potter, the clay is a medium or channel for creation. God isn't clay is He Doug?

I could agree with you, except John 1:1 says that the Word (which is Jesus) IS God.

Not according to John 1:2,3,14. It says "all things are made" then it says "the Word was made flesh"

All things were made by and through Jesus (the Word).
"The Word was made flesh" does not refer to creation. It refers to something being changed into, or taking on a new form: the Logos of God put on flesh.

Revelation 3
14“And to the angel of the church in Laodicea write: ‘The words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of God’s creation.

The word for "beginning" in the Greek means "origin". Jesus is the origin of creation, the source, not the first thing created.

Colossians 1
15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.

The context of Col 1 is that He is the first of all Creation to be reborn.

So how are you going to sit here and tell us that someone who is created is God and the Creator? Doesn't make sense.

You're right, that doesn't make sense. Which means that He is not created.

 

[AaronH]

I sure wish I had more than a miniscule amount of time to devote to this forum. I'm mostly a lurker here.

Fwiw, as someone who is not decided, grew up trinitarian, and now I'm up for grabs but lean unitarian, here's my rough take. The case for Unitarianism is almost the strongest insofar as what the Bible does NOT say if Trinitarianism were true. It would be so easy for God to have been clearer than he was if he wanted us to believe the doctrine. Instead, all Trinitarian proof-texts happen to be open to an interpretation that is not necessarily favorable to the Trinity.

When I was a firm trinitarian, I would find myself thinking, "why didn't you just say it, God?" Use a term such "God the Son" even one time. Just say "the Father, the son, and the holy spirit are the three that make up God." But he didn't, and I am no longer able to get past that fact.

Unitarianism for sure has higher prior probability as well, since it doesn't require us to go against God-given arithmetical laws (eg 3 and 1, 100% man, 100% God, etc)

The funny thing is I don't ascribe a great deal of importance to which side is correct. The much clearer passages stand regardless (e.g. Jesus is the savior). However....

Trinitarianism is seen as a non-monotheistic doctrine and actively prevents very many of other religions to open their hearts to Christianity. There is no doubt about that fact. I tend to believe that if not for Trinitarianism, Christianity would have a much larger lead on Islam than it currently does, for example.

Due all the above, the burden of proof rests extremely heavily on the Trinitarian to prove the case. I agree with the OP, the reasoning for a trinity tends to be circular. It starts with what nearly all of us grew up believing as kids and goes from there, shoe-horning inconvenient factors into itself.

My $.02.

 

[amazing grace]

Hosea didn't understand it to be, but today we know that it is one.

All of this is correct as far as it goes. But it does not account for the fact that Scripture says it is a prophecy about Jesus.

Got Questions is so full of holes in there explanations that I wouldn't trust anything they say. They are not a trustworthy resource.

But aside from that, this whole argument of yours doesn't impact the point of my bringing up this prophecy. The point was that the understanding of the original text does not always impact how it is to be understood when it is quoted. We agree that the quote in Matthew is a reference to Jesus. But there is NO ONE reading the text from Hosea that would have associated that verse with Jesus before Jesus' birth. No one would have said, "This is a prophecy about the coming Messiah."

Where does scripture say it's a prophecy about Jesus?

Not the only place where I found information concerning Matthew 2:16, Hosea 11:1 and Exodus 4 together in a comprehensive unit without having to go all over the place.

Correct, since it was not a Messianic prophecy then it wouldn't have been associated with Jesus. So all this amounts to a hill of beans!! It wasn't associated with Jesus UNTIL Joseph took Jesus to Egypt to escape Herod and brought him back to Nazareth after Herod's death.

First you say it was a prophecy about Jesus then you say no one would have said 'this is a prophecy about the coming Messiah ---- WHICH IS IT?

Are you saying the Father is not a person, just because He does not have flesh? Is that your understanding of what it takes to be a person: having flesh?

Nope.

I would say that God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, is a spiritual being.

Sure a woman can embody wisdom, but does Scripture say that wisdom took on flesh and became a woman? No.
But Scripture does say that the Logos of God, that is God, took on flesh and became a man that we know as Jesus.

Was wisdom created? Prov 8:22

No, scripture doesn't say that wisdom took on flesh anymore than it says 'God took on flesh and became a man that we know as Jesus.'

Was wisdom created? Created as in the manner of God is the source of wisdom? Yes.

I would totally agree with you, if it weren't for what Scripture says. Scripture says Jesus is the Logos of God, which was with God, and was God, in the Beginning when all things were made through Him.

Not God ontologically but qualitatively.

Jesus said that He is one with the Father.

Yes, Jesus said: I and the Father are one. Context: One in unity and purpose of caring for the sheep, God's people.
Jesus also prayed for us to be one with the Father just as he was one with the Father.

Jesus said that He is the "I AM" (which is God).

Nope. The first reference in John of Jesus using ego eimi was in John 4 when speaking to the woman at the well - The woman said to him, “I know that Messiah is coming (he who is called Christ). When he comes, he will tell us all things.” Jesus said to her, “I who speak to you am he.” --- sets the precedent for the usage of Jesus saying ego eimi.

Jesus accepted worship and accepted being called God without correcting the worshiper or the person calling Him God.

Yes, Thomas called Jesus 'God'. In what manner was Thomas using the title 'God'? My Lord - my risen Christ and My God - acknowledging the one who raised him from the dead OR in this manner: Jesus so perfectly made known the Father that if you have seen him you have seen the Father through him.

If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him.”.....Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? [John 14:7,9]

Jesus was never worshiped AS God that would have constituted idolatry.

 

[FreeInChrist]

I sure wish I had more than a miniscule amount of time to devote to this forum. I'm mostly a lurker here.

Fwiw, as someone who is not decided, grew up trinitarian, and now I'm up for grabs but lean unitarian, here's my rough take. The case for Unitarianism is almost the strongest insofar as what the Bible does NOT say if Trinitarianism were true. It would be so easy for God to have been clearer than he was if he wanted us to believe the doctrine. Instead, all Trinitarian proof-texts happen to be open to an interpretation that is not necessarily favorable to the Trinity.

When I was a firm trinitarian, I would find myself thinking, "why didn't you just say it, God?" Use a term such "God the Son" even one time. Just say "the Father, the son, and the holy spirit are the three that make up God." But he didn't, and I am no longer able to get past that fact.

Oh, But HE DID. I have no idea what translation of the bible you use so you make sure you check your own on this..

BUt of the Son He says.......

IN HEBREWS 1:8 NASB95 But of the Son He says, “YOUR THRONE, O GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER, AND THE RIGHTEOUS SCEPTER IS THE SCEPTER OF HIS KINGDOM.

And just in case you are a diehard KJV only guy...

But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

Unitarianism for sure has higher prior probability as well, since it doesn't require us to go against God-given arithmetical laws (eg 3 and 1, 100% man, 100% God, etc)

The funny thing is I don't ascribe a great deal of importance to which side is correct. The much clearer passages stand regardless (e.g. Jesus is the savior). However....

Trinitarianism is seen as a non-monotheistic doctrine and actively prevents very many of other religions to open their hearts to Christianity. There is no doubt about that fact. I tend to believe that if not for Trinitarianism, Christianity would have a much larger lead on Islam than it currently does, for example.

Due all the above, the burden of proof rests extremely heavily on the Trinitarian to prove the case. I agree with the OP, the reasoning for a trinity tends to be circular. It starts with what nearly all of us grew up believing as kids and goes from there, shoe-horning inconvenient factors into itself.

My $.02.

 

[amazing grace]

<snip>
Now notice the different spelling of Θεόν = ton Theon and Θεὸς = kai Theos

I submit these are not the same person.......! <snip>

Thats what I said cause the Greek tells it they are not one person

Theon = accusative case form of theos
ἐν (in) ἀρχῇ (beginning) ἦν (was) ὁ (the) λόγος (logos/word) καὶ (and) ὁ (the) λόγος (logos/word) ἦν (was) πρὸς (with/towards/in the presence of) τὸν (ton, the - accusative article) θεόν (God) καὶ (and) θεὸς (God) ἦν (was) ὁ (the) λόγος (logos/word)

----- they are not the same person????? I'm just wondering what do you mean by they are not the same person???
And if 'theon' is a different person from 'theos' -- why and how are they different persons?

 

[Runningman]

I could agree with you, except John 1:1 says that the Word (which is Jesus) IS God.

Ironically, Jesus is never actually called the Word in the Bible. It seems all of your doctrines are secondary interpretations, not things the Bible explicitly states. Why do you think something as important as who God is would never even make it into the Bible at all if God is a trinity?

All things were made by and through Jesus (the Word).
"The Word was made flesh" does not refer to creation. It refers to something being changed into, or taking on a new form: the Logos of God put on flesh.

Verse?

The word for "beginning" in the Greek means "origin". Jesus is the origin of creation, the source, not the first thing created.

It also means beginning. Means Jesus is the beginning of the creation of God. You cannot falsify that translation because it's accurate.

The context of Col 1 is that He is the first of all Creation to be reborn.

So the Son in your trinity was born?

You're right, that doesn't make sense. Which means that He is not created.

John 1:3,14, Colossians 1:15, Revelation 3:14 are still there.

 

[Runningman]

Oh, But HE DID. I have no idea what translation of the bible you use so you make sure you check your own on this..

BUt of the Son He says.......

IN HEBREWS 1:8 NASB95 But of the Son He says, “YOUR THRONE, O GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER, AND THE RIGHTEOUS SCEPTER IS THE SCEPTER OF HIS KINGDOM.

And just in case you are a diehard KJV only guy...

But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

Eh, not really a good one. Why? Other men are called God or god in the bible too. God has varying usages depending on the context. So that isn't a shoe in or conclusive. I think what @AaronH was going for is that God is never defined as a trinity in the Bible. That is also problematic for me so I get that. All arguments aside, God just isn't conclusively defined the way trinitarians suggest. Some explicit statements like the one Aaron suggested would be helpful, but they don't exist.

I am inclined to see the trinity as an idol based on the testimony of Scripture. I agree with him that God could have made it perfectly loud and clear who He is and He did, but not as a trinity; rather God is explicitly defined as the Father more than once. It's easy to see when we read the Bible as the revelation provided rather than pre-loading theological assumptions about God that were never stated in the first place.

I have noticed the error that many trinitarians make with the Bible is they interpret the entire thing around John 1:1 as if it is a central doctrine, but it isn't and it still doesn't define a trinity anyway.

If God is a trinity, then when God is mentioned it must be a refence to the trinity. If Jesus is the Word, then John 1:1 opens up by essentially saying, "Jesus was with the trinity" if Jesus was with the trinity then who is Jesus? There is no neat area in the Bible where we can replace the word "God" in the Bible with the word "The Trinity" and it make any sense. For defining God as a trinity, yet there not being a convenient place to define God as a trinity in the Bible, that's another problem.

 

[synergy]

I have noticed the error that many trinitarians make with the Bible is they interpret the entire thing around John 1:1 as if it is a central doctrine, but it isn't and it still doesn't define a trinity anyway..

You are sitting the entire Bible on top of one badly-translated, which is John 1:1

First you've taken it upon yourself to dictate to us what is badly translated in the Bible and now you're dictating to us what is or isn't a central doctrine. Give us a break.

 

[Doug Brents]

Where does scripture say it's a prophecy about Jesus?

Matt 2:15 says, "He stayed there until the death of Herod; this happened so that what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet would be fulfilled: “Out of Egypt I called My Son.”"

A foretelling through a prophet would be a prophecy, and this prophecy was about the coming of God's Son (Jesus) out of Egypt.

Correct, since it was not a Messianic prophecy then it wouldn't have been associated with Jesus. So all this amounts to a hill of beans!! It wasn't associated with Jesus UNTIL Joseph took Jesus to Egypt to escape Herod and brought him back to Nazareth after Herod's death.

The fact that we don't understand something to be a prophecy doesn't make it not a prophecy. Matthew tells us that Hosea was making a prophecy about His Son. Jesus is God's Son.

First you say it was a prophecy about Jesus then you say no one would have said 'this is a prophecy about the coming Messiah ---- WHICH IS IT?

Jesus is the coming Messiah, so it is both.

Nope.

I would say that God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, is a spiritual being.

Then your contention that the Word wasn't a person until it took on flesh and became a man is absurd.

No, scripture doesn't say that wisdom took on flesh anymore than it says 'God took on flesh and became a man that we know as Jesus.'

In John 1:1 we are told that the Word (Logos) is God, and then in verse 14 we are told that the Logos took on flesh and became the man we know as Jesus.

Was wisdom created? Created as in the manner of God is the source of wisdom? Yes.

Again, Prov 8:22 - "The Lord created me at the beginning of His way, Before His works of old."
This is wisdom speaking, and what does it say? God created wisdom before He created the world.

Not God ontologically but qualitatively.

God is God, there is nothing even remotely like God that is not God. There are not shades of God, or the possibility of being "almost God but not quite". If Jesus is qualitatively God, then He is God.

Yes, Jesus said: I and the Father are one. Context: One in unity and purpose of caring for the sheep, God's people.
Jesus also prayed for us to be one with the Father just as he was one with the Father.

Jesus gives no qualification of "unity and purpose" to His statement that He and the Father are one. The Pharisees picked up stones to kill Jesus for blasphemy when He said that. They understood it to mean exactly what it means: Jesus was making Himself equal with the Father.

Nope. The first reference in John of Jesus using ego eimi was in John 4 when speaking to the woman at the well - The woman said to him, “I know that Messiah is coming (he who is called Christ). When he comes, he will tell us all things.” Jesus said to her, “I who speak to you am he.” ---sets the precedent for the usage of Jesus saying ego eimi.

As I have told you before, ego eimi (I am... )MUST ALWAYS have a qualifier: "I am the way", "I am the life", "I am the bread of life", etc. But in John 8:58, Jesus does not include any qualifier. He tells us that He is the "I AM!" And the Pharisees that heard Him say that again understood exactly what He was claiming to be: God.

Yes, Thomas called Jesus 'God'. In what manner was Thomas using the title 'God'? My Lord - my risen Christ and My God - acknowledging the one who raised him from the dead OR in this manner: Jesus so perfectly made known the Father that if you have seen him you have seen the Father through him.

If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him.”.....Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? [John 14:7,9]

Jesus was never worshiped AS God that would have constituted idolatry.

Yes, if Jesus is not God, then it is idolatry for Thomas to worship Him as God. But even more than that, it constitutes sin for Jesus if He allows someone to worship Him as God if He is not really God. Yet Jesus does not condemn Thomas for addressing Him as his God. This means one of two things: either Jesus sinned by allowing Thomas to worship Him (in which case He is not sinless, and cannot be our savior), or He really is God. Those are the only two options.

So which is it? Did Jesus sin, or is He God?

 

[Doug Brents]

Ironically, Jesus is never actually called the Word in the Bible. It seems all of your doctrines are secondary interpretations, not things the Bible explicitly states. Why do you think something as important as who God is would never even make it into the Bible at all if God is a trinity?

Read all of John 1 again, and follow who the Word is through it. The Word became flesh in the form of the man whom John came to introduce. And that man is Jesus of Nazareth. You need to go back to elementary school if you cannot follow what John is saying.

It also means beginning. Means Jesus is the beginning of the creation of God. You cannot falsify that translation because it's accurate.

Yes, Jesus is the beginning, the source, the originator, the author of creation.

So the Son in your trinity was born?

I should feel honored, you twist my words just as you twist Scripture; I am in good company.
The Son is the first to be resurrected from Death.

 

[amazing grace]

Matt 2:15 says, "He stayed there until the death of Herod; this happened so that what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet would be fulfilled: “Out of Egypt I called My Son.”" A foretelling through a prophet would be a prophecy, and this prophecy was about the coming of God's Son (Jesus) out of Egypt.
The fact that we don't understand something to be a prophecy doesn't make it not a prophecy. Matthew tells us that Hosea was making a prophecy about His Son. Jesus is God's Son.

Jesus is the coming Messiah, so it is both.

Yes, but in the OT - Hosea 11:1 is about 'Israel, God's firstborn son' from Exodus 4:22.
Matthew, quoted in Hosea 11:1 because Jesus coming out of Egypt returning to Nazareth echoed what happened with the children of Israel. It was not and is not a Messianic prophecy.

Then your contention that the Word wasn't a person until it took on flesh and became a man is absurd.

A person isn't a person until that person is conceived and born so not so absurd.

In John 1:1 we are told that the Word (Logos) is God, and then in verse 14 we are told that the Logos took on flesh and became the man we know as Jesus.

I have repeated myself enough - the 'word' was not ontologically God - a word, uttered by a living voice, embodies a conception or idea was not and is not a person; what someone has said: a word, the sayings of God, a decree, mandate or order, the moral precepts given by God, OT prophecy given by the prophets, a thought, declaration, a weighty saying was not and is not a person; a doctrine, teaching was not and is not a person. Those things became embodied in the person of the only Son from the Father.
God's word, the precepts given by God, the thoughts, the sayings of God, the doctrine, the teaching of God became flesh in the person of the only Son from the Father which is how Jesus made known the Father.

Again, Prov 8:22 - "The Lord created me at the beginning of His way, Before His works of old."
This is wisdom speaking, and what does it say? God created wisdom before He created the world.

I believe I answered you: Was wisdom created? Created as in the manner of God is the source of wisdom? Yes.
Also dependent upon which translation you use - some translate the word 'created' as 'possessed' : The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.
So, either way God is the source of wisdom so yes, God 'created' wisdom and God 'possessed' wisdom.

God is God, there is nothing even remotely like God that is not God. There are not shades of God, or the possibility of being "almost God but not quite". If Jesus is qualitatively God, then He is God.

NOPE. Jesus, the Son of God, the Messiah, God's anointed, God's Christ.

Jesus gives no qualification of "unity and purpose" to His statement that He and the Father are one. The Pharisees picked up stones to kill Jesus for blasphemy when He said that. They understood it to mean exactly what it means: Jesus was making Himself equal with the Father.

It kills me how Trinitarians always side with the unbelieving Jewish religious leaders!!!

As I have told you before, ego eimi (I am... )MUST ALWAYS have a qualifier: "I am the way", "I am the life", "I am the bread of life", etc. But in John 8:58, Jesus does not include any qualifier. He tells us that He is the "I AM!" And the Pharisees that heard Him say that again understood exactly what He was claiming to be: God.

Yes, and in almost every case where Jesus said 'I am' the translators added 'he' or some kind of predicate EXCEPT at John 8:58 - bias anyone?

Yes, if Jesus is not God, then it is idolatry for Thomas to worship Him as God. But even more than that, it constitutes sin for Jesus if He allows someone to worship Him as God if He is not really God. Yet Jesus does not condemn Thomas for addressing Him as his God. This means one of two things: either Jesus sinned by allowing Thomas to worship Him (in which case He is not sinless, and cannot be our savior), or He really is God. Those are the only two options.

Correct, if Jesus is not God, then it is idolatry to worship him. Where does it say Thomas worshiped him?
Of course, Jesus does not condemn Thomas for finally seeing who he was - the risen Lord and God, i.e. the Father --- Thomas finally believed that Jesus was raised from the dead and he finally SAW and KNEW Jesus and in that recoginition Thomas also saw and knew the Father.

If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him.”.....Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?

So which is it? Did Jesus sin, or is He God?

Scripture teaches that Jesus, the Son of God, the Messiah, God's anointed, God's Christ.

 

[Doug Brents]

Yes, but in the OT - Hosea 11:1 is about 'Israel, God's firstborn son' from Exodus 4:22.

That is my point.

Matthew, quoted in Hosea 11:1 because Jesus coming out of Egypt returning to Nazareth echoed what happened with the children of Israel. It was not and is not a Messianic prophecy.

The fact that Hos 11:1 was not understood as a prophecy until Matthew point it out as a prophecy is exactly my point. The understanding that the original hearer understood is not always the correct understanding. Matthew is pointing out that the verse that was understood previously as a recounting of what had already taken place was really a foretelling of what would happen to Jesus. I brought this verse up because you had said that we must always look to the original understanding of the verse to know what it means today. But that is not the case. Sometimes, new information and new connection lead to new understanding of what was said or done previously.

A person isn't a person until that person is conceived and born so not so absurd.

There you go again, contradicting yourself. God was never conceived, and was never born, yet you admit to God being a person. Yet now you say that a person is not really a person until they are conceived and born. You can't have it both ways.

Jesus was indeed a person before He was conceived and born.

I have repeated myself enough - the 'word' was not ontologically God - a word, uttered by a living voice, embodies a conception or idea was not and is not a person;

Scripture does not say that Jesus was a spoken word. It says that He was the Logos (the reasoning power) of God, and that He was God.

I believe I answered you: Was wisdom created? Created as in the manner of God is the source of wisdom? Yes.
Also dependent upon which translation you use - some translate the word 'created' as 'possessed' : The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.
So, either way God is the source of wisdom so yes, God 'created' wisdom and God 'possessed' wisdom.

Then wisdom is not, and cannot be God the Creator. But Jesus is God (John 1:1, 14), and Jesus is the Creator (John 1:3, 14).

Yes, and in almost every case where Jesus said 'I am' the translators added 'he' or some kind of predicate EXCEPT at John 8:58 - bias anyone?

Again, EVERY WORD that is used in the original text, and every word that is NOT USED in the original text is important. The fact that Jesus said "I AM", with no qualifier or modifier points back to the name that God used from the burning bush when speaking to Moses. Jesus was claiming that name, and was making the statement that He is God.

Correct, if Jesus is not God, then it is idolatry to worship him. Where does it say Thomas worshiped him?

He called Him "Lord" and "God". That is worship.

Of course, Jesus does not condemn Thomas for finally seeing who he was - the risen Lord and God, i.e. the Father --- Thomas finally believed that Jesus was raised from the dead and he finally SAW and KNEW Jesus and in that recoginition Thomas also saw and knew the Father.

If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him.”.....Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?

Scripture teaches that Jesus, the Son of God, the Messiah, God's anointed, God's Christ.

Thomas was not speaking to or about the Father. He called Jesus, "GOD". Now, either that was blasphemy, and Thomas and Jesus both sinned. Or Jesus is God, and there was no sin.

Those are the ONLY options. Which is it?

 

[JesusFan]

That is my point.

The fact that Hos 11:1 was not understood as a prophecy until Matthew point it out as a prophecy is exactly my point. The understanding that the original hearer understood is not always the correct understanding. Matthew is pointing out that the verse that was understood previously as a recounting of what had already taken place was really a foretelling of what would happen to Jesus. I brought this verse up because you had said that we must always look to the original understanding of the verse to know what it means today. But that is not the case. Sometimes, new information and new connection lead to new understanding of what was said or done previously.

There you go again, contradicting yourself. God was never conceived, and was never born, yet you admit to God being a person. Yet now you say that a person is not really a person until they are conceived and born. You can't have it both ways.

Jesus was indeed a person before He was conceived and born.

Scripture does not say that Jesus was a spoken word. It says that He was the Logos (the reasoning power) of God, and that He was God.

Then wisdom is not, and cannot be God the Creator. But Jesus is God (John 1:1, 14), and Jesus is the Creator (John 1:3, 14).

Again, EVERY WORD that is used in the original text, and every word that is NOT USED in the original text is important. The fact that Jesus said "I AM", with no qualifier or modifier points back to the name that God used from the burning bush when speaking to Moses. Jesus was claiming that name, and was making the statement that He is God.

He called Him "Lord" and "God". That is worship.

Thomas was not speaking to or about the Father. He called Jesus, "GOD". Now, either that was blasphemy, and Thomas and Jesus both sinned. Or Jesus is God, and there was no sin.

Those are the ONLY options. Which is it?

Thomas cleared called jesus his Lord and God, and jesus received that worship as being valid

 

[amazing grace]

That is my point.

The fact that Hos 11:1 was not understood as a prophecy until Matthew point it out as a prophecy is exactly my point. The understanding that the original hearer understood is not always the correct understanding. Matthew is pointing out that the verse that was understood previously as a recounting of what had already taken place was really a foretelling of what would happen to Jesus. I brought this verse up because you had said that we must always look to the original understanding of the verse to know what it means today. But that is not the case. Sometimes, new information and new connection lead to new understanding of what was said or done previously.

LOL In Exodus...... Come, I will send you to Pharaoh that you may bring my people, the children of Israel, out of Egypt.”........But Moses said to God, “Who am I that I should go to Pharaoh and bring the children of Israel out of Egypt?”
Every instance it is in regard to Israel, the children of Israel.......He said, “But I will be with you, and this shall be the sign for you, that I have sent you: when you have brought the people out of Egypt, you shall serve God on this mountain.” [Exodus 3:10-12]
Then Yahweh tells Moses to say to Pharaoh --- Then you shall say to Pharaoh, ‘Thus says the Lord, Israel is my firstborn son, and I say to you, “Let my son go that he may serve me.[4:22] Then in Hosea we see it also references the Israel: When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son. In each instance it is referring to the nation of Israel, the children of Israel.......

So, when Joseph takes Mary and Jesus to Egypt until the death of Herod and they return to Nazareth --- Matthew quotes Hosea 11:1 in reference to Jesus. That is the way the thing progresses --- no need to keep beating a dead horse!

There you go again, contradicting yourself. God was never conceived, and was never born, yet you admit to God being a person. Yet now you say that a person is not really a person until they are conceived and born. You can't have it both ways.

What am I contradicting: I have never said God was conceived nor was ever born. I agree with you which is why Jesus can't be God. I believe this is what I said:

<snip>
I would say that God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, is a spiritual being. <snip>

Jesus was indeed a person before He was conceived and born.

He was? Who was he? What was his name before he was conceived and born? Can you tell me of any other human being that has literally preexisted their birth?

Scripture does not say that Jesus was a spoken word. It says that He was the Logos (the reasoning power) of God, and that He was God.

Jesus is the logos in John 1 because people read him into that scripture.

Then wisdom is not, and cannot be God the Creator. But Jesus is God (John 1:1, 14), and Jesus is the Creator (John 1:3, 14).

I never said wisdom was the Creator. Jesus is not God in John 1:1 that has to be read into the scripture. Jesus is not the Creator in John 1:3 --- nothing was made that was made without God's powerful creative speech without God speaking it into being.

Again, EVERY WORD that is used in the original text, and every word that is NOT USED in the original text is important. The fact that Jesus said "I AM", with no qualifier or modifier points back to the name that God used from the burning bush when speaking to Moses. Jesus was claiming that name, and was making the statement that He is God.

No.....Again that is reading into the text.

Let me ask you something: Is Yahweh the Father in the OT? If Yahweh is the Father in the OT and he stated 'I AM' ..... AND then YOU say that Jesus is claiming to be Yahweh by using I AM --- YOU are claiming Jesus is the Father.

He called Him "Lord" and "God". That is worship.

Thomas was not speaking to or about the Father. He called Jesus, "GOD". Now, either that was blasphemy, and Thomas and Jesus both sinned. Or Jesus is God, and there was no sin.

Those are the ONLY options. Which is it?

I don't consider that worship.

The other option would be to scripture decide. Did Jesus tell the disciples of which Thomas was one:
If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him.”.....Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?
What is the problem with Thomas seeing the risen Lord and God the Father in him?

 

[amazing grace]

<snip> Now notice the different spelling of Θεόν = ton Theon and Θεὸς = kai Theos

I submit these are not the same person.......! <snip>

Thats what I said cause the Greek tells it they are not one person

Theon = accusative case form of theos
ἐν (in) ἀρχῇ (beginning) ἦν (was) ὁ (the) λόγος (logos/word) καὶ (and) ὁ (the) λόγος (logos/word) ἦν (was) πρὸς (with/towards/in the presence of) τὸν (ton, the - accusative article) θεόν (God) καὶ (and) θεὸς (God) ἦν (was) ὁ (the) λόγος (logos/word)

----- they are not the same person????? I'm just wondering what do you mean by they are not the same person???
And if 'theon' is a different person from 'theos' -- why and how are they different persons?

I guess FreeInChrist still has me on ignore.

Does anyone else agree with this and can they answer my question?

 

[Doug Brents]

LOL In Exodus...... Come, I will send you to Pharaoh that you may bring my people, the children of Israel, out of Egypt.”........But Moses said to God, “Who am I that I should go to Pharaoh and bring the children of Israel out of Egypt?”
Every instance it is in regard to Israel, the children of Israel.......He said, “But I will be with you, and this shall be the sign for you, that I have sent you: when you have brought the people out of Egypt, you shall serve God on this mountain.” [Exodus 3:10-12]
Then Yahweh tells Moses to say to Pharaoh --- Then you shall say to Pharaoh, ‘Thus says the Lord, Israel is my firstborn son, and I say to you, “Let my son go that he may serve me.[4:22] Then in Hosea we see it also references the Israel: When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son. In each instance it is referring to the nation of Israel, the children of Israel.......

So, when Joseph takes Mary and Jesus to Egypt until the death of Herod and they return to Nazareth --- Matthew quotes Hosea 11:1 in reference to Jesus.

Thank you for making my point for me, even though you still cannot see what that point is; smh.

What am I contradicting: I have never said God was conceived nor was ever born. I agree with you which is why Jesus can't be God. I believe this is what I said:

Precisely. You say that the Father was never conceived or born, and then you say that a person is not a real person if they have not been conceived or born, but then you claim that the Father is a real person. You are confused, even within your own doctrine.

He was? Who was he? What was his name before he was conceived and born?

He was God (John 1:1). He was "I AM" (John 8:58).

Can you tell me of any other human being that has literally preexisted their birth?

Of course not; that is part of what makes Jesus unique.

Jesus is the logos in John 1 because people read him into that scripture.

Of course He is the Logos of John 1:1, because John 1:14 tells us that the Logos took on flesh and lived as a man, and then it tells us that John came leading the way for Him, and then John identifies Jesus as the One for whom he is leading the way.

I never said wisdom was the Creator.

The Logos of God (which is God) is responsible for the creation of everything that was made. That means that the Logos of God CANNOT be a created thing. Wisdom is a created thing. That means there is no correlation between the two.

Jesus is not God in John 1:1 that has to be read into the scripture.

See above, no "reading into" necessary.

Jesus is not the Creator in John 1:3 --- nothing was made that was made without God's powerful creative speech without God speaking it into being.

Jesus is the Logos of God. The Logos of God is responsible for the creation of everything that was made. Therefore, Jesus is responsible for Creation.

No.....Again that is reading into the text.

keep telling yourself that, if it makes your nonsense easier to swallow.

Let me ask you something: Is Yahweh the Father in the OT? If Yahweh is the Father in the OT and he stated 'I AM' ..... AND then YOU say that Jesus is claiming to be Yahweh by using I AM --- YOU are claiming Jesus is the Father.

No, I am not. God was the one speaking through the Burning Bush (Exo 3:4). And from the Bush, God said His name is "I AM!". Jesus says He is "I AM!" in John 8:58. Thus, it was Jesus speaking to Moses from the Bush.

I don't consider that worship.

Then you don't understand Scripture very well.

The other option would be to scripture decide. Did Jesus tell the disciples of which Thomas was one:
If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him.”.....Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?
What is the problem with Thomas seeing the risen Lord and God the Father in him?

The problem with that is what YOU are READING INTO the text. You can't stand the fact that Thomas called Jesus "God", and so you have to rationalize it in your mind to twist what Scripture says and assume that you knew what Thomas was thinking almost 2000 years ago. You can't take Scripture at its word and believe what it literally says, because as I have pointed out that would destroy your whole false doctrine on who you think Jesus is.

 

[360watt]

I sure wish I had more than a miniscule amount of time to devote to this forum. I'm mostly a lurker here.

Fwiw, as someone who is not decided, grew up trinitarian, and now I'm up for grabs but lean unitarian, here's my rough take. The case for Unitarianism is almost the strongest insofar as what the Bible does NOT say if Trinitarianism were true. It would be so easy for God to have been clearer than he was if he wanted us to believe the doctrine. Instead, all Trinitarian proof-texts happen to be open to an interpretation that is not necessarily favorable to the Trinity.

When I was a firm trinitarian, I would find myself thinking, "why didn't you just say it, God?" Use a term such "God the Son" even one time. Just say "the Father, the son, and the holy spirit are the three that make up God." But he didn't, and I am no longer able to get past that fact.

Unitarianism for sure has higher prior probability as well, since it doesn't require us to go against God-given arithmetical laws (eg 3 and 1, 100% man, 100% God, etc)

The funny thing is I don't ascribe a great deal of importance to which side is correct. The much clearer passages stand regardless (e.g. Jesus is the savior). However....

Trinitarianism is seen as a non-monotheistic doctrine and actively prevents very many of other religions to open their hearts to Christianity. There is no doubt about that fact. I tend to believe that if not for Trinitarianism, Christianity would have a much larger lead on Islam than it currently does, for example.

Due all the above, the burden of proof rests extremely heavily on the Trinitarian to prove the case. I agree with the OP, the reasoning for a trinity tends to be circular. It starts with what nearly all of us grew up believing as kids and goes from there, shoe-horning inconvenient factors into itself.

My $.02.

If Jesus is God, you've got a trinity.

The proof starts with Jesus's deity.

A mortal man can forgive sin itself? Not just the person who directly offended them? I.e.. Jesus telling people their sins are forgiven.

A mortal man can see someone he is no where near? I.e.. Nathaneal.

A mortal man can change the rules of the Sabbath? I.e. Jesus heals on the Sabbath.

This isn't just power given Jesus by the Father..from immortal being to a mortal man..Jesus is doing these types of things in the NT often by His own power.

 

[AaronH]

Oh, But HE DID. I have no idea what translation of the bible you use so you make sure you check your own on this..

BUt of the Son He says.......

IN HEBREWS 1:8 NASB95 But of the Son He says, “YOUR THRONE, O GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER, AND THE RIGHTEOUS SCEPTER IS THE SCEPTER OF HIS KINGDOM.

And just in case you are a diehard KJV only guy...

But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

As @Runningman mentioned, others are spoken of as God in the bible. My phrasing was particular purposely - "God the Father" is spoken 9 times in the New Testament. "God the Son" is mentioned zero times. It's not proof of anything necessarily, but certainly interesting if Trinitarianism is true. God could have been very clear about the Trinity, and if it's a central doctrine, it odd to say the least that wasn't.

 

[FreeInChrist]

As @Runningman mentioned, others are spoken of as God in the bible. My phrasing was particular purposely - "God the Father" is spoken 9 times in the New Testament. "God the Son" is mentioned zero times. It's not proof of anything necessarily, but certainly interesting if Trinitarianism is true. God could have been very clear about the Trinity, and if it's a central doctrine, it odd to say the least that wasn't.

Well, Heb 1:8 is clear enough for me whet the dad says of the son... "Your" throne, oh God.... that is one for certain from the one who should know.

No matter.... To each their own....