Indeed. Christ and the Father are One. Anyhow, the Lord was mentioned distinctly from the Father -- since you still seemed to miss this point. We can try to keep you honest to the wording of scripture.
Your Views on The Trinity
- Thread starter Cyrus
- Start date
LORD does not belong in the OT. Jehovah is called sovereign Lord in the OT in some spots.
Runningman
Active Member
And we are one with God and Jesus. Do you believe that?
I know nothing about you. I know Jesus spoke a oneness topic with the disciples that were there with him. They were not made lords. Nothing says that the disciples became divine like Jesus. Jesus is the divine incarnation, the Lord, and Son of God. But you do not like the testimony of Jesus, of John, or of Paul. Your goal has been to deny the scriptures because you want to twist everything with a unitarian bias.
Peterlag
Active Member
God’s proper name is “Yahweh” which occurs more than 6,000 times in the Hebrew Old Testament and is generally translated as “LORD.”
Peterlag
Active Member
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.
This post definitely is not of God.
Runningman
Active Member
So Jesus and the disciples share the same oneness with the Father (John 17:21-24.) So we can check that off as somerthing that doesn't make Jesus God.
You rightly confessed that Jesus was made Lord, possibly the first time I have ever seen you used the proper Biblical wordind. Acts 2:36. So we can check that off as somerthing that doesn't make Jesus God.
You said Jesus "became" divine. 2 Peter 1:4 teaches that we Christians can also partake of this same divine nature. So we can check that off as somerthing that doesn't make Jesus God.
An incarnation isn't explicitly stated to have happened in the Bible, let's pretend that Jesus was incarnated for the sake of convience. Firstly, incarnating doesn't automatically presupposed someone was God before they incarnated. Secondly, John 17:1-5 rules out Jesus being the only true God if we rightly understand that Jesus is not the Father.
Unitarianism is sola scriptura.
Runningman
Active Member
I have a question. Which premise do you use from the Bible to tip you off that there is a Trinity? I mean, when you first picked up the Bible and started reading it, where did you find the Trinity? Or did someone teach you how to put all of the verses together?
too bad you do not understand scripture nor what I said.
The problem is sola scriptura does not mean to be spiritually blind when referring to scripture.
No one said oneness "makes" someone God. Jesus is part of the Godhead and is one with God always. You have a perfect track record of abusing scripture.
I did not say Jesus was made Lord. The idea is shared in Acts 2:36 but does not deny his divinity, nor that Heb 1:10 equates Jesus with God again, after John 1 shows that. Your weak denials of the divinity passages do not hold weight.
That was another stupid thing. Jesus did not partake of divine nature. He is the Son of God. That deception in your words is why I do not trust anything you say.
I'm sorry. John 1 is about incarnation. I'm not sure if you were born spiritually blind or sought out blindness.
synergy
Active Member
It's amazing how @Runningman continues to misrepresent not only the Bible but also people that he is in conversation with.
RM's position that John 17:3 promotes unitarianism makes John out to be duplicitous in light of the fact that John clearly revealed the Word as God right off the bat in John 1:1.
synergy
Active Member
John clearly revealed that the Word was God right off the bat in John 1:1. That was done on purpose to reveal essential truth and to expose who exactly are the ones that promote doctrines of devils and embody the spirit of deliberate error. Those promoters are clearly judaizing unitarians.
Runningman
Active Member
You are spiritually blind.
Acts 2:36 explicitly says Jesus was made Lord and Christ. The word "made" means manufactured or contructed. Means he was not always Lord and Christ. Means he isn't God.
Jesus partook of the divine nature. He was born needing to learn the difference between good and evil (Isaiaih 7:14,15) grow in wisdom and stature with God (Luke 2:52) be tempted and every way as everyone else and make a choice not to sin (Hebrews 4:15). Received his annointing from the Father on the condition of loving righteousness and hating wickedness (Hebrews 1:9) and exalted because he was obedient to the Father until death (Philippians 2:8,9) and was resurrected because he respected the Father (Hebrews 5:7) and had to undergo a perfection process like anyone else (Hebrews 2:10)
You really have no idea who Jesus is. I wish you were open to it.
"John 1 is about an incarnation because I said so" is not a valid argument. Please show us where the word incarnation is there. It's amazing how just the slightest of technicalities is enough to bring the whole trinitarian machine to a screeching halt. It's because you guys don't have any premise for the trinity and have no explicit descriptions of the trinity in the whole Bible.
Last edited:
Nannette
Active Member
God exists as three persons, yet he is one being. Each person—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—has a separate identity while enjoying the same essence of nature as the others, not merely similar natures in different roles. Some might think this is contradictory. It would be contradictory if the doctrine of the Trinity claimed one God and three Gods at the same time. But the Trinity is one God who eternally co-exists as three persons. God is, was, and always will be. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three distinct persons share this one substance and essence of being God.
Runningman
Active Member
Biblical citation needed.
It is incarnation because that is what the text is describing to those who will read it intact. When it says "the word became flesh," John is not saying that God became sinful. It is speaking of incarnation.
Runningman
Active Member
They didn't even have a Hebrew or Greek word for incarnating at the time of John's writing. I thought I would throw that one to you. The idea or incarnating was completely foreign to Hebrew culture and theology.
Nannette
Active Member
Deuteronomy declares that “God is one”, yet Matthew 13 reveals that God the Father spoke when Jesus, God the Son, was baptized and God the Holy Spirit descended like a dove on Jesus. God is one and yet three.
Peterlag
Active Member
God the Holy Spirit did not descend on Jesus. The words “HOLY SPIRIT” in the Bible are primarily used in two very different ways: One way is to refer to God Himself and the other is referring to God’s nature that He gives to people. God is holy and is spirit and therefore “the Holy Spirit” with a capital “H” and a capital “S” is one of the many “names” or designations for God. God gives His holy spirit nature to people as a gift and when HOLY SPIRIT is used that way it should be translated as the “holy spirit” with a lowercase “h” and a lowercase “s.”
duh. God surprised Jews with many things in sending the Messiah. I do not know how you can be so blind to that point. Maybe what synergy has been saying is that you are under judaizing influence. That is just so unexpected that you made such a point. I guess I will have to add that concept to typical beliefs in your system of thought. You are stuck in OT mentality that is not prepared to accept the Messiah just as the Jews rejected Jesus.
I do appreciate you posting this point. It gives insight into how you have been steered so strongly in the wrong direction. My curiosity on such matters enjoys finding such insights.
Another thing not obvious in the Old Testament is that a single Messiah would appear and then die for their sins but would also be the same as the king over the nations. For consistency on your part, you need to reject that the Messiah died for your sins.
Last edited:
Similar threads
