Thomas... My Lord and my God

[Milo Flores]

There is nothing about blasphemy being applied someone claiming to be the Messiah. I shared that with Peterlag earlier today. This point about blasphemy was duly noted in the gospels without disclaiming the implication of Jesus' divinity.


Of course it was explosive, the Jewish leaders did not want to lose their alliance with the Roman Empire. We are told that they all knew Jesus was the Messiah but they thought this would disrupt what they had.

Jesus received as heir that which was created through him. the Unitarians hide that inconvenient detail. Jesus as the divine Son indeed is a proper heir.

That is fine that the Father exalts the Son. The exaltation of the Father and Son emphasizes their divinity so that humanity will look to them.

That is fine that the Son inherits from the Father. That does not cause an issue in recognizing Christ's divinity. The conquering came after Jesus receiving the kingdom. No problem with that either.

There are many pieces to understand this but they do come together well.

I would emphasize that in Israel’s context, blasphemy was never a political category but always a spiritual one. The High Priest did not tear his robes out of fear of Rome—that came later when they delivered Jesus to Pilate—but because he heard what he judged as an offense against God Himself. The Gospel records it plainly: “You have heard the blasphemy” (Mark 14:64).


Here I often think of the saying: “To the carpenter, everything looks like a nail.” The High Priest, trained to guard the Law, interpreted everything through the lens of blasphemy. So when Jesus cited Daniel 7, he saw only a man stepping into God’s prerogatives.


Now, the scandal could cut two ways:

• Ontological reading: Jesus claims the divine glory of the Son of Man “coming with the clouds” (Dan 7:13–14), which in his ears was equal to sharing God’s own majesty.
• Messianic reading: Jesus claims to be the Son of David, the Messiah, the heir who would receive dominion from the Ancient of Days. Even this was intolerable, since it implied He would judge and reign over Israel’s leaders themselves.

Either way, the claim was explosive.


But notice the deeper pattern: in Daniel, the Son of Man does not seize dominion; he receives it. This matches Paul’s testimony:

• “Therefore God highly exalted Him and gave Him the Name above every name” (Phil 2:9).
• “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth” (Mt 28:18).
• “He became heir of all things” (Heb 1:2).

The language of inheritance and exaltation points to a clear order: the Father exalts, the Son receives. Christ reigns supremely as Lord and even bears the divine Name—but as Heir, not as self-existent Source. That is why He can say: “Here am I, and the children God has given Me” (Heb 2:13).


Thus the arc is consistent: Jesus reveals the Father through kenosis—self-emptying obedience even unto death (Phil 2:6–8). For that very reason, the Father exalts Him above all, so that Christ is confessed as Lord and even “God” by inheritance (Heb 1:8), always to the glory of the Father.


So the charge of blasphemy was theological, not political. Politics came later through Rome. But the tearing of the High Priest’s robes shows that, whether ontologically or messianically understood, Jesus’ claim put Him far above human measure—as the One entrusted with God’s Kingdom by the Father Himself.

 

[mikesw]

I would emphasize that in Israel’s context, blasphemy was never a political category but always a spiritual one. The High Priest did not tear his robes out of fear of Rome—that came later when they delivered Jesus to Pilate—but because he heard what he judged as an offense against God Himself. The Gospel records it plainly: “You have heard the blasphemy” (Mark 14:64).


Here I often think of the saying: “To the carpenter, everything looks like a nail.” The High Priest, trained to guard the Law, interpreted everything through the lens of blasphemy. So when Jesus cited Daniel 7, he saw only a man stepping into God’s prerogatives.

I'm sorry I confused with the political interest of the Jewish leaders. Indeed it was Jesus claim of the divine position that led to the charge of blasphemy. There were limited bases for blasphemy found in scripture. They all relate to what is said of either claims of divinity or denigrating God. I shared the portion of those details with Peterlag.

Now, the scandal could cut two ways:

• Ontological reading: Jesus claims the divine glory of the Son of Man “coming with the clouds” (Dan 7:13–14), which in his ears was equal to sharing God’s own majesty.
• Messianic reading: Jesus claims to be the Son of David, the Messiah, the heir who would receive dominion from the Ancient of Days. Even this was intolerable, since it implied He would judge and reign over Israel’s leaders themselves.

Either way, the claim was explosive.

You already shared this. We already see that only the divinity relationship of the Messiah with the Ancient of Days gives grounds for blasphemy.

But notice the deeper pattern: in Daniel, the Son of Man does not seize dominion; he receives it. This matches Paul’s testimony:

• “Therefore God highly exalted Him and gave Him the Name above every name” (Phil 2:9).
• “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth” (Mt 28:18).
• “He became heir of all things” (Heb 1:2).

You are kind of doing what Peterlag does. He simply pastes the same message again and it has nothing to deny the divinity of Christ. These just mean that Christ is exalted among humanity that they may come to him. Should I say this again if you post the same passages?

The language of inheritance and exaltation points to a clear order: the Father exalts, the Son receives. Christ reigns supremely as Lord and even bears the divine Name—but as Heir, not as self-existent Source. That is why He can say: “Here am I, and the children God has given Me” (Heb 2:13).

You quote a verse that just shows that followers among humanity are as children to Christ. Of course the next verse points to Christ's divinity, which makes a more interesting point to me right now. Jesus partook of flesh and blood so people would know God's compassion shown while incarnate.

Thus the arc is consistent: Jesus reveals the Father through kenosis—self-emptying obedience even unto death (Phil 2:6–8). For that very reason, the Father exalts Him above all, so that Christ is confessed as Lord and even “God” by inheritance (Heb 1:8), always to the glory of the Father.


So the charge of blasphemy was theological, not political. Politics came later through Rome. But the tearing of the High Priest’s robes shows that, whether ontologically or messianically understood, Jesus’ claim put Him far above human measure—as the One entrusted with God’s Kingdom by the Father Himself.

Right. In human terms this reads like the bloodline descendant becoming king. In this case it is possibly called the transfer based on divine essence -- if we borrow later terminology.

 

[synergy]

Who possess the kingdom with sovereignty, dominion and greatness forever? Jesus and the saints. We know Jesus was just called a son of man earlier in the chapter, therefore we know Jesus is a human. He is one of the other people who received authority from God. Therefore Jesus is not the Most High because he was given authority that he did not inherently have by God.

Daniel 7
14And He was given dominion,
glory, and kingship,
that the people of every nation and language
should serve Him.
His dominion is an everlasting dominion
that will not pass away,
and His kingdom is one
that will never be destroyed.
18But the saints of the Most High will receive the kingdom and possess it forever—yes, forever and ever.’
22until the Ancient of Days arrived and pronounced judgment in favor of the saints of the Most High, and the time came for them to possess the kingdom.
27Then the sovereignty, dominion, and greatness of the kingdoms under all of heaven will be given to the people, the saints of the Most High. His kingdom will be an everlasting kingdom, and all rulers will serve and obey Him.’

It is nothing short of delusion of grandeur on your part to include yourself with Jesus as the one who all peoples, nations, and languages shall serve because "that is the very same rapture the other Sons (huios) of Men will experience".

 

[Milo Flores]

I'm sorry I confused with the political interest of the Jewish leaders. Indeed it was Jesus claim of the divine position that led to the charge of blasphemy. There were limited bases for blasphemy found in scripture. They all relate to what is said of either claims of divinity or denigrating God. I shared the portion of those details with Peterlag.


You already shared this. We already see that only the divinity relationship of the Messiah with the Ancient of Days gives grounds for blasphemy.


You are kind of doing what Peterlag does. He simply pastes the same message again and it has nothing to deny the divinity of Christ. These just mean that Christ is exalted among humanity that they may come to him. Should I say this again if you post the same passages?

You quote a verse that just shows that followers among humanity are as children to Christ. Of course the next verse points to Christ's divinity, which makes a more interesting point to me right now. Jesus partook of flesh and blood so people would know God's compassion shown while incarnate.

Right. In human terms this reads like the bloodline descendant becoming king. In this case it is possibly called the transfer based on divine essence -- if we borrow later terminology.

“One God, the Father; One Lord, the Son — the claim of Jesus in Daniel 7 before the High Priest”

---

1. The nature of the blasphemy charge​

In Israel, blasphemy was never a political category but always a theological one. The Mishnah (Sanhedrin 7:5) defined blasphemy as claiming prerogatives belonging to God alone or profaning His Name.
Thus, when Jesus cited Daniel 7:13–14 —“you will see the Son of Man coming with the clouds of heaven”— the High Priest did not hear a political threat to Rome but what he judged to be a divine prerogative. His tearing of robes (Mark 14:63) confirms that he perceived it as blasphemy.


The irony: Leviticus 21:10 forbade the High Priest to tear his garments, yet in condemning the Holy One, he broke the Law he was sworn to guard.

---

2. Two possible interpretations​

• Ontological: The High Priest heard Jesus as claiming to share the very majesty of God, the One who “comes with the clouds.”
• Messianic: Even if heard in messianic terms, it was no less intolerable —Jesus claimed to be the Davidic Messiah entrusted with dominion and judgment over Israel’s own leaders.

In both cases, the scandal was theological, not political.

---

3. Historical context: not the only “Messiah”​

Josephus and Acts (5:36–37) mention others who claimed to be messianic figures (Theudas, Judas the Galilean). All were rejected. But Jesus was different.
They exalted themselves and perished; Jesus was exalted by the Father (Phil 2:9). That is why His claim could not be dismissed as yet another failed movement. His Kingdom was not ambition but inheritance.

---

4. The logic of inheritance and exaltation​

The biblical pattern is clear:

• “Therefore God highly exalted Him” (Phil 2:9).
• “All authority has been given to Me” (Mt 28:18).
• “Heir of all things” (Heb 1:2).

Christ does not seize the throne. The Father bestows it. That implies derivation: what is received is not self-originated.


As the proverb says: “To the carpenter, everything looks like a nail.” The High Priest saw only blasphemy; the true framework was inheritance and exaltation.


Thus Christ reigns as true God for us, yet by delegation —as a viceroy who fully represents the ontological King.

---

5. Christ as image and transfiguration​

• Hebrews 1:3: He is “the radiance of His glory and the exact imprint of His being” —not identity of person but perfect representation.
• On the Mount, Jesus was metemorphōthē (Mt 17:2), transfigured before His disciples. Moses reflected God’s glory; Jesus radiated it.
  This anticipates not only His resurrection but the transfiguration of creation itself: what is now corruptible will shine with imperishable glory (Rom 8:19–21).

---

6. Jewish apocalyptic expectation​

1 Enoch (48, 62) already speaks of a preexistent “Son of Man” receiving glory and power from the Most High. This shows that by Jesus’ day, Daniel 7 was read in quasi-divine, yet subordinate, categories. Jesus does not invent this; He embodies it.

---

7. The saints of the Most High​

Daniel 7:27 declares that the saints of the Most High will receive the Kingdom together with the Son of Man. This confirms the functional pattern: Christ is exalted as supreme Heir, yet He shares His inheritance with His people.


Hence Hebrews 2:13: “Here am I, and the children God has given Me.” He reigns as Firstborn among many brothers (Rom 8:17).

---

8. The kenotic arc​

• He empties Himself (Phil 2:6–8).
• The Father exalts Him (Phil 2:9).
• He receives the Name, Kingdom, and authority as inheritance.
• He reigns truly as God and Lord, yet always from and for the Father (1 Cor 8:6).
• At the end He hands the Kingdom back to the Father, “that God may be all in all” (1 Cor 15:28).

Thus the blasphemy charge was spiritual, not political. The priest condemned Him as one usurping God, when in truth He was the Son entrusted with all by the Father.

---

9. Conclusion​

The Sanhedrin stumbled because the glory of God appeared in kenosis: majesty revealed in inheritance, not self-assertion.
Other “messiahs” exalted themselves and fell. Jesus emptied Himself, and the Father exalted Him.


The High Priest tore his robes in horror —but in doing so, he missed the deeper pattern: the Son of Man does not seize dominion; He receives it, and shares it with His saints. This is no mere political threat, but the eternal Kingdom entrusted to the Son, to the glory of the Father.

 

[synergy]

“One God, the Father; One Lord, the Son — the claim of Jesus in Daniel 7 before the High Priest”

---

1. The nature of the blasphemy charge​

In Israel, blasphemy was never a political category but always a theological one. The Mishnah (Sanhedrin 7:5) defined blasphemy as claiming prerogatives belonging to God alone or profaning His Name.
Thus, when Jesus cited Daniel 7:13–14 —“you will see the Son of Man coming with the clouds of heaven”— the High Priest did not hear a political threat to Rome but what he judged to be a divine prerogative. His tearing of robes (Mark 14:63) confirms that he perceived it as blasphemy.


The irony: Leviticus 21:10 forbade the High Priest to tear his garments, yet in condemning the Holy One, he broke the Law he was sworn to guard.

---

2. Two possible interpretations​

• Ontological: The High Priest heard Jesus as claiming to share the very majesty of God, the One who “comes with the clouds.”
• Messianic: Even if heard in messianic terms, it was no less intolerable —Jesus claimed to be the Davidic Messiah entrusted with dominion and judgment over Israel’s own leaders.

In both cases, the scandal was theological, not political.

---

3. Historical context: not the only “Messiah”​

Josephus and Acts (5:36–37) mention others who claimed to be messianic figures (Theudas, Judas the Galilean). All were rejected. But Jesus was different.
They exalted themselves and perished; Jesus was exalted by the Father (Phil 2:9). That is why His claim could not be dismissed as yet another failed movement. His Kingdom was not ambition but inheritance.

---

4. The logic of inheritance and exaltation​

The biblical pattern is clear:

• “Therefore God highly exalted Him” (Phil 2:9).
• “All authority has been given to Me” (Mt 28:18).
• “Heir of all things” (Heb 1:2).

Christ does not seize the throne. The Father bestows it. That implies derivation: what is received is not self-originated.


As the proverb says: “To the carpenter, everything looks like a nail.” The High Priest saw only blasphemy; the true framework was inheritance and exaltation.


Thus Christ reigns as true God for us, yet by delegation —as a viceroy who fully represents the ontological King.

---

5. Christ as image and transfiguration​

• Hebrews 1:3: He is “the radiance of His glory and the exact imprint of His being” —not identity of person but perfect representation.
• On the Mount, Jesus was metemorphōthē (Mt 17:2), transfigured before His disciples. Moses reflected God’s glory; Jesus radiated it.
  This anticipates not only His resurrection but the transfiguration of creation itself: what is now corruptible will shine with imperishable glory (Rom 8:19–21).

---

6. Jewish apocalyptic expectation​

1 Enoch (48, 62) already speaks of a preexistent “Son of Man” receiving glory and power from the Most High. This shows that by Jesus’ day, Daniel 7 was read in quasi-divine, yet subordinate, categories. Jesus does not invent this; He embodies it.

---

7. The saints of the Most High​

Daniel 7:27 declares that the saints of the Most High will receive the Kingdom together with the Son of Man. This confirms the functional pattern: Christ is exalted as supreme Heir, yet He shares His inheritance with His people.


Hence Hebrews 2:13: “Here am I, and the children God has given Me.” He reigns as Firstborn among many brothers (Rom 8:17).

---

8. The kenotic arc​

• He empties Himself (Phil 2:6–8).
• The Father exalts Him (Phil 2:9).
• He receives the Name, Kingdom, and authority as inheritance.
• He reigns truly as God and Lord, yet always from and for the Father (1 Cor 8:6).
• At the end He hands the Kingdom back to the Father, “that God may be all in all” (1 Cor 15:28).

Thus the blasphemy charge was spiritual, not political. The priest condemned Him as one usurping God, when in truth He was the Son entrusted with all by the Father.

---

9. Conclusion​

The Sanhedrin stumbled because the glory of God appeared in kenosis: majesty revealed in inheritance, not self-assertion.
Other “messiahs” exalted themselves and fell. Jesus emptied Himself, and the Father exalted Him.


The High Priest tore his robes in horror —but in doing so, he missed the deeper pattern: the Son of Man does not seize dominion; He receives it, and shares it with His saints. This is no mere political threat, but the eternal Kingdom entrusted to the Son, to the glory of the Father.

I just want to emphasize that people serve and obey Jesus alone. There is no sharing of that because, as you know, Jesus is God.

Daniel 7
14And He was given dominion,
glory, and kingship,
that the people of every nation and language
should serve Him.
His dominion is an everlasting dominion
that will not pass away,
and His kingdom is one
that will never be destroyed.
.
.
27Then the sovereignty, dominion, and greatness of the kingdoms under all of heaven will be given to the people, the saints of the Most High. His kingdom will be an everlasting kingdom, and all rulers will serve and obey Him.’

 

[mikesw]

On John 20:28 (“My Lord and my God”) — a careful reading


Friends, I respect those who see here the climax of Johannine Christology as an ontological declaration. Yet allow me to share why I cannot take this as the birth of Nicene metaphysics, but rather as a profound functional confession, perfectly consistent with the rest of Scripture.

The scriptures are the birth place of Nicene metaphysics. There is not a time when Christians did not hold to the divinity of Christ, even though exceptions to truth have been taken by outliers.

---

1. The Greek phrase​

Thomas’ words are: ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου — literally, “the Lord of me and the God of me.”

• This construction can be read vocatively (“my Lord and my God!”), but the Greek allows also a doxological or exclamative force, like other NT uses of θεός in astonishment (cf. Jn 10:34–35 where humans are called “gods”).
• Note that Thomas does not invent new metaphysics here. The immediate context is shock, not doctrinal lecture. Just eight days earlier he had denied the resurrection (Jn 20:25). His confession is sudden recognition, not a creedal treatise.

It will not be soon enough for people to stop using John 10:34-35 to speak positively of those in Ps 82 as being gods. In Ps 82 it sort of says they were momentarily glorious but the overall Psalm is a rebuke of Israel. Jesus's quote reminds them of their disobedience while also weakening their rejection of Jesus in his divinity. Jesus continues not with a denial of his divinity but an affirmation of it.
It is good to find incidents like John 10:22-38 that point to the divinity of Christ.

---

2. The immediate Johannine context​

Only a few verses earlier, the risen Jesus says to Mary: “I ascend to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God” (Jn 20:17). If Jesus Himself calls the Father “my God” after His resurrection, then Thomas’ use of “my God” cannot erase this hierarchy.

Did anyone deny there is a type of hierarchy we see between the incarnate Son and the Father? I think you got this response mixed in from a different discussion.

Similarly, in John’s Gospel:

• Jesus insists: “The Father is greater than I” (Jn 14:28).
• He calls Himself “sent” by the Father (Jn 17:3, 8, 25).

Thus the Evangelist frames Thomas’ confession within the larger Johannine witness: the Son reveals God, depends on God, and in Him we see the Father at work (Jn 14:9–10).

Is it wrong for Jesus to be sent from heaven to become incarnate among earth? Is it wrong that Jesus perhaps had a humbled situation where he could say among humans "the Father is greater than I?" What the people see obviously is not the full glory of Jesus? Only some recognize him beyond his humanity.

---

3. Apostolic preaching after Easter​

In Acts and the Epistles, the apostolic proclamation is never “Jesus is God” as a new metaphysical formula, but: “God raised Jesus from the dead” (Acts 2:24, 32; 3:15; 5:30; 10:40; Rom 10:9; 1 Pet 1:21).


If Thomas’ statement were intended as a definitive ontological dogma, we would expect this to dominate apostolic preaching. Instead, the pattern is always:

• God as the Source.
• Jesus as the Lord exalted, whom God raised and appointed.

The preaching is about repentance and Christ's death on the cross and resurrection as the unique operation for our justification. It does not have to include the divinity of Christ to express these details. You use critical details of the working of salvation to try to speak against the testimony of Christ's divinity.

---

4. Patristic echoes before Nicaea​

• Ignatius of Antioch can call Christ “our God” (Eph. 18.2), but always within a framework where the Father remains the one Fount.
• Justin Martyr and Irenaeus identify Christ as divine Logos, pre-existent, yet begotten of the Father.
• The Didache (c. 100 AD) invokes Father, Son, Spirit liturgically, but never with Nicene homoousios.

To anathematize all these witnesses as “heretical” for not reading John 20:28 through Nicene lenses would be absurd. They saw Christ as Lord and revealer of God, not as ontologically identical with the Father.

There are different concepts shared and different emphases. You are speaking anachronistically here and thus lack any relevant point. The Trinitarian doctrine is mostly a refinement with philosophical language to make sure the heretical views cannot denigrate the teachings of scripture. However, if a better understanding of the Triune God comes around or perhaps some reasonable variation, hopefully it will be accepted.

---

5. My understanding​

I see Thomas’ words as the perfect climax of Johannine theology:

• “My Lord” → confession of Jesus as the risen Messiah, exalted as heir of all things (Heb 1:2).
• “My God” → recognition that in Him the Father’s power is revealed (cf. Eph 1:19–20), so fully that to see the Son is to see the Father (Jn 14:9).

Thus Thomas confesses not Nicene ontology, but the functional unity of Father and Son: one God, the Father (1 Cor 8:6); one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are mediated.

---

6. Kenotic arc​

Philippians 2:6–9 explains the logic:

• Christ, existing in God’s form, emptied Himself (kenosis).
• He obeyed unto death.
• Therefore God highly exalted Him and gave Him the Name above all names.

Thomas’ astonished cry fits this arc: the crucified one now lives and reigns; God is revealed in Him.

---

7. Conclusion​

Thomas does not coin a new metaphysical dogma in a moment of surprise. Rather, he recognizes in the risen Lord the full presence of God’s action. Jesus is “my Lord” in His messianic authority, and “my God” in that through Him the invisible God is made visible.


I respect the Nicene reading as an interpretation of this verse, but I cannot bind it as dogma. To me, the functional unity revealed here is greater than speculation: in Christ we encounter both the Son and the Father who sent Him.


One God, the Father. One Lord, Jesus Christ. One Spirit, the Breath of God.

anyhow. I have corrected enough misconceptions and have discussed some of the points earlier.

 

[Peterlag]

I just want to emphasize that people serve and obey Jesus alone. There is no sharing of that because, as you know, Jesus is God.

Daniel 7
14And He was given dominion,
glory, and kingship,
that the people of every nation and language
should serve Him.
His dominion is an everlasting dominion
that will not pass away,
and His kingdom is one
that will never be destroyed.
.
.
27Then the sovereignty, dominion, and greatness of the kingdoms under all of heaven will be given to the people, the saints of the Most High. His kingdom will be an everlasting kingdom, and all rulers will serve and obey Him.’

I just want to emphasize that people serve and obey Jesus alone. There is no sharing of that because, as you know, Jesus is God.

There is no Scripture that says people serve and obey Jesus alone... there is no sharing of that.

 

[Milo Flores]

The scriptures are the birth place of Nicene metaphysics. There is not a time when Christians did not hold to the divinity of Christ, even though exceptions to truth have been taken by outliers.

It will not be soon enough for people to stop using John 10:34-35 to speak positively of those in Ps 82 as being gods. In Ps 82 it sort of says they were momentarily glorious but the overall Psalm is a rebuke of Israel. Jesus's quote reminds them of their disobedience while also weakening their rejection of Jesus in his divinity. Jesus continues not with a denial of his divinity but an affirmation of it.
It is good to find incidents like John 10:22-38 that point to the divinity of Christ.

Did anyone deny there is a type of hierarchy we see between the incarnate Son and the Father? I think you got this response mixed in from a different discussion.

Is it wrong for Jesus to be sent from heaven to become incarnate among earth? Is it wrong that Jesus perhaps had a humbled situation where he could say among humans "the Father is greater than I?" What the people see obviously is not the full glory of Jesus? Only some recognize him beyond his humanity.

The preaching is about repentance and Christ's death on the cross and resurrection as the unique operation for our justification. It does not have to include the divinity of Christ to express these details. You use critical details of the working of salvation to try to speak against the testimony of Christ's divinity.

There are different concepts shared and different emphases. You are speaking anachronistically here and thus lack any relevant point. The Trinitarian doctrine is mostly a refinement with philosophical language to make sure the heretical views cannot denigrate the teachings of scripture. However, if a better understanding of the Triune God comes around or perhaps some reasonable variation, hopefully it will be accepted.

anyhow. I have corrected enough misconceptions and have discussed some of the points earlier.

1. The core issue​

• The terms Trias (Τριάς = Trinity) and Homoousios (ὁμοούσιος = consubstantial) do not appear in the Bible.
  Britannica – Trinity
  Britannica – Homoousios
• Scriptural warning:
  mē huper ha gegraptai (μὴ ὑπὲρ ἃ γέγραπται) – “Do not go beyond what is written” (1 Corinthians 4:6).
  BibleHub – 1 Cor 4:6 (Greek)

---

2. What​

Triadic formulas, not ontological definitions.

1. Matthew 28:19
   eis to onoma tou Patros kai tou Huiou kai tou Hagiou Pneumatos (εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ Πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ Ἁγίου Πνεύματος)
   → “In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”
   BibleHub – Mt 28:19
2. 2 Corinthians 13:13(14)
   hē charis tou Kyriou Iēsou Christou kai hē agapē tou Theou kai hē koinōnia tou Hagiou Pneumatos (Ἡ χάρις τοῦ Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ ἡ κοινωνία τοῦ Ἁγίου Πνεύματος)
   → “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit.”
   BibleHub – 2 Cor 13:14

Note: These are functional triads, not metaphysical definitions of essence.

---

3. Patristic first occurrences​

• Theophilus of Antioch (c. 180): first known Christian use of Trias.
  “…the three days… are types of the Trinity: of God, of His Word, and of His Wisdom.” (Ad Autolycum II,15).
  CCEL – Theophilus to Autolycus II.15
• Tertullian (c. 200–210): Latin formula.
  “Tres personae, una substantia” – “Three persons, one substance.” (Adversus Praxean 2).
  New Advent – Against Praxeas

---

4. The tension in Councils​

• Antioch (268): condemned Paul of Samosata and rejected homoousios because of its materialistic/Samosatene use.
  Catholic Encyclopedia – Paul of Samosata
• Nicaea (325): introduced homoousion tō Patri (ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρί – “consubstantial with the Father”). Eusebius of Caesarea admitted it was extra-biblical, added to safeguard faith.
  Letter of Eusebius on the Council of Nicaea
• Antioch (341, Dedication): deliberately avoided “ousia/homoousios.”
  Creeds.net – The Dedication Creed (341)

---

5. Debate strategy​

Two devastating textual challenges:

1. “Show me the verse in Greek where Trias (Τριάς) appears.”
2. “Show me the verse in Greek where Homoousios (ὁμοούσιος) appears.”

They do not exist. Only triadic patterns (Mt 28:19; 2 Cor 13:13).

---

6. Conclusion​

• Scripture contains the triadic data.
• The Church created technical lexicon (Trinity, homoousios) centuries later.
• To confuse the two is poor exegesis.
• To distinguish them, with humility (1 Cor 4:6), is wisdom.

 

[mikesw]

1. The core issue​

• The terms Trias (Τριάς = Trinity) and Homoousios (ὁμοούσιος = consubstantial) do not appear in the Bible.
  Britannica – Trinity
  Britannica – Homoousios
• Scriptural warning:
  mē huper ha gegraptai (μὴ ὑπὲρ ἃ γέγραπται) – “Do not go beyond what is written” (1 Corinthians 4:6).
  BibleHub – 1 Cor 4:6 (Greek)

---

2. What​

Triadic formulas, not ontological definitions.

1. Matthew 28:19
   eis to onoma tou Patros kai tou Huiou kai tou Hagiou Pneumatos (εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ Πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ Ἁγίου Πνεύματος)
   → “In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”
   BibleHub – Mt 28:19
2. 2 Corinthians 13:13(14)
   hē charis tou Kyriou Iēsou Christou kai hē agapē tou Theou kai hē koinōnia tou Hagiou Pneumatos (Ἡ χάρις τοῦ Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ ἡ κοινωνία τοῦ Ἁγίου Πνεύματος)
   → “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit.”
   BibleHub – 2 Cor 13:14

Note: These are functional triads, not metaphysical definitions of essence.

---

3. Patristic first occurrences​

• Theophilus of Antioch (c. 180): first known Christian use of Trias.
  “…the three days… are types of the Trinity: of God, of His Word, and of His Wisdom.” (Ad Autolycum II,15).
  CCEL – Theophilus to Autolycus II.15
• Tertullian (c. 200–210): Latin formula.
  “Tres personae, una substantia” – “Three persons, one substance.” (Adversus Praxean 2).
  New Advent – Against Praxeas

---

4. The tension in Councils​

• Antioch (268): condemned Paul of Samosata and rejected homoousios because of its materialistic/Samosatene use.
  Catholic Encyclopedia – Paul of Samosata
• Nicaea (325): introduced homoousion tō Patri (ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρί – “consubstantial with the Father”). Eusebius of Caesarea admitted it was extra-biblical, added to safeguard faith.
  Letter of Eusebius on the Council of Nicaea
• Antioch (341, Dedication): deliberately avoided “ousia/homoousios.”
  Creeds.net – The Dedication Creed (341)

---

5. Debate strategy​

Two devastating textual challenges:

1. “Show me the verse in Greek where Trias (Τριάς) appears.”
2. “Show me the verse in Greek where Homoousios (ὁμοούσιος) appears.”

They do not exist. Only triadic patterns (Mt 28:19; 2 Cor 13:13).

---

6. Conclusion​

• Scripture contains the triadic data.
• The Church created technical lexicon (Trinity, homoousios) centuries later.
• To confuse the two is poor exegesis.
• To distinguish them, with humility (1 Cor 4:6), is wisdom.

If you recognize the Triune God, you are holding to the testimony of scripture. My complaint concerns those who deny the divinity of Christ in the Godhead. I use "Godhead" because it saying "divinity of Christ in God" could convey confusing ideas. If you have some other way to clarify the way to understand the Triune God against heresies, that might be sufficient. If you share a concept that people accept better than the basic Trinitarian doctrine, it could be worth considering that new assessment.

 

[Runningman]

It is nothing short of delusion of grandeur on your part to include yourself with Jesus as the one who all peoples, nations, and languages shall serve because "that is the very same rapture the other Sons (huios) of Men will experience".

Daniel 7 says the saints (people) reign and have the same sort of eternal sovereignty over the kingdom as Jesus. It's the same thing the disciples went around preaching, too. Scripture teaches those who overcome reign WITH Jesus, not are reigned over by Jesus.

Romans 8
17And if we are children, then we are heirs: heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ—if indeed we suffer with Him, so that we may also be glorified with Him.

2 Timothy 2
12if we endure,
we will also reign with Him;
if we deny Him,
He will also deny us;

Revelation 20
6Blessed and holy are those who share in the first resurrection! The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with Him for a thousand years.

Why? Because Jesus will be made subject to God after his time at God's right hand is finished.

1 Corinthians 15
24Then the end will come, when He hands over the kingdom to God the Father after He has destroyed all dominion, authority, and power. 25For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. 26The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27For “God has put everything under His feet.”b Now when it says that everything has been put under Him, this clearly does not include the One who put everything under Him. 28And when all things have been subjected to Him, then the Son Himself will be made subject to Him who put all things under Him, so that God may be all in all.

 

[Milo Flores]

If you recognize the Triune God, you are holding to the testimony of scripture. My complaint concerns those who deny the divinity of Christ in the Godhead. I use "Godhead" because it saying "divinity of Christ in God" could convey confusing ideas. If you have some other way to clarify the way to understand the Triune God against heresies, that might be sufficient. If you share a concept that people accept better than the basic Trinitarian doctrine, it could be worth considering that new assessment.

Response on “Godhead” and the Triune God​

1. On the word “Godhead”​

• The English word “Godhead” translates two Greek terms:
  
  • theiotēs (θειότης) – Romans 1:20: “his eternal power and divine nature.”
  • theotēs (θεότης) – Colossians 2:9: “in him dwells all the fullness of the Deity bodily.”
    BibleHub – Rom 1:20
    BibleHub – Col 2:9
• Neither word is Trias (Trinity) nor homoousios (consubstantial).
• Both terms describe quality of divinity, not ontological structure of three persons in one essence.

---

2. Christ’s divinity in the NT​

Yes, the NT clearly calls Christ divine:

• John 1:1 – kai Theos ēn ho Logos (καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος) → “the Word was God.”
• John 20:28 – ho Kyrios mou kai ho Theos mou (ὁ Κύριός μου καὶ ὁ Θεός μου) → “My Lord and my God.”

But these are functional and relational affirmations, not metaphysical formulas. They proclaim Christ as divine in mission, subject to the Father (Jn 14:28; 1 Cor 15:28).

---

3. What the Fathers said​

• Theophilus of Antioch (c. 180): first to use Trias, but defines it as God, Word, Wisdom — not “one essence, three persons.”
  Theophilus, Ad Autolycum II,15
• Tertullian (c. 200): “tres personae, una substantia” — the Latin seed of Trinity, still an interpretation beyond Scripture.
  Against Praxeas 2
• Eusebius of Caesarea (325): admits homoousios is not biblical, but imposed at Nicea.
  Letter of Eusebius on the Council of Nicaea

---

4. The real tension​

1. Triadic data is biblical.
   Matthew 28:19, 2 Cor 13:14 show Father–Son–Spirit together.
2. The technical lexicon is post-biblical.
   Trias, homoousios, substantia, persona are church inventions.
3. Scripture warns against “going beyond what is written.” (1 Cor 4:6).
   If we elevate later terms to dogma, we risk contradicting our own hermeneutical principle.

---

5. How to answer the “Godhead” move​

“Yes, the NT uses theiotēs and theotēs, but those words mean divinity/divine quality. They affirm Christ’s fullness of divine power. They do not articulate a metaphysical Trinity, nor do they equate to Trias or homoousios. The biblical testimony is strong enough without importing later categories. To confess Christ’s divinity is not the same as confessing Nicene ontology.”

---

6. Conclusion​

• Trias and homoousios: not biblical.
• Godhead (theiotēs / theotēs): biblical, but descriptive of divine quality, not Trinity.
• The Fathers testify that the technical language developed later, amid controversy.
• The safest ground is Paul’s rule: mē huper ha gegraptai — “Do not go beyond what is written.” (1 Cor 4:6).

Affirm Christ’s divinity? Absolutely.
Bind it to later metaphysics? Not required by Scripture.

 

[mikesw]

Response on “Godhead” and the Triune God​

1. On the word “Godhead”​

• The English word “Godhead”translates two Greek terms:
  • theiotēs (θειότης) – Romans 1:20: “his eternal power and divine nature.”
  • theotēs (θεότης) – Colossians 2:9: “in him dwells all the fullness of the Deity bodily.”
    BibleHub – Rom 1:20
    BibleHub – Col 2:9
• Neither word is Trias (Trinity) nor homoousios (consubstantial).
• Both terms describe quality of divinity, not ontological structure of three persons in one essence.

I explained my use of "Godhead" but was not tying to the use in some translations. So there is no argument and you are just repeating stuff without basis (with no further reason or need to repeat it) that you shared earlier.

---

2. Christ’s divinity in the NT​

Yes, the NT clearly calls Christ divine:

• John 1:1 – kai Theos ēn ho Logos (καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος) → “the Word was God.”
• John 20:28 – ho Kyrios mou kai ho Theos mou (ὁ Κύριός μου καὶ ὁ Θεός μου) → “My Lord and my God.”

But these are functional and relational affirmations, not metaphysical formulas. They proclaim Christ as divine in mission, subject to the Father (Jn 14:28; 1 Cor 15:28).

You would need some basis to deny the divinity of Christ in the Godhead rather than some philosophical terms that have no relevance in Jewish thought. You simply are burying the ambiguous identification of Jesus of both being God and being human. You are not actually making an argument against Jesus as incarnate God.

---

3. What the Fathers said​

• Theophilus of Antioch (c. 180): first to use Trias, but defines it as God, Word, Wisdom — not “one essence, three persons.”
  Theophilus, Ad Autolycum II,15
• Tertullian (c. 200): “tres personae, una substantia” — the Latin seed of Trinity, still an interpretation beyond Scripture.
  Against Praxeas 2
• Eusebius of Caesarea (325): admits homoousios is not biblical, but imposed at Nicea.
  Letter of Eusebius on the Council of Nicaea

It remains only your artificial limitation on vocabulary that you present here. If you cannot speak of God beyond the words in scripture, it is doubtful you know the true God. God is bigger than words can describe.

---

4. The real tension​

1. Triadic data is biblical.
   Matthew 28:19, 2 Cor 13:14 show Father–Son–Spirit together.
2. The technical lexicon is post-biblical.
   Trias, homoousios, substantia, persona are church inventions.
3. Scripture warns against “going beyond what is written.” (1 Cor 4:6).
   If we elevate later terms to dogma, we risk contradicting our own hermeneutical principle.

Again, you use an artificial unitarian preference to limit discussions to words in scripture. That disables you from identifying people with heretical unitarian, modalist, and inaccurate views. Once you have restricted word-usage, you should bow out of the debate because you lack the tools of communication.

Then 1 Cor 4:6 is addressing the boasting of some people based on who baptized them. This was not a command to restrict your language to that of the KJV 1611. In a sense, you want to take away the tools that Paul had to expose trouble in the church.

---

5. How to answer the “Godhead” move​

It then is okay to say God is One but God also is Three. These words appear in the English Bible.

---

6. Conclusion​

• Trias and homoousios: not biblical.
• Godhead (theiotēs / theotēs): biblical, but descriptive of divine quality, not Trinity.
• The Fathers testify that the technical language developed later, amid controversy.
• The safest ground is Paul’s rule: mē huper ha gegraptai — “Do not go beyond what is written.” (1 Cor 4:6).

Affirm Christ’s divinity? Absolutely.
Bind it to later metaphysics? Not required by Scripture.

you accept Christ's divinity but deny being God. The next step is to recognize water in a glass but deny it is wet. There is no distinction between Christ's divinity and he being God. If there is a better explanation or distinction of perhaps a different term for God incarnate, then share that.

You sound pretty clever in your use of scripture but your arguments are just based on your preferences. Your guidelines only open the door for heretics to boast about their views. Do you favor technical language or the thriving of heresies? I, of course, recognize that corrections of doctrines like the Trinitarian doctrine and the creeds could be superseded. But that depends on better proposals that may arise in the future.

 

[Runningman]

Maybe I can give you another hint. Jesus is the Messiah, the king descendant promised to David. That means Jesus is the king with dominion per Dan 7:14. Saints are not the king. Maybe ask Peterlag to look up the definition of king for you. He might get a useful definition this time. Also, the High Priest recognized Jesus' divinity of Dan 7:13-14. Is that still hidden fromyou?

Everything has a context. Sometimes Jesus is a king over people, other times he is described as a prince when compared to God. Sometimes Jesus is said to be the one Lord, other times there is a Lord who sent Jesus who retains Lordship over Jesus. It all boils down to Jesus being a subordinate human with a God just like the others, but there is a hierarchy within the church. Jesus is Lord of the church, God is the Lord of Jesus. Once you figure out that Jesus is actually a human just as the Bible says you will be on the right track.

 

[mikesw]

Everything has a context. Sometimes Jesus is a king over people, other times he is described as a prince when compared to God. Sometimes Jesus is said to be the one Lord, other times there is a Lord who sent Jesus who retains Lordship over Jesus. It all boils down to Jesus being a subordinate human with a God just like the others, but there is a hierarchy within the church. Jesus is Lord of the church, God is the Lord of Jesus.

So you say it all boils down to denying the divinity of Christ as scripture reveals to us. I do not consider that a decent option. Your remark hardly corrects the multitude of errors you have made in the interpretation of Dan 7:13-27. It gives you no argument against what is plenty obvious in the text and with what the High Priest encounter reveals. You have too many denials to make your view acceptable.

Once you figure out that Jesus is actually a human just as the Bible says you will be on the right track.

Remind me never to get directions from you. I can just use a road map.

 

[Runningman]

So you say it all boils down to denying the divinity of Christ as scripture reveals to us. I do not consider that a decent option. Your remark hardly corrects the multitude of errors you have made in the interpretation of Dan 7:13-27. It gives you no argument against what is plenty obvious in the text and with what the High Priest encounter reveals. You have too many denials to make your view acceptable.


Remind me never to get directions from you. I can just use a road map.

Ah, that must be your misunderstanding. You think the word divine refers to deity? Divine does not mean the same thing as deity. Jesus is divine, as are others, as Scripture explicitly states. So has it just been a problem of misunderstanding what words mean this whole time? If you discovered that being divine does not mean the same thing as deity would you accept that or no?

 

[mikesw]

Ah, that must be your misunderstanding. You think the word divine refers to deity? Divine does not mean the same thing as deity. Jesus is divine, as are others, as Scripture explicitly states. So has it just been a problem of misunderstanding what words mean this whole time? If you discovered that being divine does not mean the same thing as deity would you accept that or no?

I'm sorry. I forget that I have to state everything carefully so you do not forget the ideas. I should have said it like this "So you say it all boils down to denying the divinity of Christ (in the Godhead) as scripture reveals to us." Put a bookmark on the detail that I always speak of the divinity of Christ in the Godhead so that people will not infer some diluted concept of divinity. Normally I would not want to have to add the clarification "in the Godhead" for something where there is no logical alternative sense.

I am reminded that you unitarians use the same dialogue points as the JWs. It sounds like modern Unitarians only differ from JWs by use of a different bible.

 

[Runningman]

Response on “Godhead” and the Triune God​

1. On the word “Godhead”​

• The English word “Godhead”translates two Greek terms:
  • theiotēs (θειότης) – Romans 1:20: “his eternal power and divine nature.”
  • theotēs (θεότης) – Colossians 2:9: “in him dwells all the fullness of the Deity bodily.”
    BibleHub – Rom 1:20
    BibleHub – Col 2:9
• Neither word is Trias (Trinity) nor homoousios (consubstantial).
• Both terms describe quality of divinity, not ontological structure of three persons in one essence.

---

2. Christ’s divinity in the NT​

Yes, the NT clearly calls Christ divine:

• John 1:1 – kai Theos ēn ho Logos (καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος) → “the Word was God.”
• John 20:28 – ho Kyrios mou kai ho Theos mou (ὁ Κύριός μου καὶ ὁ Θεός μου) → “My Lord and my God.”

But these are functional and relational affirmations, not metaphysical formulas. They proclaim Christ as divine in mission, subject to the Father (Jn 14:28; 1 Cor 15:28).

---

3. What the Fathers said​

• Theophilus of Antioch (c. 180): first to use Trias, but defines it as God, Word, Wisdom — not “one essence, three persons.”
  Theophilus, Ad Autolycum II,15
• Tertullian (c. 200): “tres personae, una substantia” — the Latin seed of Trinity, still an interpretation beyond Scripture.
  Against Praxeas 2
• Eusebius of Caesarea (325): admits homoousios is not biblical, but imposed at Nicea.
  Letter of Eusebius on the Council of Nicaea

---

4. The real tension​

1. Triadic data is biblical.
   Matthew 28:19, 2 Cor 13:14 show Father–Son–Spirit together.
2. The technical lexicon is post-biblical.
   Trias, homoousios, substantia, persona are church inventions.
3. Scripture warns against “going beyond what is written.” (1 Cor 4:6).
   If we elevate later terms to dogma, we risk contradicting our own hermeneutical principle.

---

5. How to answer the “Godhead” move​

---

6. Conclusion​

• Trias and homoousios: not biblical.
• Godhead (theiotēs / theotēs): biblical, but descriptive of divine quality, not Trinity.
• The Fathers testify that the technical language developed later, amid controversy.
• The safest ground is Paul’s rule: mē huper ha gegraptai — “Do not go beyond what is written.” (1 Cor 4:6).

Affirm Christ’s divinity? Absolutely.
Bind it to later metaphysics? Not required by Scripture.

@mikesw read this post again closely. Even though it is AI generated content, it's actually very informational and spot on as far as I can tell.

 

[synergy]

Daniel 7 says the saints (people) reign and have the same sort of eternal sovereignty over the kingdom as Jesus. It's the same thing the disciples went around preaching, too. Scripture teaches those who overcome reign WITH Jesus, not are reigned over by Jesus.

Romans 8
17And if we are children, then we are heirs: heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ—if indeed we suffer with Him, so that we may also be glorified with Him.

2 Timothy 2
12if we endure,
we will also reign with Him;
if we deny Him,
He will also deny us;

Typical Strawman response from a unitarian whose heresy has been nailed to the wall. I never said anything against reigning with Jesus. What I said is that you do not get everyone to serve you. As much as you want to be the center of everyone's service/worship, that's not how it works. That point utterly destroys your Christ's Ascension = everyone's rapture Gaffe.

Daniel 7
14And He was given dominion,
glory, and kingship,
that the people of every nation and language
should serve Him.
His dominion is an everlasting dominion
that will not pass away,
and His kingdom is one
that will never be destroyed.
.
.
27Then the sovereignty, dominion, and greatness of the kingdoms under all of heaven will be given to the people, the saints of the Most High. His kingdom will be an everlasting kingdom, and all rulers will serve and obey Him.’

Revelation 20
6Blessed and holy are those who share in the first resurrection! The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with Him for a thousand years.

Why? Because Jesus will be made subject to God after his time at God's right hand is finished.

1 Corinthians 15
24Then the end will come, when He hands over the kingdom to God the Father after He has destroyed all dominion, authority, and power. 25For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. 26The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27For “God has put everything under His feet.”b Now when it says that everything has been put under Him, this clearly does not include the One who put everything under Him. 28And when all things have been subjected to Him, then the Son Himself will be made subject to Him who put all things under Him, so that God may be all in all.

There you go again with your refusal to acknowledge that the Bible oftentimes uses the word "until" in a way that does not imply a change of state after the time mentioned.

For example, 2 Samuel 6:23 says, “Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child until the day of her death.” With your way of thinking then you would have us believe that she had children after she died. Well done!

 

[Milo Flores]

Typical Strawman response from a unitarian whose heresy has been nailed to the wall. I never said anything against reigning with Jesus. What I said is that you do not get everyone to serve you. As much as you want to be the center of everyone's service/worship, that's not how it works. That point utterly destroys your Christ's Ascension = everyone's rapture Gaffe.

Daniel 7
14And He was given dominion,
glory, and kingship,
that the people of every nation and language
should serve Him.
His dominion is an everlasting dominion
that will not pass away,
and His kingdom is one
that will never be destroyed.
.
.
27Then the sovereignty, dominion, and greatness of the kingdoms under all of heaven will be given to the people, the saints of the Most High. His kingdom will be an everlasting kingdom, and all rulers will serve and obey Him.’

There you go again with your refusal to acknowledge that the Bible oftentimes uses the word "until" in a way that does not imply a change of state after the time mentioned.

For example, 2 Samuel 6:23 says, “Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child until the day of her death.” With your way of thinking then you would have us believe that she had children after she died. Well done!

Faith Without Walls


This is exactly why I do not believe in any Church as an institution that imposes dogmas:
they build walls which Christ has already torn down.
I respect that we may have different opinions,
but never walls that divide brothers and sisters.


The struggle is not against those who truly love God and the truth,
but against the real enemy who seeks to deceive and divide.
What I see in Scripture I only share as my understanding,
never to provoke conflict, but to grow together.


“He Himself is our peace, who has made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility.” (Eph 2:14)
“That they may all be one.” (John 17:21)
“Our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world.” (Eph 6:12)

 

[synergy]

Faith Without Walls


This is exactly why I do not believe in any Church as an institution that imposes dogmas:
they build walls which Christ has already torn down.
I respect that we may have different opinions,
but never walls that divide brothers and sisters.


The struggle is not against those who truly love God and the truth,
but against the real enemy who seeks to deceive and divide.
What I see in Scripture I only share as my understanding,
never to provoke conflict, but to grow together.


“He Himself is our peace, who has made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility.” (Eph 2:14)
“That they may all be one.” (John 17:21)
“Our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world.” (Eph 6:12)

That is an excellent attitude. This forum has several unitarians who wish to impose their Judaizing thoughts (Gal 2:14) on us and we need to be vigilant. Keep the Trinitarian Faith.