so somehow you are saying that because you don't believe the passages about the scripture observations of Yahweh appearing also as the Angel of Yahweh therefore we too should be unitarians.
The Trinity and all of its supporting doctrines are all circular in reasoning
- Thread starter Runningman
- Start date
Runningman
Active Member
Messengers speaks on behalf of someone else, not as the same person they are speaking for. You are confusing basic words to mean something they don't mean.
Runningman
Active Member
You mean here where the angel of the LORD and the LORD aren't the same person, thus proving one isn't the other? Similar to "JesusFan" you're going to have a mountain to climb if you think that you can prove that God is an angel. I will let you use all of your energy and words trying before I contradict you with Scripture. Go for it if you wish.
Zechariah 1
12Then the angel of the LORD said, “How long, O LORD of Hosts, will You withhold mercy from Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, with which You have been angry these seventy years?”
13So the LORD spoke kind and comforting words to the angel who was speaking with me.
oh wow. You find one passage that might sound different from the several cases where it shown the Angel is called Yahweh. That again shows the weakness of unitarian interpretations. I'm so glad you gave another example of doing that error.
Doug Brents
Active Member
None of that matters in the least. It is irrelevant that these words, or any others like them, are not used in Scripture. The concepts are there.
That is a lie. You have been shown where it is taught. The fact that you refuse to see it is not our, or God's, fault.
You are right, most of that is nonsense. The only one that is even close to accurate is the next to last one. There are clues, hints, and outright, explicit declarations that God is three in one. But again, those like yourself who are willfully blind, and/or within Satan's grasp will not see it. Not that they cannot, but they/you will not see it.
Peterlag
Active Member
No, I don't want to see the word trinity in the Bible...
I want to see the trinity doctrine taught in the Bible and if it's not taught by the Jews and that means the Old Testament Prophets and not the unbelieving Jews you guys always throw in my face. And if it's not taught in the New Testament. Then it's not a biblical concept.
I would like one verse that actually calls Jesus God the Son.
One verse that actually says Jesus is a god-man.
One verse that actually says we must believe Jesus is God.
One verse that actually says we must believe God is three persons.
One verse out of approximately 31,102 Bible verses that says God is Triune.
One verse that actually says Jesus is both 100 percent God and 100 percent man.
One verse that actually says Jesus is God because if it's that important of a doctrine it should have been plainly and clearly taught by someone somewhere.
amazing grace
Active Member
God sent an angel, a messenger to speak for Him and be Him?
This is a half-right statement of what scriptures says. It is closer to say the Angel is also Yahweh but distinct in some fashion from the other One who is Yahweh. The passages have been shared before so you can check for that and perhaps explain why the scriptures are wrong.
Doug Brents
Active Member
It doesn't matter that it was not a concept in the OT. Think of humanity as a single organism. When Adam walked with God, humanity was an infant. From Adam to Abraham, think of mankind as a toddler. From Abraham to Moses, think of mankind as a preteen. From Moses to Christ, think of mankind as a teenager. And from Christ on, think of mankind as an adult. Now, do you feed an infant on meat? No, you feed them milk. Thus, God emphasized His Oneness to the infant, just as parents emphasize their unity and solidarity to their children (to prevent them from playing mom against dad to get their way).
John 1:1 & 14. But you have been shown this many times.
Matt 28:19
There is not a single verse that says both. But there verses that say each separately: He is fully Human (Heb 2:7, Gal 4:4), and He is fully God (Col 2:9, Tit 2:13, John 8:58).
Again, John 1:1, 14.
The Word is God, and the Word became Jesus: Jesus is God.
amazing grace
Active Member
So, the messenger, the Angel of Yahweh is not actually someone sent by Yahweh to act on His behalf but is a being that is distinct from Yahweh but IS Yahweh? I've only seen one verse which Runningman posted, Zechariah 1 - where are the other verses? I wouldn't say the verses are wrong --- I would say that there is a better, less confusing way of understanding these scriptures which is in light of the Jewish priniciple of agency, a concept very familiar to OT Jewish believers.
Runningman
Active Member
They can't provide for those requests. They'll just start talking about their beliefs again instead.
Last edited:
The problem you possess is that you are looking through bias lens, that's all. Instead of researching the matter for yourself. The Isaiah 6 is exactly the Glory John quotes in John 14. You just refuse to believe it.
So again, I ask you. Who do you say the Son is? And I'll leave you with more Scripture.
The Preeminence of Christ
Colossians 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. 17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. 19 For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.
21 And you, who once were alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, 22 he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him, 23 if indeed you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel that you heard, which has been proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, became a minister.
21 And you, who once were alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, 22 he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him, 23 if indeed you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel that you heard, which has been proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, became a minister.
Runningman
Active Member
John 12:39,40 quotes what Isaiah was told to say:
John 12
39For this reason they were unable to believe. For again, Isaiah says:
Isaiah 6:9,10 quotes what God told Isaiah to say.
Isaiah 6
9And He replied:
“Go and tell this people,
‘Be ever hearing, but never understanding;
be ever seeing, but never perceiving.’
Obviously this is a reference to what Jesus would do in the future, a messianic prophecy, not a quote from Jesus.
You're asking what I am asking you. This passage proves that Jesus isn't God and places him in the creation. Begin with Colossians 1:15. Obviously fully context says Jesus is the messiah, not God.
Peterlag
Active Member
And telling me I'm blind because I cannot see it.
Peterlag
Active Member
The early church was always baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus until the development of the Trinity doctrine in the 2nd century. The Catholics acknowledge baptism was changed and Scripture such as Matthew 28:19 that was never in the Bible was added by them.
Baptism was changed from the name of Jesus to the words Father, Son and Holy Ghost in the 2nd Century. - Britannica Encyclopedia, 11th Edition, Volume 3, page 365.
The early church baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus until the second century. - Canney Encyclopedia of Religion, page 53.
Christian baptism was administered using the words "in the name of Jesus" page 377. Baptism was always done in the name of Jesus until the time of Justin Martyr, page 389. - Hastings Encyclopedia of Religion, Volume 2.
Here the authors acknowledged that the baptismal formula was changed by their church. - Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume 2, page 263.
The New Testament knows only the baptism in the name of Jesus. - Schaff & Herzog Religious Encyclopedia, Volume 1, page 435.
It must be acknowledged that the three-fold name of Matthew 28:19 does not appear to have been used by the primitive church, but rather in the name of Jesus, Jesus Christ or Lord Jesus. - Hastings Dictionary of Bible, page 88.
And concerning 1 John 5:7-8 where it has the words "In heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth" are words that are not found in any Greek Manuscript before the 15th or 16th century and in no ancient Version. - E. W. Bullinger., A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament: (London: Samuel Bagster & Sons, 1975), p. 11 of Appendix A.
Peterlag
Active Member
The doctrine of the Trinity cannot be justified on the basis of Scripture...
"The doctrine of the Trinity is not a biblical doctrine... it's the product of theological reflection." - The Christian Doctrine of God Trinitarian. E. Brunner, 1949, p. 236.
“Trinity is not a biblical doctrine" - New Bible Dictionary, J. Douglas, F. Bruce, 1982, p. 1298.
“Scholars generally agree that there is no doctrine of the Trinity as such in either the Old or the New Testament” - The Harper Collins Encyclopedia of Catholicism, 1995, p. 564.
“The Bible has no statements or speculations concerning a trinitary deity." - Encyclopedia Britannica, volume 12, p. 383, 1979.
“Three coequal partners in the Godhead cannot be clearly detected within the confines of the Bible. It's important to avoid reading the Trinity into places where it does not appear." - Oxford Companion to the Bible, Bruce Metzger, M. Coogan, p. 782-3.
“The doctrine of the Trinity is not present in biblical thought... it goes beyond, and even distorts, what the Bible says about God.” - A Contemporary Interpretation of the Trinity - God in Three Persons: Professor M. Erickson, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, p. 12, 20.
“The belief (in a Trinity-God) was reached only in the 4th and 5th centuries AD and hence is not explicitly and formally a biblical belief." - Dictionary of the Bible, 1995, (trinitarian) J. Mckenzie, p. 899.
“The doctrine of the Trinity was formulated in the post-biblical period." - Harper’s Bible Dictionary, 1985.
“In the New Testament there is no direct suggestion of a doctrine of the Trinity." - An Encyclopedia of Religion, V. Ferm (ed.), 1945, p. 344.
“No passage of Scripture discusses the threeness of God." - The New International Version. Disciples Study Bible, p. 173, note for Mt. 3:16.
“The Bible does not state that there is one God who exists in three persons” - Basic Theology, Professor C. Ryrie, p. 89.
“The Bible does not teach the doctrine of the Trinity” - Christian Doctrine, Professor S. Guthrie, Columbia Theological Seminary, 1994, p. 92.
“The doctrine of the Trinity cannot be justified on the basis of Scripture. Indeed it's hard to imagine Jesus speaking in such terms" - An Outline of Biblical Theology, Professor M. Burrows, Yale Divinity School, p. 81.
“The doctrine of God as existing in three persons and one substance is not demonstrable by scriptural proofs." - Hastings Dictionary of the Bible, 1898.
“There is in the Old Testament no indication of interior distinctions in the Godhead. And there is no doctrine of the Trinity in the New Testament” - The Known Bible and its Defense, Reverend M. Hembre, 1933, p. 25.
"The doctrine of the Trinity is not a biblical doctrine... it's the product of theological reflection." - The Christian Doctrine of God Trinitarian. E. Brunner, 1949, p. 236.
“Trinity is not a biblical doctrine" - New Bible Dictionary, J. Douglas, F. Bruce, 1982, p. 1298.
“Scholars generally agree that there is no doctrine of the Trinity as such in either the Old or the New Testament” - The Harper Collins Encyclopedia of Catholicism, 1995, p. 564.
“The Bible has no statements or speculations concerning a trinitary deity." - Encyclopedia Britannica, volume 12, p. 383, 1979.
“Three coequal partners in the Godhead cannot be clearly detected within the confines of the Bible. It's important to avoid reading the Trinity into places where it does not appear." - Oxford Companion to the Bible, Bruce Metzger, M. Coogan, p. 782-3.
“The doctrine of the Trinity is not present in biblical thought... it goes beyond, and even distorts, what the Bible says about God.” - A Contemporary Interpretation of the Trinity - God in Three Persons: Professor M. Erickson, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, p. 12, 20.
“The belief (in a Trinity-God) was reached only in the 4th and 5th centuries AD and hence is not explicitly and formally a biblical belief." - Dictionary of the Bible, 1995, (trinitarian) J. Mckenzie, p. 899.
“The doctrine of the Trinity was formulated in the post-biblical period." - Harper’s Bible Dictionary, 1985.
“In the New Testament there is no direct suggestion of a doctrine of the Trinity." - An Encyclopedia of Religion, V. Ferm (ed.), 1945, p. 344.
“No passage of Scripture discusses the threeness of God." - The New International Version. Disciples Study Bible, p. 173, note for Mt. 3:16.
“The Bible does not state that there is one God who exists in three persons” - Basic Theology, Professor C. Ryrie, p. 89.
“The Bible does not teach the doctrine of the Trinity” - Christian Doctrine, Professor S. Guthrie, Columbia Theological Seminary, 1994, p. 92.
“The doctrine of the Trinity cannot be justified on the basis of Scripture. Indeed it's hard to imagine Jesus speaking in such terms" - An Outline of Biblical Theology, Professor M. Burrows, Yale Divinity School, p. 81.
“The doctrine of God as existing in three persons and one substance is not demonstrable by scriptural proofs." - Hastings Dictionary of the Bible, 1898.
“There is in the Old Testament no indication of interior distinctions in the Godhead. And there is no doctrine of the Trinity in the New Testament” - The Known Bible and its Defense, Reverend M. Hembre, 1933, p. 25.
Similar threads
