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

[Runningman]

Amazing how backwards you present things.

Jesus did shake up power. He removed power of the leaders of Jerusalem. You seem to pretend that Jesus is going to undo Christianity and leave it back to some unknown power. I guess that is your hope -- a removal of all knowledge of Christ.

You forget that you are introducing the novel, new, gnostic, private interpretation and cannot even defend your argument. You are doing like the JWs and the Mormonites in claiming that everything that was taught before your doctrine condemns people. I suppose you hope to be one of the 144,000 and not miss it by being 144,001.

All you have to do to convince people to unitarianism is to show that the evidence in scripture of the deity of Christ and his preexistence as the Word is untrustworthy. But you cannot even do that.

Amazing you have the audacity to explain Scripture using something that the Bible doesn't say and that you act genuinely amazed when others don't see what you are imagining. I am under no impression you will ever believe what the Bible says again, but that doesn't mean we won't stop showing you. You are free to argue against all of Jesus' explicit denials of deity, ignore all of the proof for the Father being the only true God, but that doesn't stop the train.

When you find any verses about the trinity in the Bible let's talk about it. Otherwise, I see you have lost every debate here.

 

[Doug Brents]

There are only a good eight verses in the entire New Testament that can be understood to say that Jesus is God, and every one of them can either be translated in a way that supports the Biblical Unitarian position, or disputed textually, or can be explained from the use of the word “God” in the culture. In contrast, the clear verses where Jesus is said to be a “man” such as when Peter or Paul taught their audiences that Jesus was a man appointed by God are not disputed and in the context there does not seem to be any good reason those men would not have said Jesus was a God-man if in fact that is what he is.

As you say, it is very clear that Jesus was, indeed, fully a human being during His life here on Earth.
But it is also equally clear that Jesus was Deity before He came to Earth as a man.
There are multiple passages that tell us that He came from Heaven.
There are multiple passages that tell us that He existed before Creation.
There are multiple passages that tell us that His contemporaries believed that He was blaspheming by claiming equality with the Father.
There are multiple passages that tell us that Jesus claimed to be God.
In Revelation, Jesus claims to be the source and end of everything that is (the first and last, the alpha and omega).
Jesus is said in at least two places to have been responsible for the Creation of everything that was made; and we are told elsewhere that it was God who did all creation.

None of these Scriptures are ambiguous, debatable, or vague in their interpretation.

 

[Peterlag]

As you say, it is very clear that Jesus was, indeed, fully a human being during His life here on Earth.
But it is also equally clear that Jesus was Deity before He came to Earth as a man.
There are multiple passages that tell us that He came from Heaven.
There are multiple passages that tell us that He existed before Creation.
There are multiple passages that tell us that His contemporaries believed that He was blaspheming by claiming equality with the Father.
There are multiple passages that tell us that Jesus claimed to be God.
In Revelation, Jesus claims to be the source and end of everything that is (the first and last, the alpha and omega).
Jesus is said in at least two places to have been responsible for the Creation of everything that was made; and we are told elsewhere that it was God who did all creation.

None of these Scriptures are ambiguous, debatable, or vague in their interpretation.

There are not multiple passages that say Jesus was in heaven before he came to the earth. Not even one passage. You think there are because you either...

1.) Use a verse from a bad translation.
2.) Use a verse that is taken out of context.
3.) Not understand how the words were used in the culture they were written in.

 

[amazing grace]

I have exposed Runningman's errors plenty of times with the scriptures he introduces. If you have not learned from those errors, all you are doing is repeating the same ones.
I have brought up scriptures of the deity of Christ and evidence of that but the scriptures are glossed over and thus ineffective in debate.

I consider the scriptures that supposedly give evidence of the deity of Christ are just that 'presuppositions' and I wouldn't say they are glossed over but are refuted in debate and isn't that the point of debate!

Uh. It is fine showing the errors and fallacies of unitarians when they bring up scriptures to push their ideas while denying the context. Also, for the benefit of Christians, I point out the errors of unitarian interpretation so they may know why the arguments are weak. It should be found acceptable to examine the interpretation techniques and expose the errors of the unitarian approach. Like I have noted several times, the Christadelphian assumes they have a clear understanding of "key" passages and then use that to override the testimony of the deity of Christ.
We have seen so many times and so many ways the error of generalizing the meaning of logos such that they will refuse that scriptures can exhibit metaleptical and metonymic approaches. The discussion obvious goes nowhere with unitarians since they just repeat the same problems over and over.

It has been my observance, although I am a bit biased and admit it unlike you guys! Unitarians are more sola scriptura and tota scriptura than Trinitarians. Most scripture brought up by the Trinitarian camp are ambiguous in that they can be grammatically challenged. Well, it is true that the general definition of logos is the definition of something said, something to do with speech, doctrine, teaching, etc. and it never means a person so why should the definition of logos CHANGE?

Where else would the discussion go with Unitarians but with a denial of the Triune God? It could be said of both camps ---- Where does the discussion go with Trinitarians? NOWHERE.

Okay. You admit that you skip that in John 1:1-18. But beyond that, there are no clear passages that are so powerful that they blow away the passages that kill the unitarian view. I have noted that we see one-verse unitarians. The big example is taking John 17:3 as saying the Father is the only true god while denying verse 5 that shows Jesus sharing glory with the Father before his incarnation.

I know I have discussed John 1:1c from a grammatical standpoint and I have said that the 'word' became flesh in the Son from the Father so I don't know which verses I skip in my studying.

I have noticed one-verse Trinitarians also so that cannot be only relegated to the Unitarian camp. The OT prophecies of the coming Messiah, the first three Gospels of the New Testament seem to get totally wiped out with the Gospel of John which was not the authors intent.

I agree with John 17:3 without ignoring John 17:5 - it's just that my understanding of Jesus' preexsistence is notional (in God's plans, purposes and foreknowledge) whereas the Trinitarian the preexistence of Jesus is literal and therefore the conclusion drawn from the Trinitarian camp is that ---- I have skipped and ignored John 17:5.

Indeed it is just a marketing campaign since the unitarians just repeat the same stuff over and over. The question never has been whether Jesus is human. The question is about the preexistent Word that became incarnate.

And the Trinitarian camp doesn't repeat the same stuff over and over???
That's not the question at all ---- the question is --- Is Jesus God? and round and round we go starting all over again beginning with John 1:1.

Haha. There is no reason to deny the meaning of Son of God being applied uniquely to Jesus as a title except that Jesus preexists as the Word before becoming incarnate. It is odd that unitarians normally being hyperliteralists then neglect the significance of the words Son of God. Then they jump in quickly to dismiss the way that Jesus avoids being seen as a second god, namely the Trinitarian doctrine. If you have another way of reconciling the preexisting Word being God and being incarnated as Jesus, you can start to explain why Jesus is not a separate god but the same preexistence.

Who denies the meaning of the 'Son of God'? It is a title which is synonymous with the Christ, making it a Messianic title for Jesus.
“You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” [Matthew 16:16]
“I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.” [Matthew 26:63]
Even the demons knew that Son of God referenced the Messiah......And demons also came out of many, crying, “You are the Son of God!” But he rebuked them and would not allow them to speak, because they knew that he was the Christ. [Luke 4:41]
She said to him, “Yes, Lord; I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God, who is coming into the world.” [John 11:27]
but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. [John 20:31]
WE neglect the words of Jesus?......that is laughable! I have explained my position on John 1:1c as you well know.
I never claimed that Jesus is 'god' or a second 'god'. It is not the Unitarian's position that there is God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit......count 'em.

I has helped the Trinitarian develop better understanding of Christ than if arguments were not attempted against the deity of Christ.

I'm sure they appreciate it.

 

[Doug Brents]

There are not multiple passages that say Jesus was in heaven before he came to the earth. Not even one passage.

John 1:1 - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:14 - And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us; and we saw His glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.
John 3:13 - No one has ascended into heaven, except He who descended from heaven: the Son of Man.
John 3:31 - He who comes from above is above all; the one who is only from the earth is of the earth and speaks of the earth. He who comes from heaven is above all.
John 6:38 - For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.
John 6:51 - I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats from this bread, he will live forever; and the bread which I will give for the life of the world also is My flesh.

Here are six passages that tell us that Jesus was in Heaven with God, and left Heaven to become a man on Earth.

 

[AaronH]

So when God the Father refers to His Son as God in Heb 1:8 that is a non-sequitur ro you?

I'm saying there are several verses in which people (who are clearly not God) are referred to as God. It's occasionally used as a rhetorical device. For reference: Psalm 82:6-7, John 10:34-35, Exodus 4:16. No capital letters in the original, so it can be a little confusing.

Suffice it to say, no, Hebrews 1:8 is not a trinitarian proof text. I'll go back to my oversimplified thesis. If the trinity were a central doctrine, it is very strange indeed that God did not make it much more clear in his word (when he easily could have). Given that the trinity defies mathematical laws and even serves as a stumbling block for monotheists who would otherwise be open to Christianity, I believe the burden of proof lies heavily upon the Trinitarian to prove their side.

 

[360watt]

That is precisely why I always ask you all for Scriptural evidence of your beliefs. I am not asking you all to just quote Scripture that says Jesus forgave sins, or that Jesus ascended/descended from heaven, or whatever other verses you all use to support your doctrines. I am asking you all to provide evidence that anyone in the 1st century or before, whether God or any of the prophets, believe what you do about the trinity. Otherwise, you are only providing an interpretation of something the Bible doesn't say, which is something any cultist is doing right now as we speak.

So what makes your interpretation any more credible? Let's establish credibility.

My turn:

I define God as the Father because that's what Jesus and Paul did (John 17:3, 1 Corinthians 8:6)

Your turn:

You define God as a trinity because of what who said?

Genesis 1.. God calling Himself and US. 'Let us make man in our image'

John 1.. the Word was with God and was God.

Baptism in the singular name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit.

Jesus, with the Father sent the Comforter.

In Revelation, Jesus is given titles used for the Father and is worshipped as the Lamb.

It goes on and on.

 

[Runningman]

Genesis 1.. God calling Himself and US. 'Let us make man in our image'

John 1.. the Word was with God and was God.

Baptism in the singular name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit.

Jesus, with the Father sent the Comforter.

In Revelation, Jesus is given titles used for the Father and is worshipped as the Lamb.

It goes on and on.

Your one verse does not even state that the Us and Our are God nor define them as such, so you still lack ay reference to a trinity.

So if God is an "Us" and "Our" then that must mean God is more than one person. That's what the plural personal pronouns Us and Our mean. So since that's what you say, why is God never called a They or Them or We in the entire Bible, but always a He, Him, His, I, etc?

 

[amazing grace]

Dont you throw your Ai at me.... I have 3 postings done over time that I can use when I am wanting to. Today I wanted to. I told you when you got tto a certain point to skip that because I realize it is tediously long but you are the one who said about lack of scriptures.... but wanted you to be certain to see the Aramaic references.

I guess I'm back on ignore.

Okay, thank you. There's nothing wrong with using AI - I also use it every now and then - but it was just SOOO much thrown at me at once that I probably responded with a little agitation - I do apologize for that.

Now, about the Aramaic - I don't think the Aramaic Bible in plain English is in the language Jesus spoke. I did a little in AI myself and it seems that the Aramaic dialect that Jesus spoke and the Syriac Peshitta dialect are distinct dialects from different regions and different time periods -- the Galilean Aramaic representing the language spoke during the time of Jesus. Galilean Aramaic was a distinct dialect of Middle Western Aramaic. The Syriac Peshitta NT translated from earlier Greek manuscripts into Aramaic emerging in final form in the 5th century AD.

I don't know how Aramaic text can differ so greatly but I looked at the reference from the George Lamsa bible John 8:20-24The most well-known Bible translated directly from Aramaic (specifically the Syriac Peshitta) is the Lamsa bible, also known as Holy Bible: From the Ancient Eastern Text by George M. Lamsa. It is translated from the Peshitta manuscripts, which serve as the standard, ancient Aramaic Bible for many Eastern churches. I don't know how Aramaic text can differ so greatly but I looked at the reference from the George Lamsa bible John 8:24-30

24I told you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am he, you will die in your sins. 25The Jews said, Who are you? Jesus said to them, Even though I should begin to speak to you, 26I have many things to say and to judge concerning you; but he who sent me is true; and I speak in the world only those things which I have heard from him. 27They did not understand that he spoke to them concerning the Father. 28Again Jesus said to them, When you have lifted up the Son of man, then you will understand that I am he, and I do nothing of my own accord; but as my Father has taught me, so I speak just like him. 29And he who sent me is with me; and my Father has never left me alone, because I always do what pleases him. 30While he was speaking these words, a great many believed in him. Whereas the text you quoted had "I said unto you that you shall died in your sins, for unless you shall believe that I AM THE LIVING GOD, you shall die in your sins." and v28) When you have lifted up the SON OF MAN, then you shall know that I AM THE LIVING GOD.......identifying the SON OF MAN as GOD????? So, no, I do not trust the translation.

 

[mikesw]

Amazing you have the audacity to explain Scripture using something that the Bible doesn't say and that you act genuinely amazed when others don't see what you are imagining. I am under no impression you will ever believe what the Bible says again, but that doesn't mean we won't stop showing you. You are free to argue against all of Jesus' explicit denials of deity, ignore all of the proof for the Father being the only true God, but that doesn't stop the train.

I have not quite found you capable of teaching what the Bible says. Your approach is like the Christadelphians who seem to treat some verses as key to rejecting the testimony of scripture about the deity of Christ.
If you figure I would not believe what the Bible says, it would only be because your posts have distorted the meaning too much.

When you find any verses about the trinity in the Bible let's talk about it. Otherwise, I see you have lost every debate here.

Again, all you have to see is John 1 that shows the deity of Christ and that undoes all unitarian arguments. That is where you break up some ideas into hyperliteralist meaning -- like the generalized, impotent use of logos to simply mean "word" in a vocal or written sense. Then you deny that Word has been with God before creation and then is among humanity through Christ. When you have some convincing arguments against JOhn 1, share them.

 

[mikesw]

I consider the scriptures that supposedly give evidence of the deity of Christ are just that 'presuppositions' and I wouldn't say they are glossed over but are refuted in debate and isn't that the point of debate!

John wrote with the likely presupposition that people would be aware of Philo's and the Greek religionists' message about the logos being conscious participant in the creation of the world.
If the unitarian ever finds glossing over of the sort the unitarians do in John 1, that can be pointed out.

It has been my observance, although I am a bit biased and admit it unlike you guys! Unitarians are more sola scriptura and tota scriptura than Trinitarians. Most scripture brought up by the Trinitarian camp are ambiguous in that they can be grammatically challenged.

Ah. So you are unbiased, as if you are not reading passages about preexistence as if they are just some unusual, ignorant way of sharing about prophetic anticipation. I will have to think about your qualifications to be so unbiased that half of scripture gets diluted by your studies.
All you have to do is figure out some convincing argument against the testimony of scripture of the deity of Christ. Until then, your doctrine remains novel, new, gnostic, private beliefs.

Well, it is true that the general definition of logos is the definition of something said, something to do with speech, doctrine, teaching, etc. and it never means a person so why should the definition of logos CHANGE?

Like I mentioned, unitarians prove to be hyperliteralists who rely on the unitarian pocket dictionary to interpret scripture rather than the actual metaleptical and metonymic uses found notably in John 1. If I call you a rose, that does not mean the dictionaries have to be updated to include you as another definition.

Where else would the discussion go with Unitarians but with a denial of the Triune God? It could be said of both camps ---- Where does the discussion go with Trinitarians? NOWHERE.

I know I have discussed John 1:1c from a grammatical standpoint and I have said that the 'word' became flesh in the Son from the Father so I don't know which verses I skip in my studying.

I have noticed one-verse Trinitarians also so that cannot be only relegated to the Unitarian camp. The OT prophecies of the coming Messiah, the first three Gospels of the New Testament seem to get totally wiped out with the Gospel of John which was not the authors intent.

I agree with John 17:3 without ignoring John 17:5 - it's just that my understanding of Jesus' preexsistence is notional (in God's plans, purposes and foreknowledge) whereas the Trinitarian the preexistence of Jesus is literal and therefore the conclusion drawn from the Trinitarian camp is that ---- I have skipped and ignored John 17:5.

And the Trinitarian camp doesn't repeat the same stuff over and over???
That's not the question at all ---- the question is --- Is Jesus God? and round and round we go starting all over again beginning with John 1:1.

Who denies the meaning of the 'Son of God'? It is a title which is synonymous with the Christ, making it a Messianic title for Jesus.
“You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” [Matthew 16:16]
“I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.” [Matthew 26:63]
Even the demons knew that Son of God referenced the Messiah......And demons also came out of many, crying, “You are the Son of God!” But he rebuked them and would not allow them to speak, because they knew that he was the Christ. [Luke 4:41]
She said to him, “Yes, Lord; I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God, who is coming into the world.” [John 11:27]
but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. [John 20:31]
WE neglect the words of Jesus?......that is laughable! I have explained my position on John 1:1c as you well know.
I never claimed that Jesus is 'god' or a second 'god'. It is not the Unitarian's position that there is God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit......count 'em.

I'm sure they appreciate it.