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

[Peterlag]

It doesn't matter that He didn't exist physically; what matters is that HE EXISTED!! (thank you for finally admitting that He existed before Adam and Eve.)

Now, back to John 1:14: the Word/Logos that/who existed before Creation (from eternity) left Heaven to take on flesh as a man that we know as Jesus the Christ. And this is the same Word/Logos that was with God and was God. Which means that the Jesus, the Word/Logos, is God.

No we can't get back to John 1:14 because you still have a reading problem which is why you can't understand the Bible. I did not finally admit that He existed before Adam. I said Jesus existed before anyone except for Adam...

 

[Doug Brents]

No we can't get back to John 1:14 because you still have a reading problem which is why you can't understand the Bible. I did not finally admit that He existed before Adam. I said Jesus existed before anyone except for Adam...

My apologies, I did indeed miss the word "except". Forgive me please.
But that brings up a serious question. Were Adam and Eve created?

 

[mikesw]

Even today in our country in English we still speak like that. We may say the word came down from upstairs meaning from the boss.

The trinitarian has only 3 to pick from...

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.

And basically that's all trinitarians have. And I mean 100 percent of what they have. They have nothing else.

all that is needed to prove unitarians wrong are the passages of the divine One who becomes incarnate as Jesus and the verses speaking of Jesus as God.
This is a great video revolving around the book that Rob Bowman has written

 

[Peterlag]

My apologies, I did indeed miss the word "except". Forgive me please.
But that brings up a serious question. Were Adam and Eve created?

No Adam and Eve were not created. They were born. Ask me if you want to know who their mother was.

 

[mikesw]

No Adam and Eve were not created. They were born. Ask me if you want to know who their mother was.

oh my. I wonder what the broader explanation will be of this. Is this a new, unique, gnostic doctrine of unitarians?

 

[Doug Brents]

No Adam and Eve were not created. They were born. Ask me if you want to know who their mother was.

That is not what Scripture tells us. God formed the earth into the body of Adam (Gen 2:7), then He breathed into the body a living spirit (also in Gen 2:7), and that was the man (Adam). Then He took a rib from the man and made it into a woman (Gen 2:21-22). Their bodies were made of the earth God had already created (man) and from the man (woman). But they were not "born".

But I would love to hear your cock and bull story about how you think they were "born", and who their "mother" was. That would make a great novel.

 

[JesusFan]

Even today in our country in English we still speak like that. We may say the word came down from upstairs meaning from the boss.

The trinitarian has only 3 to pick from...

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.

And basically that's all trinitarians have. And I mean 100 percent of what they have. They have nothing else.

Actually, we have the Greek text, Greek Grammar and construction, and all that you have is just refusing to accept what the bible Teaches to us who Jesus is

 

[Grace ambassador]

Actually, we have the Greek text, Greek Grammar and construction, and all that you have is just refusing to accept what the bible Teaches to us who Jesus is

Precious friend, Actually, God's Precious Word to us "in our own language" Is Quite Sufficient,
since most simpletons like myself will "Never be foreign language Experts", eh? Also consider this:

One thought is that when all the critics of God's Sound Doctrine are dead and buried,

His Eternally Settled And Unchangeable WORD Will Still Be Alive and Marching On:​

​

"For There Are Three That Bear Record in heaven, The Father,​

The WORD, and The Holy Ghost: and These Three Are One."​

(1 John 5:7 AV)​

Here is a Complete study, if / just in the rare case anyone decides they are interested:

Over 160 Reasons The LORD JESUS Christ Is Almighty God!!!​

+
Praying hopefully "Before they are dead and buried" they review prayerfully And Carefully:

God's Final Judgment!!

----------------------
And, precious friend(s), Please Be Very Richly Encouraged and Edified
In The Lord God Jesus Christ and In His Precious Word Of Truth, Rightly
Divided:

The Bible: The BIG Picture

Amen.

 

[Peterlag]

Actually, we have the Greek text, Greek Grammar and construction, and all that you have is just refusing to accept what the bible Teaches to us who Jesus is

The Trinity does not come from Scripture. It comes from the doctrine of devils that the churches teach (and in most cases it's the first thing they teach) and then they begin to look for Scripture that supports such a concept. They do this by taking the verses out of context, or not understanding how the words were used in the culture they were written in, or from a bad translation.

There's reasons why the Bible does not teach the Trinity in one whole paragraph in a few different places or a whole chapter or two on it. There's reasons why there's no teaching on why God would come to the earth as a man. There's reasons why there was never a debate about the Trinity in Scripture like we see with justification by works or who should be circumcised. Such an important subject matter like the Trinity and the Bible is silent on all of it.

And there's the spinning and twisting from the trinitarians who can't come up with one verse in the Bible that says we should believe or confess that Jesus is God. Trinitarians who can't come up with one verse that says why God would come to the earth as a man. Trinitarians who have to make up their own words that are not in the Bible. Words like Trinity, Deity, and Incarnated.

If any of this nonsense was true and since it's so important and a huge subject to Christianity and is necessary for salvation like many teach. Then it would have been taught by someone somewhere. And it is not.

 

[Peterlag]

 

[Runningman]

Jesus is called God in the Bible...

Elohim is translated into Greek as Theos. Now let's look at how the word "Theos" is used in the Greek.

Exodus 21:6
Then his master shall bring him before Theos; and shall bring him to the door, or unto the doorpost; and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall serve him forever.
"Theos refers to human judges."

Exodus 22:8
If the thief is not found, then the master of the house shall be brought before Theos, to see whether he has laid his hand on his neighbor’s goods.
"Men judging in a legal court."

Exodus 22:9
For every matter of trespass, the cause of both parties shall come before Theos; and whom Theos condemns, he shall pay double to his neighbor.
"Human authority issuing judgment."

Psalm 82:6
I said, you are Theoi, and all of you are sons of the Most High.
"Theoi is the plural of Theos and here it is spoken to men who are mortal rulers."

Psalm 82:1
Theos stands in the assembly of Theoi; he judges in the midst of the Theoi.
"Rulers judging rulers."

Now look at the same verses in Hebrew.

Exodus 21:6
Then his master shall bring him unto the Elohim; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the doorpost; and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall serve him for ever.
"Human judges with legal authority."

Exodus 22:8
If the thief be not found, then the master of the house shall be brought unto the Elohim, to see whether he have put his hand unto his neighbour’s goods.
"Court setting with men judging."

Exodus 22:9
For all manner of trespass, the cause of both parties shall come before the Elohim; and whom the Elohim shall condemn, he shall pay double unto his neighbour.
"Men judging disputes."

Psalm 82:6
I have said, Ye are Elohim; and all of you are children of the Most High.
"Mortal human rulers."

Psalm 82:1
Elohim standeth in the congregation of Elohim; he judgeth among the Elohim.
"Rulers judging rulers."

Elohim equals Theos.
Both words apply to men.
Both function as titles of authority.

cc: @Runningman

There are many gods, sons of God, etc but no one else aside from the Father is identified as Lord God Almighty.

 

[synergy]

There are many gods, sons of God, etc but no one else aside from the Father is identified as Lord God Almighty.

The New Testament explicitly applies Yahweh’s own titles, prerogatives, and worship to the Son—calling Him Lord in the fullest divine sense (Phil. 2:9–11; Rom. 10:9–13), identifying Him as the Alpha and Omega (Rev. 1:17; 22:13), and placing Him on the throne receiving the same worship as “the One who sits on the throne” (Rev. 5:13–14). Moreover, passages that speak of one Almighty God never isolate the Father in contrast to the Son; they affirm the unity of the Godhead, not a hierarchy of lesser deities (Deut. 6:4; John 10:30; 1 Cor. 8:6). To insist that only the Father may bear the divine name while the Son shares His throne, glory, works of creation, authority to judge, and universal worship is not fidelity to Scripture—it is an artificial restriction imposed on the text to avoid its clear Christological force (Isa. 44:24; John 1:3; Col. 1:16–17; John 5:22–23; Rev. 5:12–14).

Do you offer the same worship to Jesus as you do to “the One who sits on the throne”?

 

[synergy]

View attachment 2808

Matthew 24:36 speaks from the standpoint of the Son’s Incarnate Mission, not from a denial of His Deity. In becoming truly human, the eternal Son assumed a human mind and lived in obedient submission to the Father (John 1:14; Phil. 2:6–7), so He did not always exercise or disclose the full scope of divine knowledge during His earthly ministry (Luke 2:52). The verse addresses role and revelation, not nature/essence. Within the Trinity there is order without inequality (John 10:30), and “not knowing” reflects what the Father had not authorized the Son to reveal at that time (Acts 1:7), not a lack of divine omniscience. In short, Matthew 24:36 a statement of Incarnational humility, not nature/essence deficiency.

 

[civic]

all that is needed to prove unitarians wrong are the passages of the divine One who becomes incarnate as Jesus and the verses speaking of Jesus as God.
This is a great video revolving around the book that Rob Bowman has written

Rob is awesome I was able to coerce him years ago to participate on an old forum several of us were on to debate some unitarians. He posted for quite a while and interacted with them. He is a great guy and a real good apologist, one of my favorites. I have most of his books. I remember he really liked one of my defenses for 1 John 5:20-21 which was new for him and commended me for the exegesis.

 

[mikesw]

The Trinity does not come from Scripture. It comes from the doctrine of devils that the churches teach (and in most cases it's the first thing they teach) and then they begin to look for Scripture that supports such a concept. They do this by taking the verses out of context, or not understanding how the words were used in the culture they were written in, or from a bad translation.

There's reasons why the Bible does not teach the Trinity in one whole paragraph in a few different places or a whole chapter or two on it. There's reasons why there's no teaching on why God would come to the earth as a man. There's reasons why there was never a debate about the Trinity in Scripture like we see with justification by works or who should be circumcised. Such an important subject matter like the Trinity and the Bible is silent on all of it.

And there's the spinning and twisting from the trinitarians who can't come up with one verse in the Bible that says we should believe or confess that Jesus is God. Trinitarians who can't come up with one verse that says why God would come to the earth as a man. Trinitarians who have to make up their own words that are not in the Bible. Words like Trinity, Deity, and Incarnated.

If any of this nonsense was true and since it's so important and a huge subject to Christianity and is necessary for salvation like many teach. Then it would have been taught by someone somewhere. And it is not.

so Peterlag calls it a doctrine of devils when explaining how the scriptures are not contradictory in showing that the pre-existent One who became flesh as Jesus while not contradicting the Shema. Knowledge and understanding are being rejected by his assertion

 

[mikesw]

Rob is awesome I was able to coerce him years ago to participate on an old forum several of us were on to debate some unitarians. He posted for quite a while and interacted with them. He is a great guy and a real good apologist, one of my favorites. I have most of his books. I remember he really liked one of my defenses for 1 John 5:20-21 which was new for him and commended me for the exegesis.

That is great to hear he did that interaction. It certainly is helpful to see how the unitarians push their ideas with so many exegetical errors. That would help rather than hinder Rob. He was recommended to me and deserves that recommendation 100%.
Also, I think it works well to hear arguments for the Triune God from many sources. There are so many details that show Christ as the pre-existent One that it is hard to keep track of them all.

 

[civic]

That is great to hear he did that interaction. It certainly is helpful to see how the unitarians push their ideas with so many exegetical errors. That would help rather than hinder Rob. He was recommended to me and deserves that recommendation 100%.
Also, I think it works well to hear arguments for the Triune God from many sources. There are so many details that show Christ as the pre-existent One that it is hard to keep track of them all.

I just listened to his explanation on John 17:5 and 17:22 about glory and I agree with the distinction he made.

 

[Runningman]

The New Testament explicitly applies Yahweh’s own titles, prerogatives, and worship to the Son—calling Him Lord in the fullest divine sense (Phil. 2:9–11; Rom. 10:9–13), identifying Him as the Alpha and Omega (Rev. 1:17; 22:13), and placing Him on the throne receiving the same worship as “the One who sits on the throne” (Rev. 5:13–14). Moreover, passages that speak of one Almighty God never isolate the Father in contrast to the Son; they affirm the unity of the Godhead, not a hierarchy of lesser deities (Deut. 6:4; John 10:30; 1 Cor. 8:6). To insist that only the Father may bear the divine name while the Son shares His throne, glory, works of creation, authority to judge, and universal worship is not fidelity to Scripture—it is an artificial restriction imposed on the text to avoid its clear Christological force (Isa. 44:24; John 1:3; Col. 1:16–17; John 5:22–23; Rev. 5:12–14).

Do you offer the same worship to Jesus as you do to “the One who sits on the throne”?

Revelation 5:7-14 proves that the Lamb is not the One on the throne because not only did the Lamb approach the throne, the Lamb isn't on the throne where they were worshipping. Conclusion, no worship of the Lamb in Revelation 5 either explicitly or inferred.

Jesus doesn't share any of God's names, and there are about a dozen titles he doesn't share with God. Probably the biggest issue is that Jesus isn't even the same person as God, never called The God, never called Lord God Almighty, never called YHWH, etc. It's a long list.

 

[360watt]

View attachment 2808

Compare this verse with verses where Jesus accepts worship, forgives sin itself, walks on water, calms the storm. Obviously having fully divine attributes.

There is no contradictions in scripture, so what is going on?

Jesus was 100 percent God...but also 100 percent human.

So when only the Father knows something, this would be to do with Jesus as limiting Himself in human form.

But also.. what are the verse around this saying? It doesn't stand alone. Is it actually saying Jesus doesn't know at all, or something else?

 

[360watt]

Matthew 24:36 speaks from the standpoint of the Son’s Incarnate Mission, not from a denial of His Deity. In becoming truly human, the eternal Son assumed a human mind and lived in obedient submission to the Father (John 1:14; Phil. 2:6–7), so He did not always exercise or disclose the full scope of divine knowledge during His earthly ministry (Luke 2:52). The verse addresses role and revelation, not nature/essence. Within the Trinity there is order without inequality (John 10:30), and “not knowing” reflects what the Father had not authorized the Son to reveal at that time (Acts 1:7), not a lack of divine omniscience. In short, Matthew 24:36 a statement of Incarnational humility, not nature/essence deficiency.

Better put than I have, thank you