Your Views on The Trinity

[TomL]

I never ignore Philippians 2. I have posted the following many times. It falls on deaf ears...

There's nothing in the book of Philippians that says Jesus emptied himself of his Godhood. Nothing. I hate when someone twists scripture to fit a Triune God narrative or to twist to testify that Jesus is God - I hate lies.

Wrong subject

The right subject

Christ's existence in the form of God indicates that he is equal to God.

You were already told I do not say Jesus emptied himself of his Godhood

If you hate lies you should be avoiding arguing as though I do.

 

[Peterlag]

Wrong subject

The right subject

Christ's existence in the form of God indicates that he is equal to God.

You were already told I do not say Jesus emptied himself of his Godhood

If you hate lies you should be avoiding arguing as though I do.

I already posted on the form and did again this morning. You refuse to see it. Here it is again...

The Greek word morphē does not refer to the essential nature of Christ in that context. If the point of the verse is to say that Jesus is God, then why not just say that? If Jesus is God, say that, don’t say he has the “essential nature of God.” Of course God has the “essential nature” of God, so why would anyone make that point? This verse does not say “Jesus being God” but rather “being in the form of God.” Paul is reminding the Philippians that Jesus represented the Father in every possible way.

From the Septuagint and their other writings, the Jews were familiar with morphē referring to the outward appearance, including the form of men and idols. To the Greeks, it also referred to the outward appearance, including the changing outward appearance of their gods and the form of statues. The only other New Testament use of morphē outside Philippians is in Mark, and there it refers to the outward appearance. Also, the words related to morphē clearly refer to an outward manifestation or appearance. The word morphē refers to an outward appearance or manifestation. Jesus Christ was in the outward appearance of God, so much so that he said, “He who has seen me has seen the Father.” Christ always did the Father’s will, and perfectly represented his Father in every way.

 

[civic]

As believers, we will go to heaven when we die.

"The Lord has established His throne in heaven, and His Kingdom rules over all. Ps.103:19
So God the Father is the Supreme Being in heaven.

But Peter gives us additional information about heaven in 2 Peter 1:10-11

"... for as long as you practice these things, you will never stumble; for in this way the entrance into the eternal Kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ will be abundantly supplied to you.

So now we have heaven being called the Kingdom of God the Father AND the Kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Are there 2 Kingdoms in heaven? Are there 2 Kings in heavens? NO and OF COURSE NOT.

The Kingdom of the our Father and the eternal Kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, obviously are one and the same. And no wonder because Jesus and the Father are ONE.

Notice too that in Revelation 22:1 and 3, that God and the Lamb sit on one throne.

Verse 1: "... a river ... clear as crystal, coming from the throne of God and of the Lamb."
Verse 3: "There will no longer be any curse; and the throne of God and of the Lamb will be in it, and His (Singular) bond-servants will serve Him (Singular).

Did you notice that God and the Lamb together are referred to with singular pronouns, His and Him?

Slam dunk against the uni doctrine

 

[Runningman]

I do not go by unitarian exegetical errant rules. I go by best practices exegesis.

The important rule is to read scripture finding out the resolution of seeming contradictions. You just disregard anything that conflicts with your unitarian bias.

This is the standard rule throughout the world in literature, philosophy, or theology. You don't use the minority, fringe, and obscure statements of a text to explain the whole thing. Interpretation works from the clear to the unclear, not the other way around. So when the Bible speaks clearly about there being only one person who is God, called the Father, the the clear and explicit governs exegesis, not the other way around.

 

[mikesw]

This is the standard rule throughout the world in literature, philosophy, or theology. You don't use the minority, fringe, and obscure statements of a text to explain the whole thing. Interpretation works from the clear to the unclear, not the other way around. So when the Bible speaks clearly about there being only one person who is God, called the Father, the the clear and explicit governs exegesis, not the other way around.

Decent exegesis does not just pretend that a significant number of passages speaking against your interpretation of a few should be neglected. Again this is not some statistical analysis being done. It is reading scripture that God has prepared for us.

 

[Runningman]

Decent exegesis does not just pretend that a significant number of passages speaking against your interpretation of a few should be neglected. Again this is not some statistical analysis being done. It is reading scripture that God has prepared for us.

Which is why you are losing this debate. You don't have a significant number of passages. You literally have no verses about the trinity. The Bible doesn't even come remotely close to describing the Trinity. Really, this feels like an exercise in entertaining your fantasies rather than a discussion in what Scripture states about God.

 

[mikesw]

Which is why you are losing this debate. You don't have a significant number of passages. You literally have no verses about the trinity. The Bible doesn't even come remotely close to describing the Trinity. Really, this feels like an exercise in entertaining your fantasies rather than a discussion in what Scripture states about God.

You must fall asleep every time the significant passages are shared. Instead you hold to sort of gnostic discovery of a new concept of Christ and boast in that to the denial of all that has been revealed about the divinity of Christ. If your could argue sufficiently against the passages of Christ's pre-existence and divinity, then we would not be going around in circles waiting for you to prove anything.
You need to repent from your gnostic style self-glorification.

 

[mikesw]

Can Trinitarians Fellowship With Jesus Christ...

The written Word of God is made to shine with the glory of the divine presence of God through His wonderful Son Jesus Christ, because the one great subject of the whole Word of God is Jesus Christ. The Son of the living God is the master key to understanding God’s heart of love, the written Word of God, the Christian walk, and those Scriptures that pertain to power. I would like to note that I have become very aware that in the biblical field there is a vast difference between someone who has been "educated" on a subject versus someone who can do the subject successfully. Just because a person has studied a subject doesn't mean they can do it. A student who has been educated on a subject has only proven they can be a student successfully. They have not proven they can do the subject. With that in mind I set a goal to discover how to fellowship with Jesus Christ.

Jesus said "without me ye can do nothing" (John 15:5). Jesus commissioned his disciples and sent them out as representatives. They already knew him well enough to have had a rock-solid relationship with him whereby they could represent him as an ambassador. We talk all day until the cows come home on how it's Christ in us the hope of glory, and that the power of the holy spirit is born within us, thereby making us able body believers. But nobody seems to be talking about us being in Christ to the end we know him well enough to represent him on the Earth. We must first know someone well enough to be able to have a working relationship with them before we could represent them. I'm very interested in 1 John 3:6 that says "whosoever abideth in him" because the Greek word menō translated "abide" often deals with being in him, which I'm very concerned about when it comes to walking in Christ, which I believe is the same as walking in the spirit. To be in him or to abide in him deals with remaining or continuing to be present. To dwell, live, and be within him to the end that we are operative in him by his divine influence and energy. And therefore I was able to begin having a relationship with both Jesus Christ and the Father. E.W. Bullinger, defines the word "fellowship" in the following verses as an act of partaking, sharing—i.e., in participation.

1 Corinthians 1:9
God is faithful, by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord.

1 John 1:3
That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.

Therefore, victory in the Christian life is as simple as renewing our minds to who we are and what we have already received in Christ. It’s not the struggle of two natures inside of us. We will continue to struggle with sin if we see ourselves as old sinners saved by grace. And so it's also true we will manifest the change that took place in our new nature when we understand we are not old sinners saved by grace. Thus, we act like being part of the senses world when we see ourselves as being part of the senses world. We act like being part of the Christian world when we see ourselves as being part of Christ—i.e., in our born-again spirits. I believe God gave us a new nature when we are born again and that this is what the apostle Paul taught.

John 4:24 says God is a Spirit and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. And so this is why I'm so concerned with not only having fellowship with God, but also being able to do it in the spirit. We undergo a miraculous exchange at the center of our being once we have the spirit of Christ. Who we were in Adam is no longer there. We become a new person because we are now a child of God who is in Christ. The key event causing this exchange is a death, burial, and resurrection with Christ. This miraculous exchange is not figurative or symbolic, but literal and actual. The spiritual part of every Christian has literally and actually been crucified, buried, and raised with Christ. The fact that this occurs spiritually and not physically doesn’t make it any less real. So what happens to the old self that was in Adam? The old self is entirely obliterated once the spirit of Christ enters the Christian.

Jesus spent time telling his disciples about the new relationship he would have with them after he would be resurrected (John 14:1-4, 18, 28; 16:5-7, 16). For example, he told them they could ask him for things, that he would not leave them as orphans, and he would now call them “friends” not servants. One of the clearest points of Scripture that supports prayer to Jesus is John 14:14. Jesus taught “If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it.” The manuscript evidence supports the word “me” in John 14:14 being in the original text. Modern textual scholars have concluded that scribes left the word "me" out of the text or changed “me” to “the Father" and this explains why “me” is not in the King James Version because the manuscripts used in making the King James did not have the word “me” in it. However, the weight of the manuscript evidence supports the word “me” being original, which is why almost all modern versions include it. Jesus telling his disciples that they could ask him for anything after his resurrection certainly fits with the scope of Scripture, since Jesus knew that he was about to be given great authority as the Son of God. Jesus telling his disciples they could ask him for things after his ascension is clearly seen in both Acts and the Epistles.

Another reason to have fellowship with Jesus and be able to ask him for stuff is because he's now both Lord and Christ (Acts 10:36; Romans 10:12), and the very essence of “lordship” is being in charge and running things. That is why the Greek word for “Lord” was used for rulers, landowners, and heads of households. Jesus is Lord because he is God’s “right-hand man” and is directly in charge of the Church. To be able to do that job, God gave him all authority in Heaven and on Earth (Matthew 28:18). In order for Jesus to be our “Lord” in any meaningful sense of the word, we have to be able to communicate with him and ask him for stuff. And this is why it is written that we should have “fellowship” with him “…and indeed, our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ” (1 John 1:3). The word “fellowship” in the Greek is [koinōnia] and it's used in several different ways in the New Testament. Fundamentally, it refers to a close association involving mutual interests and sharing; a close relationship characterized by involvement and sharing (Acts 2:42; 1 John 1:3).

Jesus told his followers they are his “friends” [philos] (John 15:13-15). He emphasizes his point by saying that slaves and servants do not know what the Lord does, but friends do. What Jesus said has huge implications for Christians, because Jesus has opened the door for us to be “friends” with him. One of the hallmarks of genuine friendship is that we can ask friends for things. It's quite inconceivable that Jesus would say that those disciples who followed him would be his “friends” but could not be in touch with him. Regular and intimate communication is part of friendship, and it makes perfect sense that we can ask our Lord, Head, Shepherd, and Friend, for whatever we need.

The Greek word [koinōnia] translated into English as "fellowship" has sometimes been defined as “full sharing” which has been more fully explained as “intimate joint participation.” In the Scriptures where people “fellowship” with each other, we can sometimes clearly see there is intimate joint participation. For example, in Acts 2:42, the people were meeting together, eating together, praying together, giving their possessions to one another, and following the Apostles’ teaching. In a similar vein, Galatians 2:9 says that James, Peter, and John extended the “right hand of fellowship” to Barnabas and Paul, meaning they jointly and fully shared things among themselves. Also, 1 John 1:3 shows that John told the disciples all about Jesus so they could have “fellowship” intimate joint participation with John and the other Apostles who had seen the Lord. In contrast, light has no “fellowship” with darkness because there's no intimate joint participation (2 Cor. 6:14).

Fellowshiping with Jesus Christ deals with “knowing” him (Philippians 3:8, 10). In Philippians, Paul wrote about knowing Jesus, and there is a huge difference between “knowing about” Jesus and actually knowing him. Paul did not just want to “know about” Jesus. In fact, he said he counted any position he could claim in the world to be just dung compared to knowing Christ. Really knowing someone involves personally interacting with the person. In fact, it's difficult to imagine how we could really “know” Christ without personal interaction with him. Christians can personally interact with the Lord Jesus Christ, via the gift of the holy spirit, and part of that interaction certainly includes feeling free to ask him for stuff.

I did not do more than skim through this post. It sounds like you are trying to use this text to convey that we should deny who Christ is while we claim to be able to be just like him. That is impossible in the sense that we do not become God by following Christ -- nor ever do we become God.

 

[mikesw]

I already posted on the form and did again this morning. You refuse to see it. Here it is again...

The Greek word morphē does not refer to the essential nature of Christ in that context. If the point of the verse is to say that Jesus is God, then why not just say that? If Jesus is God, say that, don’t say he has the “essential nature of God.” Of course God has the “essential nature” of God, so why would anyone make that point? This verse does not say “Jesus being God” but rather “being in the form of God.” Paul is reminding the Philippians that Jesus represented the Father in every possible way.

Paul does not have to repeat in instructive and corrective letters what John 1 shares explicitly. No matter how many ways the divinity of Christ is expressed, the unitarian simply diverts and distracts from that message.

From the Septuagint and their other writings, the Jews were familiar with morphē referring to the outward appearance, including the form of men and idols. To the Greeks, it also referred to the outward appearance, including the changing outward appearance of their gods and the form of statues. The only other New Testament use of morphē outside Philippians is in Mark, and there it refers to the outward appearance. Also, the words related to morphē clearly refer to an outward manifestation or appearance. The word morphē refers to an outward appearance or manifestation. Jesus Christ was in the outward appearance of God, so much so that he said, “He who has seen me has seen the Father.” Christ always did the Father’s will, and perfectly represented his Father in every way.

Wow. So Paul cannot use this to reflect more about Jesus' divinity and humility. Someone should have told this to Paul.
Your complaint should be made to God rather than to Christians in this forum.

You also failed to explain what Christ gave up. It seems the best you said was that Jesus gave up his reign as king to become humble and then take up his reign as king. Of course this "best," was not very good anyhow.

 

[Runningman]

You must fall asleep every time the significant passages are shared. Instead you hold to sort of gnostic discovery of a new concept of Christ and boast in that to the denial of all that has been revealed about the divinity of Christ. If your could argue sufficiently against the passages of Christ's pre-existence and divinity, then we would not be going around in circles waiting for you to prove anything.
You need to repent from your gnostic style self-glorification.

Stringing verses together isn't how exegesis works. No one wrote any conclusions about God being a trinity in the Bible. They did not repeat any sort of agreement about what you people say. Why do you reject the exclusive deity of the Father at the expense of an idol?

 

[mikesw]

Stringing verses together isn't how exegesis works. No one wrote any conclusions about God being a trinity in the Bible. They did not repeat any sort of agreement about what you people say. Why do you reject the exclusive deity of the Father at the expense of an idol?

Reading the verses in their combined message helps. That exposes the errors of the hyperliteralist gnostic unitarian who disregards the passages showing the pre-existence before the incarnation of Jesus.

 

[Runningman]

Reading the verses in their combined message helps. That exposes the errors of the hyperliteralist gnostic unitarian who disregards the passages showing the pre-existence before the incarnation of Jesus.

People in the Bible didn't ever put together verses and said it means there is a trinity. You're just doing what anyone can do by just putting verses together and making a new religion with it.

 

[mikesw]

People in the Bible didn't ever put together verses and said it means there is a trinity. You're just doing what anyone can do by just putting verses together and making a new religion with it.

Uh. In a colloquial way of speaking, Christianity did become a new religion. I think you are left in the judged and condemned OT and fail to recognize the clarity to the divinity of Christ Jesus in the Godhead that comes to better light in the NT.

 

[Peterlag]

The pronouns in the Bible that refer to “God” are singular and there are lots of them.

“The Hebrew Bible and the New Testament contain well over twenty thousand pronouns and verbs describing the One God” (Anthony Buzzard and Charles Hunting, The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianity’s Self-inflicted Wound, International Scholars Publications, New York, 1998, p. 17). Singular pronouns include “I” “my” and “he.” We would expect it to say “For God so loved the world that they gave the Father’s only begotten Son….” if “God” were composed of three co-equal beings who each had their own mind and together agreed to send Christ. The fact that the pronouns in the Bible refer to “God” as a singular being is also evidence that there is no Trinity.

 

[mikesw]

The pronouns in the Bible that refer to “God” are singular and there are lots of them.

“The Hebrew Bible and the New Testament contain well over twenty thousand pronouns and verbs describing the One God” (Anthony Buzzard and Charles Hunting, The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianity’s Self-inflicted Wound, International Scholars Publications, New York, 1998, p. 17).

Oh wow. Interpret the bible according to statistics instead of the inherent message.

Singular pronouns include “I” “my” and “he.” We would expect it to say “For God so loved the world that they gave the Father’s only begotten Son….” if “God” were composed of three co-equal beings who each had their own mind and together agreed to send Christ. The fact that the pronouns in the Bible refer to “God” as a singular being is also evidence that there is no Trinity.

Hmm. You are again trying to say Mary is a goddess. You remain deeply confused.
Jesus's divinity in the Godhead is evidence that the unitarian belief system falls flat on its face.
The unitarian belief system is unable to explain away the divinity of Christ as per JOhn 1:18 the one and only God who is in the bosom of the Father has made him known

 

[Peterlag]

 

[mikesw]

View attachment 2555

Oh my. Preschool indoctrination of kids of the unitarian cult. Preschoolers cannot discern this but adults can see what scripture shows. It may not be "required" to recognize the divinity of Christ since all people have not read that much of scripture. It is a handicap to have read scripture and not recognize who Christ is.

Gnostic cults are built on reducing bible study to little slogans denying Christian concepts.

 

[Capbook]

It would make no sense for the Scriptures to say what Jesus is not. Nobody back then ever thought that Jesus was anything other than a man.

Then where in the Bible that says "Jesus is not God?" As you've seen He is the only begotten God.
You have to prove your pre-conceived belief.
Yes, we believe that Jesus was in human form.
We also believe that there's one God.
The burden of proof falls to the Arians to prove from the Bible that says "Jesus is not God."

 

[Peterlag]

Then where in the Bible that says "Jesus is not God?" As you've seen He is the only begotten God.
You have to prove your pre-conceived belief.
Yes, we believe that Jesus was in human form.
We also believe that there's one God.
The burden of proof falls to the Arians to prove from the Bible that says "Jesus is not God."

In this life and in speaking and writing we do not say what a thing is not. We say what a thing is. Jesus is the son of God. Nobody expects someone to say what he is not. To say that Jesus is not God would be insane. I am a man. I can say I'm a man. I should not have to say I'm not a jelly fish, and I'm not a horse, and I'm not a cat, and I'm not a dog... etc. etc.

 

[mikesw]

In this life and in speaking and writing we do not say what a thing is not. We say what a thing is. Jesus is the son of God. Nobody expects someone to say what he is not. To say that Jesus is not God would be insane. I am a man. I can say I'm a man. I should not have to say I'm not a jelly fish, and I'm not a horse, and I'm not a cat, and I'm not a dog... etc. etc.

You keep confessing Jesus is the son of someone. Oh right. You say he is the Son of God born of the essence of his Father as is always the case. Even unitarians cannot avoid pointing out Jesus as God incarnate.
Son of Man is also an indication of the deity of Christ. Otherwise, "of man" would be totally unnecessary. But unitarians cannot flesh those details out since they are focused on three things: deny, deny, deny.