It is too bad you are left in the dark. It is too bad no one was able to get you back on the proper track. And somewhat like you said... Paul noted that if the resurrection were removed as a fact, then the Christians were suffering everything in vain. But since Christ was raised from the dead, we know his divine state he always had with the Father and we are saved through him.
Thomas... My Lord and my God
- Thread starter Peterlag
- Start date
I had a moment around 2010 where I was thinking that Jesus was misunderstood as being of the Godhead. This partly happened on focusing on the few ways Paul mentions about Jesus. It was not ingrained in me that he was God's only begotten Son in a divine sense. I somehow popped out of that idea and recognized the deity of Christ in the Godhead. So people can get off track but come back to the true knowledge.
I went to a conference some years later and the introduction session had a man who was going to promote the idea that Jesus was not of the Godhead. I thought two things from that. The first is that it was an idea I had but later rejected. The other was that the conference was not likely going to give him a chance to share much of his view -- just because the focus was on scheduled presentations.
The passages indicating Jesus' divinity are too extensive to neglect. Many have been shared. I think the Unitarian view tries too hard to go against these verses.
The passages indicating Jesus' divinity are too extensive to neglect. Many have been shared. I think the Unitarian view tries too hard to go against these verses.
Peterlag
Well-known member
I never saw Jesus as God and as the years went by I acquired an in-dept knowledge of the resurrected Christ and realizing I had so much data on the subject was when I realized I had a book. I don't teach the trinity one way or the other in my book because most would not read it if they thought it was not a real Christian book. I believe it's a real Christian book, but most would not because the whole Christian world has been indoctrinated with the Catholic concept. I simply present Jesus as having the characteristics that the Bible says he has and in doing so I do not see a trinity.
uh. If you mean by "catholic" the points that Christians are unified on in comprehending scripture, then we generally ought to recognize those beliefs unless there is some major recognition that certain beliefs are wrong. Nobody has done that. So "Catholic" beliefs ought to be held. Finding a personal revelation is risky business verging on gnosticism unless someone is holding a concept in development and submitting that to the broader community. The number of scholars holding to the unitarian view is pretty small and I have not seen arguments developed by them -- if any.
Peterlag
Well-known member
You look for (I think) arguments teaching that there is no trinity. There's no such data in the Bible. If something is not there we can't have a teaching on it saying that the thing that is not there is not there.
You look for God tailoring the scriptures about the essence of his Triune form in a language you can understand. God does not make scripture to your expectations. You are sharing a concept of gnosticism that assumes personal/private insight. The arguments you should make are those that give reasonable explanations for the verses showing the divinity of Christ in the Godhead.
Peterlag
Well-known member
You have to remember I'm one of the most knowledgeable guys in the world on the subject of the New Testament. I can't even read most of the Epistles because I have it memorized and therefore can only skim it at best. So I know that God would clearly teach the trinity so simple that a child could understand it if there was such a thing. It would be more like...
Verily, verily I say unto you that I am Jesus and I'm also God.
The Epistles would have writings like...
Yay, I Paul do testify that Jesus who is God came down from heaven to be a man for us. And we do know and testify that this same Jesus who you crucified is God. And so let us bow our knee to the one and only true God-Man Jesus Christ.
And yet there's nothing like that anywhere. Not in the Old or New Testament. Not even one complete verse like that.
God does not have to cater to your preferences. I'm just noting your reductionist reading of scripture is unique to you and just is based on your philosophical inclination of how scripture should reveal the Son of God as the son of God in essence.
Also, you just had shared that the people in the second century were wanting to hold to Jesus' words of baptizing in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. So you showed that Matt 28 shared this triune concept right away.
As to your idea of us seeking passages in the scripture teaching the Triune nature of God, we do not look for something saying "the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit form the Triune God. We do see Matt 28:19-20 that shows them as distinct but all with one name. But for you to be effective in denying the Triune God would entail addressing verses in scripture which reflect the aspects of the Godhead you wish to reject. Make some convincing arguments to your view.
Last edited:
Similar threads
