Runningman
Active Member
Keyword "representation." This one will pose a problem for your theories. God is not a representative, God is not a nature.
The Trinity study ,plural references to God in the Old Testament:Plural nouns, pronouns, verbs, adverbs
- Thread starter FreeInChrist
- Start date
Runningman
Active Member
Pay close attention to Hebrews 1:1,2. The one you called "Son" in your trinity wasn't used to communicate with anyone in the past when God was communicating in the past. Rather, only in these last days was the Son used to speak. It's saying that the Son is a prophet used by God to deliver messages through just like the other prophets. This is evidence that the writer of Hebrews doesn't hold the same perspective on God as you do. To the writer of Hebrews, the Son isn't God, but rather the Son is a human prophet, hence he wasn't used for prophecy until after his birth.
Through the rest of the chapter that "Son" is spoken of as an heir (Hebrews 1:2) a representative (Hebrews 1:3) gained a higher rank than angels (Hebrews 1:4) has a birthday (Hebrews 1:5) the Son was procreated (Hebrews 1:6) is a human with a God (Hebrews 1:8,9) and was commanded to take a temporary seat beside YHWH (Hebrews 1:13)
So, in summary, Hebrews 1 is about a glorified and exalted human with a God.
amazing grace
Active Member
I doubt the author of Hebrews thought of Jesus as preexisting because for Jesus to be both Savior and High Priest, he had to be like us in every way except sin...... Hebrews 2:17. Theos requires that Jesus not literally preexisted since the rest of us humans did not. God created 'through' Jesus as the personified word/wisdom of God or God created 'through' Jesus simply by having him in mind.
Jesus Himself stated that he preexisted in heaven before coming to dearth, and that he shared in very glory of God the Father
Jesus was and is the eternal Word of the father coming to Earth in human flesh
Jesus is Yahweh in human flesh
Runningman
Active Member
Your story is not mentioned in the Bible, let alone Hebrews 1.
Runningman
Active Member
Another unsupported and baseless claim.
oh my, even in trying to hone in deeper in the meaning, you missed everything I said and you just repeated the same errors again.
I'm sorry. this is no less mistaken than other things you have shared on Hebrews 1
You would have to deny on some unspecified metaphysical limitation that the Word who was consciously active in creation and then became incarnate among humanity must block Jesus being expressed in human sense. There is too much in scripture testifying against your interpretation. Then you really mess up with "personified word" thereby giving Jesus some symbolic role in creation. That really denigrates the status of Jesus. That is what happens with scripture in the hands of unitarians. But that is the extent that unitarians will go to deny Jesus is Lord.
amazing grace
Active Member
yea, the glory that God had God promised him he would receive when he accomplished the work that God gave him to do. And the glory God has given him --- that same glory, Jesus has given us, although we have not yet received it ---- it is promised that we will share in that glory.
amazing grace
Active Member
In the beginning at creation it was God's powerful creative word that spoke creation into being NOT a consciously active person.
There is too much scripture testifying against the concept of a Triune God. There is too much scripture testifying that Jesus was a man, a genuine human being - not a god man - not a 100%God 100%man hybrid, not a dual natured being.
Jesus did not have a physical role in creation nor a symbolic role.
It is the Trinitarian doctrine which denigrates not only our Lord Jesus Christ, the Messiah, the Son of God but also denigrates God by making him a human clothed in flesh. No Unitarian I know denied that Jesus is Lord - both Lord and Christ.
Runningman
Active Member
Hebrews 1 is still there. It seems this is a very difficult chapter for trinitarians.
sure. just disregard the One who was with God and was God having consciousness and then becoming flesh as Jesus. That is so weak to assign all that creation to someone you say does not exist.
Only scripture that is missing involves the passages you love to discard or distort.
Then Heb 1:2 lies
Wow. Identifying Jesus as the taking on of flesh the Word who was with God and was God is to be seen not as a fact but rather as degeneration? I think the endorsement of scripture of this point is exalting Jesus to his rightful place.
Jesus is hardly Lord per unitarians when they deny what Lord means.
hardly difficult for Christians aka Trinitarians. It only gets messed up in the hands of unitarians.
Runningman
Active Member
I see you have resorted to denying the Bible and attempting to redefine Christianity and God with your relatively new extra-biblical beliefs. The Unitarian view of God is the earliest view of God, several thousand years old, compatible with God being consistently referred to as one person known as YHWH, the Father, God Almighty, the I AM, and about a dozen other names and titles the "Son" in your trinity does not have. Your trinitarian view was not created until the 4th century.
amazing grace
Active Member
Jesus wasn't/isn't God.
God did not become 'the only Son from the Father'. How is that even possible? God from the Father, the only true God?
God is the Creator.
Only scriptures that are missing involve the passages you love to distort.
I disagree.
According to Trinitarian doctrine - God took on flesh - Almighty God became a human being ---- besides deminishing Almighty God it seems a bit sacrilegious.
We know exactly who our Lord and Christ is and we know who the One true God is - the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Our Father and his Father, Our God and his God
that is ignorance of history on display with your post. You deny everything that is known. You deny even the significance of "God" in Son of God. You deny John 1. You deny Matt 24:62-65. you deny Thomas recognizing Jesus as God. Your responses are getting more and more desperate and unfounded. So, you skip verses that speak against your view while claiming to have an upper hand in the argument.
Duhh. No one that I know says that something became God. So you do not even refute Christian understanding of the Triune God. Then you reject Heb 1:2 showing the preexistence in creation of the One who came in the flesh as Jesus.
It is consistent where unitarians accept JOhn 17:3 but whitewash over John 17:5. The testimony of Thomas of the deity of Christ is skipped. The evidence of the the High Priest in Matt 26:62-65 that shows the deity of Christ is glossed over.
Of course, you disagree with Heb 1:2
Diminishing God when we recognize the preexisting One being with God and being God yet becoming incarnate? That is the insult to God and his testimony through scriptures.
that you know it but deny it, that has made it worse.
Runningman
Active Member
The trinity was created at the council of Nicaea and the council of Constantinople in the mid-to-late 4th century. Very common knowledge. Orthodox trinitarianism had no existence prior to that. The early "church fathers" as you guys call them were not what you refer to as "orthodox" by the modern standards of your organization. Most early "trinitarians" were not even trinitarians at all, but more like binitarians, most didn't believe Jesus was equal to God, most didn't believe in a third person in a godhead.
Yes, the Unitarian view of God is the oldest view, the same kind of things the Jews have always believed about God is the same things we Christians believe about God. Make sense why God is never referred to or described as a trinity in the Bible? God is always one person, a He or Him or His, who created alone, and there are no others. You guys just don't get it. You think you can just make things up, redefine words, and somehow be taken credibily.
