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.