Peterlag
Well-known member
I do not believe the Christian doctrine comes from the whole testimony of Scripture.
Thomas... My Lord and my God
- Thread starter Peterlag
- Start date
When will you start to listen or are you a bot that spews out the same old ad nauseum words over and over again?
I'm supposing you mean that it is only the NT that gives the identification of doctrines and basis for those doctrines. I think you mean this since you find, at minimal, the synoptic gospels to be directed only to Jews. If this rejection of the OT writings as informing doctrine is your take, it may explain your odd doctrines by lacking the proper context.
Peterlag
Well-known member
I put out the same data you you folks do. Do you have any idea how many times each of you put John 1:1 in front of me. And Phillippians 2:6?
Peterlag
Well-known member
It certainly explains why you can't see who the Christ is. Or find one verse that says God died for us.
Peterlag
Well-known member
John 17:5 has been used to prove that Jesus is God because of the phrase, “that I had with you before the world was.” There is no question that Jesus “existed” before the world began. But did he exist literally as a person or in God’s foreknowledge, “in the mind of God”? Both Christ and those called to be in the Body of Christ, the Church, existed in God’s foreknowledge before being alive. Christ was part of the intention of God from the beginning, and he became flesh only when he was conceived. It is Trinitarian bias that causes people to read an actual physical existence into this verse rather than a figurative existence in the mind of God. When 2 Timothy says that each Christian was given grace “before the ages began” (2 Timothy 1:9), no one tries to prove that we were actually alive with God back then. Everyone acknowledges that we were “in the mind of God,” i.e., in God’s foreknowledge. The same is true of Jesus Christ. His glory was “with the Father” before the world began, and in John 17:5 he prayed that it will come into manifestation.
Jesus existed and had glory shared with the Father. So you are not clever enough to explain away a true conscious existence. Then you treat the orthodox view as if this meant that the Son existed physically before the world existed. However, you likely know that orthodox view does not view God existing physically since the Son would be creating the physicality we experience.
Then your interpretation of of 2 Tim 1:9 is odd. That gift of grace is emphasized as a provision before anyone could do works in attempt of justification with God. This indeed is solely a plan since the manifestation of the Son happened in that recent era. Furthermore, since 2Tim 9 does not pinpoint any person to receiving grace, your view remains flawed. So your efforts at eisegesis fail again.
Last edited:
Peterlag
Well-known member
The sad truth for you is that I'm right. There is no trinity and the Epistles are mostly what the Christian should know that teach who they are in Christ.
I'm happy for the truth in scripture, especially over against those who would lead people astray from its testimony. I also trust the Triune concept as confirmed by scripture with a glaring equation in Matt 28:19-20 and the testimony Jesus raising himself and many other places. Your posts have helped point out the Triune testimony. We even see the second century effort to make sure the name in Matt 28:19-20 was retained in baptisms. You hardly make a dent against the testimony of the divinity of Christ in John 1. So that passage presents a great obstacle to claiming a Unitarian viewpoint. And that passage is hardly the scattered verses that you found as a complaint on the internet against the testimony of scripture to the Triune nature of God.
Last edited:
Peterlag
Well-known member
My posts never helped point out the triune testimony because there's no such thing as a trinity. Such a belief is to follow after nothing. The Apostles never baptized in the name of the father, son, and holy ghost. Never.
You do not know whether the apostles baptized counter to Jesus's instruction. There are maybe 6 times that only appear in Acts. In light of the Triune name in Matt 28:19-20, it is equivalent to say Jesus or to say the three. It would also be equivalent to say they are baptized in the name of Jesus Christ to reflect any of several variants of the name for baptizing. So it is very weak of you to exclude what Jesus said in order to defend your unitarian ideas.
Peterlag
Well-known member
There's no reason to baptize in the trinity concept because there's no trinity which is why you cannot find one verse that says they did. All you do is assume.
you provided the details about second-century interest in upholding the Triune baptism. These idea of the triune name is original to Matthew, according to all the evidence. And we see in John 2:19-21 that Jesus would raise himself, which again shows Jesus equated with God in doing this raising of him from the dead.
Last edited:
Is there a reason you continually ignore scripture
John 1:1 (LEB) — 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Genesis 15:1–8 (LEB) — 1 After these things the word of Yahweh came to Abram in a vision, saying: “Do not be afraid, Abram; I am your shield, and your reward shall be very great.” 2 Then Abram said, “O Yahweh, my Lord, what will you give me? I continue to be childless, and my heir is Eliezer of Damascus.” 3 And Abram said, “Look, you have not given me a descendant, and here, a member of my household is my heir.” 4 And behold, the word of Yahweh came to him saying, “This person will not be your heir, but your own son will be your heir.” 5 And he brought him outside and said, “Look toward the heavens and count the stars if you are able to count them.” And he said to him, “So shall your offspring be.” 6 And he believed in Yahweh, and he reckoned it to him as righteousness. 7 And he said to him, “I am Yahweh, who brought you out from Ur of the Chaldeans to give this land to you, to possess it.” 8 And he said, “O Yahweh God, how shall I know that I will possess it?”
Jeremiah 1:4–15 (LEB) — 4 And the word of Yahweh came to me, saying, 5 “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you came out from the womb I consecrated you; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.” 6 Then I said, “Ah, Lord Yahweh! Look, I do not know how to speak, for I am a youth.” 7 But Yahweh said to me, “You must not say, ‘I am a youth,’ for to whomever I send you, you will go, and whatever I command you, you will speak. 8 Do not be afraid of them, for I am with you to deliver you,” declares Yahweh. 9 Then Yahweh stretched out his hand and he touched my mouth, and Yahweh said to me, “Look, I have put my words in your mouth. 10 See, I appoint you this day over the nations and over the kingdoms, to pluck up and to pull down, and to destroy and to tear down, to build and to plant.” 11 And the word of Yahweh came to me, saying, “What are you seeing, Jeremiah?” And I said, “I am seeing a branch of an almond tree.” 12 Then Yahweh said to me, “You did well to see, for I am watching over my word to perform it.” 13 And the word of Yahweh came to me a second time, saying, “What are you seeing?” And I said, “I am seeing a boiling pot, and its face is from the face of the north.” 14 Then Yahweh said to me, “From the north disaster will be unleashed on all the inhabitants of the land. 15 For, look, I am calling to all the clans of the kingdoms of the north,” declares Yahweh, “and they will come and set each one his throne at the entrance of the gates of Jerusalem, and against all its surrounding walls, and against all the cities of Judah.
Scripture shows that the word is God.
That the word of God is called God and Yahweh.
That the word became flesh and was revealed as Jesus Christ.
Ps aside from what I already showed you why The Word became flesh
Hebrews 2:14–18 (LEB) — 14 Therefore, since the children share in blood and flesh, he also in like manner shared in these same things, in order that through death he could destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, 15 and could set free these who through fear of death were subject to slavery throughout all their lives. 16 For surely he is not concerned with angels, but he is concerned with the descendants of Abraham. 17 Therefore he was obligated to be made like his brothers in all respects, in order that he could become a merciful and faithful high priest in the things relating to God, in order to make atonement for the sins of the people. 18 For in that which he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are tempted.
Romans 8:3–4 (LEB) — 3 For what was impossible for the law, in that it was weak through the flesh, God did. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and concerning sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 in order that the requirement of the law would be fulfilled in us, who do not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.
Galatians 4:4–5 (LEB) — 4 But when the fullness of time came, God sent out his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5 in order that he might redeem those under the law, in order that we might receive the adoption.
Is denial the only arrow in your quiver?
dwight92070
Well-known member
There you go again. Demanding that God can only show you that Jesus is God by meeting your standard of proof. If He did what you demand, then you wouldn't need faith, would you? God is testing you, He is testing your faith, but you have failed. You are like Thomas - if you see it, you will believe. Blessed is the man who has not seen (what he deems necessary), and yet has believed the hundreds of pieces of scriptural evidence.
In fact, you're in a much worse position than Thomas, because he finally DID accept Jesus as being His Lord and His God. You cannot even do that!! As was said by someone here, "Rejecting the Son's Deity is in fact rejecting the Son, which Jesus warns explicitly" - John 8:24
Peterlag
Well-known member
It's not me saying a word about the above. It's Jack Deaton, Chris Keig, and David Lopez. And there's no such thing on blind faith in the Bible. But it is another Catholic concept. We become suspicious and are inclined not to trust a salesperson when they say “just trust me” and so we should also think twice when someone is talking about a biblical subject and says “just take it by faith.” It should be a signal to us when a person teaching cannot explain the doctrine they are teaching and or that the doctrine is untrustworthy when we are told to “take it by faith.” The biblical meaning of the Greek word pistis is “trust” but that is not its primary meaning “on the street” today. Many Christians and most non-Christians think “faith” means “firm belief in something for which there is no proof” (Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 11th edition, 2004).
Often that definition has been used to ridicule Christians and admittedly “believing in something for which there is no proof” and that seems like a questionable practice. So how did that non-biblical definition of “faith” develop? Doctrines were brought into Christianity over the centuries that were not biblically sound and some were not even logical. When those doctrines were questioned because there was no proper biblical answer is why the answer often given by the church authorities was simply “take it by faith.” The history of the Christian Church has many examples of wonderful Christians who were pressured or tortured into taking things “by faith” that did not make sense to them. Thus, over time “faith” came to mean a belief in something for which there is no proof, and the average Christian is not enough of a linguist to know that the commonly accepted definition of faith is not the actual biblical definition of the Greek and Latin text, and so they wrongly think that “belief in something for which there is no proof” is a biblical definition of “faith.”
Peterlag
Well-known member
I'm not ignoring Scripture on John 1:1. I have posted much on it and you can look at it again right here...
The point was the word who was God became flesh and was identified as Christ. This word was revealed as a personal beingI'm not ignoring Scripture on John 1:1. I have posted much on it and you can look at it again right here...
I do not see you addressing this. Also, the bible reveals Christ was involved in the original creation
John 1:3 (LEB) — 3 All things came into being through him, and apart from him not one thing came into being that has come into being.
Colossians 1:16 (LEB) — 16 because all things in the heavens and on the earth were created by him, things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or powers, all things were created through him and for him,
Hebrews 1:2 (LEB) — 2 in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom also he made the world,
Hebrews 1:10 (LEB) — 10 And, “You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the works of your hands;
1 Corinthians 8:6 (LEB) — 6 yet to us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we are for him, and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we are through him.
Peterlag
Well-known member
The word of the Lord means God spoke to someone. There's no thing called the word. It's not that I'm not willing to address the above. It's I don't understand what you are referring to. If we say the word of the boss means don't touch the box until Monday. That would not mean there's two of our boss.
Peterlag
Well-known member
The supposed “dual nature” of Christ is never stated in the Bible...
And contradicts the Bible and the laws of nature that God set up. Nothing can be 100% of two different things. Jesus cannot be 100% God and 100% man, and that is not a “mystery” but it's a contradiction and a talk of nonsense. A fatal flaw in the “dual nature” theory is that both natures in Jesus would have had to have known about each other. The Jesus God nature would have known about his human nature, and (according to what the Trinitarians teach) his human nature knew he was God, which explains why Trinitarians say Jesus taught that he was God. The book of Hebrews is wrong when it says Jesus was “made like his brothers in every respect” if Jesus knew he was God (Hebrews 2:17). Jesus was not made like other humans in every way if Jesus was 100% God and 100% human at the same time. In fact, he would have been very different from other humans in many respects.For example, in his God nature he would not have been tempted by anything (James 1:13), and his human part would not have been tempted either since his human nature had access to that same knowledge and assurance. It is written he was tempted in every way like we all are (Hebrews 4:15). Furthermore, God does not have the problems, uncertainty, and anxieties that humans do, and Jesus would not have had those either if he knew he was God. Also, Luke 2:52 says Jesus grew in wisdom, but his human part would have had access to his God part, which would have given him infinite and inherent wisdom. Hebrews says Jesus “learned obedience” by the things that he suffered, but again, the human part of Jesus would have accessed the God part of him and he would not have needed to learn anything.
Kenotic Trinitarians claim that Jesus put off or limited His God nature, but that theology only developed to try to reconcile some of the verses about what Christ experienced on the earth. The idea that God can limit what He knows or experiences as God is not taught or explained in Scripture, and Kenotic Trinitarianism has been rejected by orthodox Trinitarians for exactly that reason. The very simple way to explain the “difficult verses” that Kenotic Trinitarians are trying to explain about Christ’s human experiences is to realize that Jesus was a fully human being, and not both God and man at the same time. Some assert we have to take the Trinity “by faith” but that is not biblical either.
Similar threads
