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

[Runningman]

Sure there is, Runningman. A verse in the book of Daniel, as one example:

"He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form
of the fourth is like the Son of God." Daniel 3:25 KJB

Which Son of God? And why is "the Son of God" the correct translation when most Bible's say "like a son of the gods" in Daneil 3:25?

Then there's a verse in the book of Isaiah, as another example:

"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace." Isaiah 9:6 KJB

If Jesus Christ isn't God, then this verse above is nothing but utter confusion. Jesus said that He & His Father are one. Notice The everlasting Father mentioned there? We should never underestimate how Satan operates, warring after our minds. Study how he operates like one studies his boxing opponent before stepping into the ring.

You're close by acknowledging that verse as utter confusion. Jesus isn't the "everlasting Father" in trinitarianism and wasn't called any of those other names or titles by anyone of any authority, making it read like a failed prophecy. So we know there must be something utterly confused about the translation. The translation you have quoted above is one of a few different ways to translate that verse, but translations must maintain the integrity and consistency of Scripture. Have you read the LXX of this verse or the CJB?

No son overall is greater than his father in hierarchy, humanly speaking. However, we're talking about Almighty God here. There is scripture that clearly shows how all Three (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) worked together in unison, resurrecting Jesus Christ on the third day. You can't get around that, Runningman.

Never read anything like that in any Bible. I have seen commentators and apologists say that, but never any proof from Scripture. What are you referring to exactly?

 

[mikesw]

The entire section I quoted, but I'll give a snippet from that which makes it clear what he believes about the Word:

"The Word as creative, and embodying generally the divine will, is personified in Hebrew poetry (Psalm 33:6; Psalm 107:20; Psalm 147:15; Isaiah 55:10-11); and consequent upon this concrete and independent representation, divine attributes are predicated of it (Psalm 34:4; Isaiah 40:8; Psalm 119:105), so far as it was at the same time the continuous revelation of God in law and prophecy."

Thanks for being more specific.

However, that proves you only read the commentary until you thought you had a proof text. Do not take that error into a post doctorate program. That is a mistake I have done at times (sans any PhD experience) and probably will do again.

Meyer shares that quote as part of the evolution of thought (or revelation) of the logos as the preexisting One.

wisdom ... is still set forth and depicted under the form of a personification, yet to such a degree that the portrayal more closely approaches that of the Hypostasis, and all the more closely the less it is able to preserve the elevation and boldness characteristic of the ancient poetry.

So your quoted text is heading toward the recognition of hypostatis of the "conscious intelligent Ego"

 

[mikesw]

A good supplement to Meyer's commentary on John 1 can be found in the following video:

The video provides excellent sharing of what perhaps has been more scattered posting of details as comes to mind in the exposing of unitarian problems.

An interesting point came to mind. The Angel of Yahweh is called Yahweh. We can also express that this Angel is God and appears in physical encounters. Thomas calls Jesus God. Jesus of course as incarnate comes physically. The basic algebra is that the Angel is Jesus unless someone wants to say there are four in the Godhead.

 

[Runningman]

Thanks for being more specific.

However, that proves you only read the commentary until you thought you had a proof text. Do not take that error into a post doctorate program. That is a mistake I have done at times (sans any PhD experience) and probably will do again.

Meyer shares that quote as part of the evolution of thought (or revelation) of the logos as the preexisting One.


So your quoted text is heading toward the recognition of hypostatis of the "conscious intelligent Ego"

He did a great job calling the Logos “the self-revelation of the divine essence...proceeding hypostatically from Him..." rather than the divine essence itself, or saying the Word is the Son. So he doesn't believe the Word (Son) is eternally begotten, but rather something that proceeded from revelation. He also admitted the Word is distinct from God, regardless of it possessing divine characteristics. He also said of the Word "a creating, quickening, and illuminating personal principle" meaning the Word is a function of God, rather than a personal being. He also said of the Word that it “places the subordination of the Son in His dependence on the Father.” So he's a subordinationist too. God isn't a co-equal party to him.

Meyer's isn't an orthodox trinitarian. He resembles more closely proto-trinitarian and binitarian style sects from the post-Biblical period.

He's possibly making an effort to prevent himself as being viewed a modalist, which is something trinitarians always struggle with, but I believe he's more likely a closet Unitarian. He also stops short of ever saying the Word incarnated, saying the Word "appeared bodily in the man Jesus” so the Logos is not who Jesus is, but something Jesus has. He also wouldn't call the Word the creator, but rather instrumental in creation. All of that is exactly what we're saying.

I can see you possibly misunderstood him since all you do is project your companion philosophy onto Scripture.

 

[mikesw]

He did a great job calling the Logos “the self-revelation of the divine essence...proceeding hypostatically from Him..." rather than the divine essence itself, or saying the Word is the Son. So he doesn't believe the Word (Son) is eternally begotten, but rather something that proceeded from revelation. He also admitted the Word is distinct from God, regardless of it possessing divine characteristics. He also said of the Word "a creating, quickening, and illuminating personal principle" meaning the Word is a function of God, rather than a personal being. He also said of the Word that it “places the subordination of the Son in His dependence on the Father.” So he's a subordinationist too. God isn't a co-equal party to him.

Meyer's isn't an orthodox trinitarian. He resembles more closely proto-trinitarian and binitarian style sects from the post-Biblical period.

He's possibly making an effort to prevent himself as being viewed a modalist, which is something trinitarians always struggle with, but I believe he's more likely a closet Unitarian. He also stops short of ever saying the Word incarnated, saying the Word "appeared bodily in the man Jesus” so the Logos is not who Jesus is, but something Jesus has. He also wouldn't call the Word the creator, but rather instrumental in creation. All of that is exactly what we're saying.

I can see you possibly misunderstood him since all you do is project your companion philosophy onto Scripture.

You don't really try hard. Do you have quotes from his analysis to support your rendition of his views?

And it seems very ignorant to say trinitarians could verge on modalism. It seems like you were going to your friends or sources to see if you could redeem your original posting of Meyer's commentary. Even if spouting a binitarian argument, he still disqualifies the unitarian view. Thanks for another argument against unitarianism though.

And the idea of Jesus simply emerging from revelation seems totally a mischaracterization. Meyer only says that there were aspects of scripture that showed something like the Wisdom of Prov 8 working in creation but then other passages show a more conscious partner alongside God in creation. The hyperliteralist however tends to flatten scripture and remove progress of deeper insight into the recognition of the preexisting One who became incarnate as Christ. There should have been enough in the quotes I shared for you to challenge Meyer on those key points.

We're looking forward for the quotes from Meyer or from scholars to support your rendition shared here. You started off so badly it will probably take multiple posts to get back to square one.

 

[Runningman]

You don't really try hard. Do you have quotes from his analysis to support your rendition of his views?

And it seems very ignorant to say trinitarians could verge on modalism. It seems like you were going to your friends or sources to see if you could redeem your original posting of Meyer's commentary. Even if spouting a binitarian argument, he still disqualifies the unitarian view. Thanks for another argument against unitarianism though.

We're looking forward for the quotes from Meyer or from scholars to support your rendition shared here. You started off so badly it will probably take multiple posts to get back to square one.

Now I know you didn't even read my previous comment. I quoted three quotes directly from his full commentary on John 1:1. I didn't talk to anyone else about it. I already gave you the source. So rather than just not read my comment and create a story about something that isn't happening, how about you reply to the material I posted.

 

[mikesw]

Now I know you didn't even read my previous comment. I quoted three quotes directly from his full commentary on John 1:1. I didn't talk to anyone else about it. I already gave you the source. So rather than just not read my comment and create a story about something that isn't happening, how about you reply to the material I posted.

I have searched for the quote "creating, quickening, and illuminating personal principle" but that does not appear on the text you shared. Nor did I find the quote "“places the subordination of the Son in His dependence on the Father” in the text. So either you are misquoting him or going to some other source.

Then you say he would have to use language so clear so as to help a unitarian understand his point, such as "appeared bodily in the man Jesus." The unitarian therefore searches for magic phrases that have to be said to show the deity of Christ." But you can try again to share the sources and explain how they support your rendition.

 

[synergy]

It doesn't make sense because the Word is not the God. So you're saying someone who isn't The God is the same as God?

What I'm saying is that "the Word was God" with all the attributes that come with being God such as omnipotence. When will you start to believe John 1:1, and the rest of the Bible for that matter?

If Jesus is the word and the word became flesh and the word is God then the word who became flesh is lacking omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence:

only if you believe in a God that is not omnipotent or omnipresent.

The "Word who became flesh" is not omniscient:

Mark 13
32No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

The "Word who became flesh" is not omnipotent:

Matthew 13
58And He did not do many miracles there, because of their unbelief.

The "Word who became flesh" is not omnipresent:

Matthew 26
11The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have Me.

In Mark 13:32 the Son’s not knowing the day reflects His tabernacling role in which He lived as the obedient servant, not a denial of His divine omniscience, since the same Christ “knew all people” and “what was in man” (John 2:24–25) and possessed divine knowledge.

Likewise, Matt 13:58 does not say He lacked power but that He did not do many miracles because of unbelief—an intentional withholding of miracles in judgment, not inability, which is why elsewhere He demonstrates absolute authority over nature, demons, disease, and death.

Matt 26:11 merely refers to His physical presence during his tabernacling as the Word who was God. It does not deny His divine omnipresence, especially when the risen Christ later promises, “I am with you always” (Matt. 28:20) and declares that “where two or three are gathered… there am I” (Matt. 18:20). These passages therefore describe the voluntary humility of the incarnate Son, not a deficiency in His divine nature.

Keep those Trinitarian verses coming!

 

[Runningman]

I have searched for the quote "creating, quickening, and illuminating personal principle" but that does not appear on the text you shared. Nor did I find the quote "“places the subordination of the Son in His dependence on the Father” in the text. So either you are misquoting him or going to some other source.

Then you say he would have to use language so clear so as to help a unitarian understand his point, such as "appeared bodily in the man Jesus." The unitarian therefore searches for magic phrases that have to be said to show the deity of Christ." But you can try again to share the sources and explain how they support your rendition.

I pulled it from his "full commentary on John 1:1" as I said. It's linked in the link I gave you, but the full commentary is here https://biblehub.com/commentaries/meyer/john/1.htm where the quotes are. Nothing is being misquoted, you just don't understand what the Word is. You have a surface level English translation understanding that ignores the rest of what the Bible says.

Anyway, the reason I am doing this is because I you deny all of the proof that the Word is not God, deny the Greek that shows the Word isn't God, and now we're on to the trinitarian commentators who disagree with you.

 

[mikesw]

I pulled it from his "full commentary on John 1:1" as I said. It's linked in the link I gave you, but the full commentary is here https://biblehub.com/commentaries/meyer/john/1.htm where the quotes are. Nothing is being misquoted, you just don't understand what the Word is. You have a surface level English translation understanding that ignores the rest of what the Bible says.

Anyway, the reason I am doing this is because I you deny all of the proof that the Word is not God, deny the Greek that shows the Word isn't God, and now we're on to the trinitarian commentators who disagree with you.

If you show that the Word was not God and was not with God and the Word, as the personal conscious existence did not continue that personal conscious existence as scripture shows, then maybe people will listen.

You still missed that personal existence by glossing over the surrounding text. You misread the commentary. Your are saying the Word is equal to God in nature and glory. For you the Word is just words and ideas. They are countable attributes reflecting God but not his same nature in your estimation. That contradicts the quoted context you just gave. You keep repeating the same errors.

 

[Runningman]

If you show that the Word was not God and was not with God and the Word, as the personal conscious existence did not continue that personal conscious existence as scripture shows, then maybe people will listen.

You still missed that personal existence by glossing over the surrounding text. You misread the commentary. Your are saying the Word is equal to God in nature and glory. For you the Word is just words and ideas. They are countable attributes reflecting God but not his same nature in your estimation. That contradicts the quoted context you just gave. You keep repeating the same errors.

Can you show where the "Word is God" anywhere else in the Bible and explain why John didn't believe the Word is God in 1 John 1:1-3 and why he didn't believe Jesus is the Sovereign Lord and Creator in Acts 4:23-31?

 

[mikesw]

Can you show where the "Word is God" anywhere else in the Bible and explain why John didn't believe the Word is God in 1 John 1:1-3 and why he didn't believe Jesus is the Sovereign Lord and Creator in Acts 4:23-31?

oops. you missed providing an explanation of your misuse of Meyer's commentary on John 1

 

[Runningman]

oops. you missed providing an explanation of your misuse of Meyer's commentary on John 1

You have done no such thing. You have simply blamed me for "misunderstanding" what he explicitly wrote, which is the same tactic you have used with almost every verse I have showed you. Nothing new. I even demonstrated that he's a subordinationist and even if he thought the Word is actually Jesus, he was clear he didn't believe the Word is God. He believes the Word came forth out of revelation, not an eternal construct. This is only to show that your theology concerning God is a side doctrine, not even worth mentioning a second time in all of Scripture which makes it a poor dividing of Scripture and eisegesis.

The main doctrine concerning God is abundant, repeated many times, and explicit. You aren't even anywhere near ready to accept that God is simply one person. You told me you were a Unitarian before and committed apostasy when you converted to trinitarianism. Who was able to deceive you so thoroughly? Because I know it couldn't have been Meyers.

 

[mikesw]

You have done no such thing. You have simply blamed me for "misunderstanding" what he explicitly wrote, which is the same tactic you have used with almost every verse I have showed you. Nothing new. I even demonstrated that he's a subordinationist and even if he thought the Word is actually Jesus, he was clear he didn't believe the Word is God. He believes the Word came forth out of revelation, not an eternal construct. This is only to show that your theology concerning God is a side doctrine, not even worth mentioning a second time in all of Scripture which makes it a poor dividing of Scripture and eisegesis.

The main doctrine concerning God is abundant, repeated many times, and explicit. You aren't even anywhere near ready to accept that God is simply one person. You told me you were a Unitarian before and committed apostasy when you converted to trinitarianism. Who was able to deceive you so thoroughly? Because I know it couldn't have been Meyers.

really? You take some one with scholarly language who holds to the Trinitarian doctrine. Then you try to take some text out of context and say that demonstrates something to support a unitarian view. That is ridiculous on the face of it. You really would have to show how his conclusions did not naturally flow from the information he showed.

 

[Peterlag]

Jesus does not share the glory of being God...

He shares the glory of being the son of God, the Messiah to Israel, and the now resurrected Lord Christ to the Christian who sits at the right hand of God as second in command and is the head of the Church that is called the body of Christ.

 

[Doug Brents]

There is nothing false about what I teach. Nothing.

That has been proven incorrect. The things you believe are accurate according to your incorrect interpretation of Scripture, but with proper understanding taking into account ALL of Scripture, you are WAY OFF.

And since you got me digging into my teachers. Here's the guy as far as I can go back that taught me the Holy Spirit field.

His name is B.G. Leonard, (born in 1906) who chartered the ministry with the federal government of Canada after many years of operation without any official standing on November 22, 1949. Christian Training Centre of Texas was incorporated on February 27, 1973.

Just a couple of things that I see about B.G. that leap out at me:
1. He allowed himself to be referred to as "reverend". While that title is not listed amongst Jesus' prohibited titles and appellations, it fits within the spirit of the prohibited titles, and so should NEVER be used or allowed by a true Christ follower.

2. Within the "statement of faith" of his "christian" training centre, proclamation #2 is the assertion that the Holy Spirit is not a separate being/entity. This is completely contradicted by Scripture (John 14:26, 15:26).

He was a false teacher, regardless of his accolades and notoriety.

 

[Runningman]

really? You take some one with scholarly language who holds to the Trinitarian doctrine. Then you try to take some text out of context and say that demonstrates something to support a unitarian view. That is ridiculous on the face of it. You really would have to show how his conclusions did not naturally flow from the information he showed.

Your flavor of trinitarianism is called Logos theology. It's very niche and relies on a verse or two for its existence. Not every trinitarian follows that, especially the smarter and well-studied ones like Meyers, who happens to be one of my favorite trinitarian theologians since he often affirms that Jesus is not God in almost every way, without ever explicitly saying so.

 

[JesusFan]

Your flavor of trinitarianism is called Logos theology. It's very niche and relies on a verse or two for its existence. Not every trinitarian follows that, especially the smarter and well-studied ones like Meyers, who happens to be one of my favorite trinitarian theologians since he often affirms that Jesus is not God in almost every way, without ever explicitly saying so.

problem is the NT very explicit in stating that Jesus was and is God Himself

 

[JesusFan]

Jesus does not share the glory of being God...

He shares the glory of being the son of God, the Messiah to Israel, and the now resurrected Lord Christ to the Christian who sits at the right hand of God as second in command and is the head of the Church that is called the body of Christ.

jesus stated that he had preexisted in the very glory of the father, and Paul agreed with that in Phillipians 2:1-10

 

[Peterlag]

jesus stated that he had preexisted in the very glory of the father, and Paul agreed with that in Phillipians 2:1-10

There's nothing in the book of Philippians that says Jesus emptied himself of his Godhood. Nothing.

What did Jesus empty himself from?

What the Scriptures say he was... the son of God, the Messiah to Israel, thus, royal blood. He humbled himself from what he was and took on the role of a servant.

After saying that Christ was in the form of God, Philippians 2:6 goes on to say that Christ “considered being equal with God not something to be grasped at.” If Jesus were God, then it would make no sense at all to say that he did not “grasp” at equality with God because no one grasps at equality with himself. Some Trinitarians say, “Well, he was not grasping for equality with the Father.” That is not what the verse says. It says Christ did not grasp at equality with God, which makes the verse nonsense if he were God.

The Greek word morphē does not refer to the essential nature of Christ in that context. If the point of the verse is to say that Jesus is God, then why not just say that? If Jesus is God, say that, don’t say he has the “essential nature of God.” Of course God has the “essential nature” of God, so why would anyone make that point? This verse does not say “Jesus being God” but rather “being in the form of God.” Paul is reminding the Philippians that Jesus represented the Father in every possible way.

From the Septuagint and their other writings, the Jews were familiar with morphē referring to the outward appearance, including the form of men and idols. To the Greeks, it also referred to the outward appearance, including the changing outward appearance of their gods and the form of statues. The only other New Testament use of morphē outside Philippians is in Mark, and there it refers to the outward appearance. Also, the words related to morphē clearly refer to an outward manifestation or appearance. The word morphē refers to an outward appearance or manifestation. Jesus Christ was in the outward appearance of God, so much so that he said, “He who has seen me has seen the Father.” Christ always did the Father’s will, and perfectly represented his Father in every way.