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
Active 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
Active 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
Active 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:
Peterlag
Active Member
It's not about God cratering to me. I know enough about the Scriptures and how they are written to know if there was a trinity it would have been taught. I also know enough about God to know He would had it taught in lots of places and clearing stated. And it is not.
Funny. But you still miss the evidence of the Trinity. You are holding to an unusual view and it goes against scripture. And you wonder why no one is convinced by your arguments. We have seen runningman trying to defend his views but they were not sufficient. You have not done better. The argument against John 1 is just too -- just does not fit well.
Have you read any books justifying the divinity of Christ and the Trinity or just your reading of scripture?
Last edited:
Peterlag
Active Member
I don't read any Christian book because as I stated many times it's mostly a Catholic doctrine that everyone follows. I'm on a couple of Facebook group sites that focus on the trinity. There's a lot of folks there like me.
That indeed is a weakness for anyone wishing to deny the Triune nature of God since they are relying on their own mind instead of broader wisdom of Christians--at least to look at the situation from a different angle.
Peterlag
Active Member
We have studied the trinity in great detail to be able to handle every verse that the trinity folks can come up with. Only you and a few million others say our view is wrong. My field is the attributes and characteristics that is in the resurrected Christ. Others that were raised in the same biblical beliefs as I focus on the trinity. Many of us have worked on this trinity project and have books on it that can still be bought all over the Internet. My notes from such a work can be viewed from one of my websites here... https://www.carb-fat.com/trinity.html
whew. it is good to note that the coverage is so comprehensive but still has failed to have decent arguments against the Trinitarian doctrine. I certainly would have expected to see better arguments by the Unitarians if their view had been correct.
One of things duked out with runningman was his denial of Jesus raising himself in John 2:19-21. There is no denial of Jesus having the ability to raise himself and of him knowing that. So some other manner of Jesus doing this as a man would need to be given.
Another minute scan of your link shows the same error as runningman, namely of the verses speaking of Jesus as a man overriding the evidence of him equal to the Father in essence/nature. The humanity of Jesus is accepted by most people. It is the argument against his divinity in the Godhead that has to be addressed.
Last edited:
Doug Brents
Active Member
And as we know, EVERYTHING we read on the internet has to be true. And everything published in any book just has to be true.
You have done a lot of research and arrived at the wrong conclusion. Don't worry though, it happens all the time, especially when someone goes into a study looking for a certain conclusion from their research.
civic
Active Member
It’s not a “ Catholic “ concept since God from the beginning has revealed the Plurality within His Being as Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
You are arguing a strawman.
civic
Active Member
Is Jesus right now in heaven with a resurrected/ glorified human body that has real flesh, real bones?. Is Jesus human body tangible ?
Let’s test your beliefs against scripture and see.
Peterlag
Active Member
I don't know how much of the body of Jesus is real flesh and bone because it's a spiritual body and nobody knows what that is like. I write about it this way...
We will have a spiritual body that Christ gives at his return that will be like his resurrected body that is unlimited in scope and activity.
The spiritual body is a body belonging to the spiritual realm that will be influenced by or proceeding from what is spiritual. How glorious and awesome that is! How magnificent and unlimited in scope and activity that new body will be. We shall be LIKE HIM with a body that will be spirit eternal, vivacious, and remarkable. Just think how incredible our physical senses will be at that time, unaffected by a contaminated bloodstream, and completely laced with and based upon a life-quickening spirit.
Peterlag
Active Member
I did not say it was on the Internet because that made it true or not. I said it was on the Internet in case someone wanted a copy.
Similar threads
