Your Views on The Trinity

[FreeInChrist]

It least he is smart enough to admit his deity is a possibility

Yes sir.... and that filled my heart with joy.

 

[mikesw]

its like a mantra that goes off in the mind which keeps circulating/percolating:

Jesus is not God, Jesus is not God, Jesus is not God

So since this is in the forefront of their mind 24/7 when reading and discussing the bible this is their mantra that is the immediate response. Since the bias of Jesus cannot be God is their false premise anything or anyone in the bible that called Jesus God or alludes to Him being God is immediately dismissed. They cannot see the forest through the trees. Therefor they have given up the biblical witness and testimony concerning Christ from God the Father, the Holy Spirit, the Son, scripture, OT prophets, John the baptist, those He healed, His disciples and the Apostles. Its a war/battle against Christ that cannot be won.

In the end as Paul teaches they will stand before Him one day confessing Jesus is Lord/God/YHWH as every knee will bow and every tongue will confess.

It might be a good exercise at time to read a passage from a different mindset. I have looked at passages the unitarians mention and consider their option at times, but it is never convincing. Another place this mantra process seems employed is with much of the New Perspective on Paul. However, that too seems more like a failed attempt (with some exceptions where good results might be found). The results tend to prove the views that were being denied.

 

[Runningman]

Only a unitarian would make such an uninformed argument. There are a zillion reasons why Jesus is God and we're not. Start with John's Prologue, Jesus' proclamations that he is "I AM", his omnipresence amongst wherever 2 or more are gathered in his name, and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on....

1. Believers sit on the throne with Jesus
2. Jesus sat on his Fathers throne
3. Believers are still sitting with Jesus
4. Believers are sitting on the throne of God with the authority of God Almighty

See how silly this gets when we follow your circus of a theology?

 

[Runningman]

Why did Jesus say to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit?

When , once He was on the scene they were baptizing in His name.

Why did He change it?

You ask this.... "I mean, where did people go around consistently referring to God as three persons, ever?"

Jesus wasn't referring to water baptism with that statement. He was referring to authority, not creating a trinitarian formula. As you can see, no one baptized following what Jesus said. It means the disciples understood the command differently than you do, not that they ignored it.

For the past 70 plus years or so Pittsburgh PA. Not NYC or LA big but not a small town.... I have only heard those saying they were Christians to believe in the truth of the Trinity. It has only been on this forum that it has been questioned. Of course another forum banned any discussion until the past 6 months or so but it is a pretty universal belief..

Heck... I have a close Jewish friend just north of Miami who is NOT messianic... but I made the comment to him that I knew he did not believe in Jesus... and his comment to me was "I believe in Jesus. He may even be God" So He has a more Christian belief then you do.

Sorry to hear you have deceived someone into going astray.

 

[civic]

Jesus wasn't referring to water baptism with that statement. He was referring to authority, not creating a trinitarian formula. As you can see, no one baptized following what Jesus said. It means the disciples understood the command differently than you do, not that they ignored it.

Sorry to hear you have deceived someone into going astray.

wrong baptism was water in that passage.

next fallacy

 

[synergy]

1. Believers sit on the throne with Jesus
2. Jesus sat on his Fathers throne
3. Believers are still sitting with Jesus

on "My Throne", not "with My Father on His throne". Your reading comprehension of Rev 3:21 fails miserably again. Therefore, your step 4 can be tossed out as nonsense.

4. Believers are sitting on the throne of God with the authority of God Almighty

See how silly this gets when we follow your circus of a theology?

Rev 3:21 is not a "circus of a theology" no matter how much you think it is.

Rev 3:21 To him who overcomes I will grant to sit with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne.

 

[Capbook]

What about it. So are saying Jesus didn't sit at the right hand of God but rather on the same throne as God? You just provided the Scripture that disproves that. What's your point exactly?

The point of the text is Jesus sat at the right hand "of the throne of God," not beside the throne of God.
As Jesus the "only begotten God" sat at the throne of the Father, as His (Jesus) nature is God.

 

[FreeInChrist]

Runningman :
What about it. So are saying Jesus didn't sit at the right hand of God but rather on the same throne as God? You just provided the Scripture that disproves that. What's your point exactly?

The point of the text is Jesus sat at the right hand "of the throne of God," not beside the throne of God.
As Jesus the "only begotten God" sat at the throne of the Father, as His (Jesus) nature is God.

Someone, please, tell me why this even matters.

The book of Scrirtures says.

The Book of Scriptures mentions that Jesus will sit on the throne with God in Revelation 3:21, where it states, "The one who conquers, I will grant him to sit with me on my throne, as I also conquered and sat down with my Father on his throne." Additionally, Revelation 22:1-3 describes a vision of the throne of God and the Lamb, indicating their shared authority.

Rev 3:21 nasb95 ‘He who overcomes, I will grant to him to sit down with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne.

Has it not occurred to anyone that the seat of the Fathers throne might be big enough for 2 to sit on.... I really think it is big enough for 3 but I dare not go there.

If Jesus said " He who overcomes, I will grant to him to sit down with Me on My throne" THERE IS NORE THEN ONE PERSON WHO WILL OVERCOME OR WHO HAS BECAUSE IF WE MAKE IT UP THERE.... WE OVERCAME. HOW BIG DO YOU THINK JESUS' THRONE SEAT IS? aND DO NOT SAY IT IS AN ALLEGORY SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND OR WONT.... THAT IS A COP OUT.

LOOK at Rev 22: 1-3

1: Then he showed me a river of the water of life, clear as crystal, coming from the throne of God and of the Lamb, (this states the throne is for both God ( the Father ) and the Lamb (God Jesus His Son) is large enough for both...........................
2: in the middle of its street. On either side of the river was the tree of life, bearing twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit every month; and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. ( a very expansive throne... extending beyond just a seat)
3. There will no longer be any curse; and the throne of God and of the Lamb will be in it, and His bond-servants will serve Him;
(and once again the throne of God is said to be the throne of God and the Lamb IT IS BIG ENOUGH FOR AT LEAST TWO.)

 

[civic]

Someone, please, tell me why this even matters.

The book of Scrirtures says.

The Book of Scriptures mentions that Jesus will sit on the throne with God in Revelation 3:21, where it states, "The one who conquers, I will grant him to sit with me on my throne, as I also conquered and sat down with my Father on his throne." Additionally, Revelation 22:1-3 describes a vision of the throne of God and the Lamb, indicating their shared authority.

Rev 3:21 nasb95 ‘He who overcomes, I will grant to him to sit down with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne.

Has it not occurred to anyone that the seat of the Fathers throne might be big enough for 2 to sit on.... I really think it is big enough for 3 but I dare not go there.

If Jesus said " He who overcomes, I will grant to him to sit down with Me on My throne" THERE IS NORE THEN ONE PERSON WHO WILL OVERCOME OR WHO HAS BECAUSE IF WE MAKE IT UP THERE.... WE OVERCAME. HOW BIG DO YOU THINK JESUS' THRONE SEAT IS? aND DO NOT SAY IT IS AN ALLEGORY SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND OR WONT.... THAT IS A COP OUT.

LOOK at Rev 22: 1-3

1: Then he showed me a river of the water of life, clear as crystal, coming from the throne of God and of the Lamb, (this states the throne is for both God ( the Father ) and the Lamb (God Jesus His Son) is large enough for both...........................
2: in the middle of its street. On either side of the river was the tree of life, bearing twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit every month; and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. ( a very expansive throne... extending beyond just a seat)
3. There will no longer be any curse; and the throne of God and of the Lamb will be in it, and His bond-servants will serve Him;
(and once again the throne of God is said to be the throne of God and the Lamb IT IS BIG ENOUGH FOR AT LEAST TWO.)

Just like these are both not either or in scripture. Both are Father and Son below

God
Lord
YHWH
Salvation
Eternal Life
Throne
Redeemer
Eternal
Holy
Good Shepherd
Sinless
Perfect
Word of God/Lord
First and Lost
Alpha and Omega
Beginning/ End
Almighty
They receive equal Glory, Honor, Power, Praise, Worship.

And there are many other names, titles and descriptions THEY share together that are Gods alone.

 

[FreeInChrist]

Just like these are both not either or in scripture. Both are Father and Son below

God
Lord
YHWH
Salvation
Eternal Life
Throne
Redeemer
Eternal
Holy
Good Shepherd
Sinless
Perfect
Word of God/Lord
First and Lost
Alpha and Omega
Beginning/ End
Almighty
They receive equal Glory, Honor, Power, Praise, Worship.

And there are many other names, titles and descriptions THEY share together that are Gods alone.

Amen, amen

 

[Runningman]

on "My Throne", not "with My Father on His throne". Your reading comprehension of Rev 3:21 fails miserably again. Therefore, your step 4 can be tossed out as nonsense.


Rev 3:21 is not a "circus of a theology" no matter how much you think it is.

Rev 3:21 To him who overcomes I will grant to sit with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne.

Now that we have proven that believers are no sitting on the throne of God, we know that Jesus isn't sitting on the throne of God. Any more questions?

 

[Runningman]

wrong baptism was water in that passage.

next fallacy

You won't be able to find any evidence that that was water baptism. No one followed that in Jesus' church.

 

[FreeInChrist]

Now that we have proven that believers are no sitting on the throne of God, we know that Jesus isn't sitting on the throne of God. Any more questions?

Συχνά θεωρείται ότι μιλάει κανείς σαν ανόητος, αλλά το να ανοίξει κανείς το στόμα του και να αφαιρέσει κάθε αμφιβολία είναι απόδειξη.

 

[Runningman]

Συχνά θεωρείται ότι μιλάει κανείς σαν ανόητος, αλλά το να ανοίξει κανείς το στόμα του και να αφαιρέσει κάθε αμφιβολία είναι απόδειξη.

Words for you to live by.

 

[FreeInChrist]

Words for you to live by.

I learned them well FROM YOU>

 

[Runningman]

I learned them well FROM YOU>

Then start putting them into practice.

 

[mikesw]

Jesus wasn't referring to water baptism with that statement. He was referring to authority, not creating a trinitarian formula. As you can see, no one baptized following what Jesus said. It means the disciples understood the command differently than you do, not that they ignored it.

The better sense to recognize is that the baptism in the name of Jesus is the shorter way of stating the water baptism in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Jesus includes all. The possible issue by the second century, in a push for Matt 28:19-20 was to fail to realize the name of Jesus was all inclusive of the other divine Ones.

Thanks for the unitarians helping to realize Jesus as significant in baptism that his name is the divine name for baptism. In their ignorance they highlight the divinity of Christ.

 

[Runningman]

The better sense to recognize is that the baptism in the name of Jesus is the shorter way of stating the water baptism in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Jesus includes all. The possible issue by the second century, in a push for Matt 28:19-20 was to fail to realize the name of Jesus was all inclusive of the other divine Ones.

Thanks for the unitarians helping to realize Jesus as significant in baptism that his name is the divine name for baptism. In their ignorance they highlight the divinity of Christ.

Nope. Being baptized in someone's name isn't a reference to deity. As you already know, others were baptized into John's water baptism. Another door on your quest to deify Jesus is closed. When are you going to finally admit the only true God is the Father?

Acts 19:3
“And he said, ‘Into what then were you baptized?’ They said, ‘Into John’s baptism.’”

 

[mikesw]

Nope. Being baptized in someone's name isn't a reference to deity. As you already know, others were baptized into John's water baptism. Another door on your quest to deify Jesus is closed. When are you going to finally admit the only true God is the Father?

Acts 19:3
“And he said, ‘Into what then were you baptized?’ They said, ‘Into John’s baptism.’”

I cannot believe how much you miss. Maybe I just do not clarify it enough so that a unitarian can understand scriptures. If you will take into consideration that Matt 28:19-20 does not mention John, you will start to note the error of your response. However, the baptisms mentioned in Acts speak of Jesus. Now, you might notice that Jesus is mentioned in Matt 28:19-20. Thus a baptism in the name of Jesus is extended by his divinity of the one name in matt 28:19-20. I suppose that also is not clear enough for a unitarian to follow scripture.

 

[Runningman]

I cannot believe how much you miss. Maybe I just do not clarify it enough so that a unitarian can understand scriptures. If you will take into consideration that Matt 28:19-20 does not mention John, you will start to note the error of your response. However, the baptisms mentioned in Acts speak of Jesus. Now, you might notice that Jesus is mentioned in Matt 28:19-20. Thus a baptism in the name of Jesus is extended by his divinity of the one name in matt 28:19-20. I suppose that also is not clear enough for a unitarian to follow scripture.

Since baptism into John does not imply infer deity, then the same must hold true for Jesus. That's the mistake you keep making. You so much on Jesus that you miss how he is like others in so many ways.