Your Views on The Trinity

[Peterlag]

As Jesus emptied Himself the form of God and take the form of a servant in the likeness of men and obedient to the Father even death on the cross, a demonstration of Jesus's voluntary submission to the Father's will and a reflection of His human limitations during His earthly ministry. While Jesus is fully God, He was in the human form, and this human aspect did not include the omniscience of the Father regarding the timing of His return.
And as Jesus said in Acts 1:7 that there are certain things that it is not for the followers to know times and season that the Father had fixed by His own authority.

Act 1:7 He said to them, "It is not for you to know times or epochs which the Father has fixed by His own authority;

There's no verse that says Jesus emptied himself from the form of God or that he emptied himself from his Godhood. There is no such statement anywhere in the New Testament.

 

[Jim]

I'm sad that you believe this trinity stuff. The Trinity does not come from Scripture. It comes from the doctrine of devils that the churches teach (and in most cases it's the first thing they teach) and then they begin to look for Scripture that supports such a concept. They do this by taking the verses out of context, or not understanding how the words were used in the culture they were written in, or from a bad translation.

There's reasons why the Bible does not teach the Trinity in one whole paragraph in a few different places or a whole chapter or two on it. There's reasons why there's no teaching on why God would come to the earth as a man. There's reasons why there was never a debate about the Trinity in Scripture like we see with justification by works or who should be circumcised. Such an important subject matter like the Trinity and the Bible is silent on all of it.

And there's the spinning and twisting from the trinitarians who can't come up with one verse in the Bible that says we should believe or confess that Jesus is God. Trinitarians who can't come up with one verse that says why God would come to the earth as a man. Trinitarians who have to make up their own words that are not in the Bible. Words like Trinity, Deity, and Incarnated.

If any of this nonsense was true and since it's so important and a huge subject to Christianity and is necessary for salvation like many teach. Then it would have been taught by someone somewhere. And it is not.

And none of that comes from Scripture. So I will continue in what I believe concerning the 'Trinity' stuff.

 

[synergy]

This is like me saying something simple like my thoughts were with me from the beginning. And then have some idiot say my thoughts are a separate person. And then a whole congregation is taught this and billions of people all over the globe believe it. I don't know if the Lord looks at this and laughs or cries.

Actually, it's more like John writing that "the Word was God". And then having some idiot say that John meant "words" instead of "The Word", and that words are not God, that John was just kidding when he wrote John 1:1. And then those unitarian heresies infect the whole world. I'm sure our Lord looks at this mess and cries.

 

[civic]

View attachment 2614

And no one but the Son knows the name- see Revelation 19:12

next fallacy

 

[synergy]

And no one but the Son knows the name- see Revelation 19:12

next fallacy

Now we know why @Peterlag doesn't "do the book of Revelation".

Like I told you a billion times. I don't do the book of Revelation.

 

[Peterlag]

Now we know why @Peterlag doesn't "do the book of Revelation".

Here's the reason why...

The book of Revelation does not teach that Jesus is God or even deal with Christianity. It's a book written in parables and figures of speech based on the customs and culture of Israel that deal with what will concern Israel in the future. The words “I am the Alpha and the Omega,’ says the Lord God” are not a teaching on the trinity or that we should believe or confess that Jesus is God. These words apply to God, not to Christ. The one “who is and who was and who is to come” is clearly identified in the context as God, not Jesus Christ. Revelation 1:4-5 reads: “Grace and peace to you from him who is, and who was, and who is to come, and from the seven spirits before his throne, and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth.” The separation between “the one who is, was and is to come” and Jesus Christ can be clearly seen. The one “who is, and who was and who is to come” is God.

The phrase “the Alpha and the Omega” has caused many people to believe this verse refers to Christ. However, study of the occurrences of the phrase indicates that the title “Alpha and Omega” applies solely to God. Scholars are not completely sure what the phrase “the Alpha and the Omega” means. Lenski concludes “it is fruitless to search Jewish and pagan literature for the source of something that resembles this name Alpha and Omega. Nowhere is a person, to say nothing of a divine Person, called "Alpha and Omega" or in Hebrew, Aleph and Tau.

Although there is no evidence from the historical sources that anyone is named “the Alpha and Omega” Bullinger says that the phrase “is a Hebraism, in common use among the ancient Jewish Commentators to designate the whole of anything from the beginning to the end." That would make the expression the figure of speech polarmerismos, similar to "and there was evening, and there was morning” which stands for the whole day in Genesis 1. The best scholarly minds have concluded that the phrase has something to do with starting and finishing something, or the entirety of something. Norton writes that these words “denote the certain accomplishment of his purposes; that what he has begun he will carry on to its consummation.

The trinitarian has only 3 to pick from...

1.) Use a verse from a bad translation.
2.) Use a verse that is taken out of context.
3.) Not understand how the words were used in the culture they were written in.

And basically that's all trinitarians have. And I mean 100 percent of what they have. They have nothing else.

 

[civic]

Here's the reason why...

The book of Revelation does not teach that Jesus is God or even deal with Christianity. It's a book written in parables and figures of speech based on the customs and culture of Israel that deal with what will concern Israel in the future. The words “I am the Alpha and the Omega,’ says the Lord God” are not a teaching on the trinity or that we should believe or confess that Jesus is God. These words apply to God, not to Christ. The one “who is and who was and who is to come” is clearly identified in the context as God, not Jesus Christ. Revelation 1:4-5 reads: “Grace and peace to you from him who is, and who was, and who is to come, and from the seven spirits before his throne, and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth.” The separation between “the one who is, was and is to come” and Jesus Christ can be clearly seen. The one “who is, and who was and who is to come” is God.

The phrase “the Alpha and the Omega” has caused many people to believe this verse refers to Christ. However, study of the occurrences of the phrase indicates that the title “Alpha and Omega” applies solely to God. Scholars are not completely sure what the phrase “the Alpha and the Omega” means. Lenski concludes “it is fruitless to search Jewish and pagan literature for the source of something that resembles this name Alpha and Omega. Nowhere is a person, to say nothing of a divine Person, called "Alpha and Omega" or in Hebrew, Aleph and Tau.

Although there is no evidence from the historical sources that anyone is named “the Alpha and Omega” Bullinger says that the phrase “is a Hebraism, in common use among the ancient Jewish Commentators to designate the whole of anything from the beginning to the end." That would make the expression the figure of speech polarmerismos, similar to "and there was evening, and there was morning” which stands for the whole day in Genesis 1. The best scholarly minds have concluded that the phrase has something to do with starting and finishing something, or the entirety of something. Norton writes that these words “denote the certain accomplishment of his purposes; that what he has begun he will carry on to its consummation.

The trinitarian has only 3 to pick from...

1.) Use a verse from a bad translation.
2.) Use a verse that is taken out of context.
3.) Not understand how the words were used in the culture they were written in.

And basically that's all trinitarians have. And I mean 100 percent of what they have. They have nothing else.

This obviously bears repeating for those who are willing to find out the true identity of the Alpha and Omega.

Rev 22:13, “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.”

We can see here that Whoever is the Alpha/Omega also claims to be the first/last AND the beginning/end. It’s the same Person.

If we look back in Rev 1:17-18 we see the following:

“…Fear not; I am the first and the last: I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.”

So, the One Who is first/last (and then is also Alpha/Omega and beginning/end) is the same Person who was dead and is alive forever more. It doesn’t take a scholar to figure out Who is the One speaking here. It does take a lot of mental gymnastics to explain away something so obvious.

The term "first/last" is used 4 times in Rev. Twice it is used along with "Alpha/Omega" with the Person claiming to be "first/last" AND the "Alpha/Omega."

"Alpha/Omega" is used 4 times in Rev. Twice with "first/last" and twice with "beginning/end."

"Beginning/end" occurs 3 times: twice with "Alpha/Omega" and once with "Alpha/Omega" AND "first/last."

In all of these texts, the speaker always refers to Himself with both or all of the titles. To say, "Well, this time it's Jehovah who is the first/last, this next time it's Jesus, then later it's Jehovah again..." is the mental gymnastics to which I referred.

Is God the first/last or is Jesus the first/last? Is God the Alpha/Omega or is Jesus the Alpha/Omega? Is God the beginning/end or is Jesus the beginning/end. An obvious way to reconcile the verses is to understand that Jesus is God.

According to unitarians, it seems God claimed to be the first/last in one sense while Jesus claimed to be first/last in another sense. You seem to gloss over the blatant connection of first/last with beginning/end and Alpha/Omega. In each verse, the Speaker who claims one title also claims one or both of the others. It's all the same person.

I usually wait patiently for unitarians to reply but this point has been nagging at me so I have to comment preemptively. I really am baffled by their suggestion from other discussion in the past that “first/last” has some meaning here other than the obvious one (a title synonymous with Alpha/Omega). You even say that Alpha/Omega is never used of the Son? Incredible!! We both have said that context is king so I would like to remind other readers of the context of Rev 1:17-18 (beginning in v.10, Young’s Literal):

I was in the Spirit on the Lord's-day, and I heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet, saying, I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last;' and, `What thou dost see, write in a scroll, and send to the seven assemblies that [are] in Asia; to Ephesus, and to Smyrna, and to Pergamos, and to Thyatira, and to Sardis, and to Philadelphia, and to Laodicea.'

And I did turn to see the voice that did speak with me, and having turned, I saw seven golden lamp-stands, and in the midst of the seven lamp-stands, [one] like to a son of man, clothed to the foot, and girt round at the breast with a golden girdle, and his head and hairs white, as if white wool -- as snow, and his eyes as a flame of fire; and his feet like to fine brass, as in a furnace having been fired, and his voice as a sound of many waters, and having in his right hand seven stars, and out of his mouth a sharp two-edged sword is proceeding, and his countenance [is] as the sun shining in its might.

And when I saw him, I did fall at his feet as dead, and he placed his right hand upon me, saying to me, `Be not afraid; I am the First and the Last, and he who is living, and I did become dead, and, lo, I am living to the ages of the ages. Amen! and I have the keys of the hades and of the death.

Do you realize this is one scene? The Speaker identifies Himself in v. 11 as “the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last.” John turns to see who is speaking and sees “one like to a son of man” (other translations have “the Son of man”). Perhaps John is saying, "I saw someone who looked like Jesus." Then finally, in v. 17-18, the Speaker indeed identifies Himself as the One who is living and became dead and is now alive again forever.

Unitarians: I guess you identify the Alpha and Omega in v. 8 as Jehovah and v. 11 as Jesus? I guess you don’t see the term “the First and the Last” as a title equivalent to “the Alpha and Omega”? If so, you are definitely seeing something in the text that an ordinary reading doesn’t see beacuse of your bias.

It’s a title ascribed to the Almighty. I didn’t think it needed a more precise definition to be understood. What about, “the one who is and who was and who to come”? Does that need to be defined? I guess we could talk about a precise definition but I don’t think that will change my point. The Alpha/Omega is self-described as “the Almighty (1:8) AND the First/Last (22:13). The First/Last is self-described as the one who was dead and is alive forever more (1:18). Again, there are either 2 people who are the first and last OR Jesus is the Almighty.

Conclusion: Scripture declares YHWH is the First and the Last and besides Me there is no God/YHWH. Christ is YHWH.

hope this helps !!!

 

[Peterlag]

 

[mikesw]

View attachment 2616

Wow. If you quote a single verse, you are able to avoid reflecting your heresies. It only gets bad when you add your spin to it.

 

[Capbook]

That's like me saying my orders were carried out by my management and therefore my thoughts became the thoughts of Mike my manager. And then some idiot comes along and says that I am Mike. And then some stupid preacher starts teaching this to his church. Nobody can be this stupid. This must be the work of the devil.

Is it another way of saying, the Father's expression of thoughts carried by Jesus, and some come along and say that the Father is Jesus, Peterlag?
Good analogy, a confirmation of Jesus as the "eternal Father" and Mighty God in Isaiah 9:6.

Yes, it will be stupid to some preachers to teach the company owner's thoughts to the church.

 

[Capbook]

Too much to respond to. What I see from you is a rhetorical tactic being deployed here known as the Gish Gallop. It's a debate strategy where one side fires off a massive amount of arguments, points, and claims all in one post with the clear intent to overwhelm and exhaust anyone trying to respond. The purpose of the Gish Gallop is to flood the conversation with so many points that nobody can reasonably address them all, creating the false impression that their arguments are insurmountable or that the other side has no answers.

Is it wrong to address all your presented points Peterlag?

 

[Capbook]

There's no verse that says Jesus emptied himself from the form of God or that he emptied himself from his Godhood. There is no such statement anywhere in the New Testament.

I prefer literal word for word Bible translations Peterlag, I don't know why you cannot find those verses in your Bible.

Php 2:6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,
Php 2:7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.
Php 2:8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

 

[Peterlag]

I prefer literal word for word Bible translations Peterlag, I don't know why you cannot find those verses in your Bible.

Php 2:6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,
Php 2:7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.
Php 2:8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

Which verse above says Jesus emptied himself of his Godhood?

 

[Peterlag]

Is it another way of saying, the Father's expression of thoughts carried by Jesus, and some come along and say that the Father is Jesus, Peterlag?
Good analogy, a confirmation of Jesus as the "eternal Father" and Mighty God in Isaiah 9:6.

Yes, it will be stupid to some preachers to teach the company owner's thoughts to the church.

Isaiah 9:6 is not a teaching on the trinity or that we should believe or confess that Jesus is God. “a child will be born.” The Hebrew text reads “a child has been born... a son has been given.” The Hebrew verb about being born is a perfect passive and is most literally translated “has been born.” Although some scholars say this prophecy is about Hezekiah, and in fact it may reflect upon him in part, the prophecy is more completely about the Messiah. It's common in the Hebrew idiom to write about something that will happen in the future as if it had happened in the past, and this is referred to by many scholars as the idiom of the “prophetic perfect.” Also, the prophetic perfect occurs very often in prophecy, especially in Isaiah.

“The Mighty God is an Extraordinary Advisor” The phrase is usually translated as “Mighty God, Wonderful Counselor” in most English Bibles. However, a better way to understand it is as a theophoric name given to the Messiah which describes God, not the Messiah. It's noteworthy that if Isaiah 9:6 was a proof that Jesus is God, nothing is said about it in the New Testament.

“Mighty God/Warrior God” el gibbor is the same name attributed to Yahweh (the true God) subsequently in Isaiah 10:21, as well as in all the other biblical occurrences Deuteronomy 10:17; Jeremiah 32:18). So, in the other places where this same phrase is used in the singular, it's referring to Yahweh, not to anyone else. So, in every occurrence of el gibbor, it refers to God the Father—Yahweh. This provides strong evidence that el gibbor in Isaiah 9:6 likely also refers to Yahweh.

Although some Trinitarians attempt to see this text as teaching the Messiah’s Deity, many do not consider that the text taken consistently in their framework would actually be calling the child “The Everlasting Father.” That would then make Jesus the “Everlasting Father” which would be Modalism, where God is strictly a unitary being who exists at different times in different modes (i.e., the Holy Spirit, the Father, and the Son). The Athanasian Creed, which is considered as orthodox today states that Christians should “neither confound the Persons nor divide the Substance” but if Isaiah 9:6 says the Son is the Father, then it would be doing that and not teaching the modern definition of the Trinity.

 

[Capbook]

Which verse above says Jesus emptied himself of his Godhood?

Strawman, did I state "Godhood" or in the "form of God" Peterlag?

 

[Capbook]

Isaiah 9:6 is not a teaching on the trinity or that we should believe or confess that Jesus is God. “a child will be born.” The Hebrew text reads “a child has been born... a son has been given.” The Hebrew verb about being born is a perfect passive and is most literally translated “has been born.” Although some scholars say this prophecy is about Hezekiah, and in fact it may reflect upon him in part, the prophecy is more completely about the Messiah. It's common in the Hebrew idiom to write about something that will happen in the future as if it had happened in the past, and this is referred to by many scholars as the idiom of the “prophetic perfect.” Also, the prophetic perfect occurs very often in prophecy, especially in Isaiah.

“The Mighty God is an Extraordinary Advisor” The phrase is usually translated as “Mighty God, Wonderful Counselor” in most English Bibles. However, a better way to understand it is as a theophoric name given to the Messiah which describes God, not the Messiah. It's noteworthy that if Isaiah 9:6 was a proof that Jesus is God, nothing is said about it in the New Testament.

“Mighty God/Warrior God” el gibbor is the same name attributed to Yahweh (the true God) subsequently in Isaiah 10:21, as well as in all the other biblical occurrences Deuteronomy 10:17; Jeremiah 32:18). So, in the other places where this same phrase is used in the singular, it's referring to Yahweh, not to anyone else. So, in every occurrence of el gibbor, it refers to God the Father—Yahweh. This provides strong evidence that el gibbor in Isaiah 9:6 likely also refers to Yahweh.

Although some Trinitarians attempt to see this text as teaching the Messiah’s Deity, many do not consider that the text taken consistently in their framework would actually be calling the child “The Everlasting Father.” That would then make Jesus the “Everlasting Father” which would be Modalism, where God is strictly a unitary being who exists at different times in different modes (i.e., the Holy Spirit, the Father, and the Son). The Athanasian Creed, which is considered as orthodox today states that Christians should “neither confound the Persons nor divide the Substance” but if Isaiah 9:6 says the Son is the Father, then it would be doing that and not teaching the modern definition of the Trinity.

You did not address my understanding to your analogy Peterlag, I just follow your line of argument.
Do below explained better?

Is it another way of saying, the Father's expression of thoughts carried by Jesus, and some come along and say that the Father is Jesus, Peterlag?

 

[Peterlag]

Strawman, did I state "Godhood" or in the "form of God" Peterlag?

Okay what verse says Jesus emptied himself from the form of God?

 

[Peterlag]

You did not address my understanding to your analogy Peterlag, I just follow your line of argument.
Do below explained better?

Is it another way of saying, the Father's expression of thoughts carried by Jesus, and some come along and say that the Father is Jesus, Peterlag?

I have no idea what you're referring to. I'm not ignoring your points. I simply have no idea what you're talking about. We can't assume and read our thoughts into Scripture. Either the verse says Jesus emptied himself of his Godhood or it does not.

 

[Capbook]

Isaiah 9:6 is not a teaching on the trinity or that we should believe or confess that Jesus is God. “a child will be born.” The Hebrew text reads “a child has been born... a son has been given.” The Hebrew verb about being born is a perfect passive and is most literally translated “has been born.” Although some scholars say this prophecy is about Hezekiah, and in fact it may reflect upon him in part, the prophecy is more completely about the Messiah. It's common in the Hebrew idiom to write about something that will happen in the future as if it had happened in the past, and this is referred to by many scholars as the idiom of the “prophetic perfect.” Also, the prophetic perfect occurs very often in prophecy, especially in Isaiah.

You just confirm Peterlag that the prophecy is more completely about the Messiah, Jesus the Christ, the begotten of the Father.

“The Mighty God is an Extraordinary Advisor” The phrase is usually translated as “Mighty God, Wonderful Counselor” in most English Bibles. However, a better way to understand it is as a theophoric name given to the Messiah which describes God, not the Messiah. It's noteworthy that if Isaiah 9:6 was a proof that Jesus is God, nothing is said about it in the New Testament.

As I prefer literal word for word Bible translations, supported by the oldest manuscripts, the papyri 66 and 75, described the original wordings of the text as Jesus the "only begotten God," there are variant readings but not described as the original wordings.

John 1:18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.

“Mighty God/Warrior God” el gibbor is the same name attributed to Yahweh (the true God) subsequently in Isaiah 10:21, as well as in all the other biblical occurrences Deuteronomy 10:17; Jeremiah 32:18). So, in the other places where this same phrase is used in the singular, it's referring to Yahweh, not to anyone else. So, in every occurrence of el gibbor, it refers to God the Father—Yahweh. This provides strong evidence that el gibbor in Isaiah 9:6 likely also refers to Yahweh.

Yes, do that mean that the Father is the "child will be born to us, a son will be given to us?" Peterlag?

Although some Trinitarians attempt to see this text as teaching the Messiah’s Deity, many do not consider that the text taken consistently in their framework would actually be calling the child “The Everlasting Father.” That would then make Jesus the “Everlasting Father” which would be Modalism, where God is strictly a unitary being who exists at different times in different modes (i.e., the Holy Spirit, the Father, and the Son). The Athanasian Creed, which is considered as orthodox today states that Christians should “neither confound the Persons nor divide the Substance” but if Isaiah 9:6 says the Son is the Father, then it would be doing that and not teaching the modern definition of the Trinity.

Ok, then what is your take on what Jesus said in John 17:11 Peterlag?

John 17:11 "I am no longer in the world; and yet they themselves are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep them in Your name, the name which You have given Me, that they may be one even as We are.

 

[Capbook]

Okay what verse says Jesus emptied himself from the form of God?

Already quoted it, just backread Phil 2:6-8.
If you honestly and logically answer on Jesus as "in the form of a servant," is He man or not?
And why that honest and logical answer cannot be applied to Jesus as "in the from of God," Is He God or not?
Kindly explain Peterlag.