Your Views on The Trinity

[Runningman]

Yes, if you interpret it to refer to the Almighty God, you also made the Father died, the same Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, and the First and Last in Rev 22:13. Also in Isaiah 41:4.

Runningman, your beliefs and exegesis are contradicting. Let God's words guides your reasoning. It involves eternal life.(John 17:3)

Joh 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

I don’t interpret it as God dying, which is why I said that the title First and Last has no bearing on deity. First and last refers to a beginning and end of something, God doesn’t have a beginning and end, in the general sense.

Amen on John 17:3. That’s what we are quoting all day every day. The Father is indeed the only true God so that rules out Jesus.

 

[Runningman]

I sincerely doubt that you have debunked anything except your own view.

I’m on record debunking the trinity doctrine using scripture. So is Peter and others here.

 

[Capbook]

I don’t interpret it as God dying, which is why I sad that the title First and Last has no bearing on deity. First and last refers to a beginning and end of something, God doesn’t have a beginning and end, in the general sense.

What a contradiction, read Revelation 1:8 again with Greek rendition.
Again, you make the Father God died, if you interpret Rev 1:8 as refer to the Almighty God, the beginning and the end.

Rev 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

Rev 1:8 IG1473 amG1510 (G3588) AlphaG1 andG2532 (G3588) Omega,G5598 the beginningG746 andG2532 the ending,G5056 saithG3004 theG3588 Lord,G2962 which is, and which was, and which is to come,G3801 theG3588 Almighty.G3841

Rev 1:8 εγωG1473 ειμιG1510.2.1 καιG2532 τοG3588 ΑG1 καιG2532 τοG3588 ΩG5598 αρχηG746 καιG2532 τελοςG5056 λεγειG3004 κυριοςG2962 οG3588 θεοςG2316 οG3588 ωνG1510.6 καιG2532 οG3588 ηνG1510.7.3 καιG2532 οG3588 ερχομενοςG2064 οG3588 παντοκρατωρG3841

Amen on John 17:3. That’s what we are quoting all day every day. The Father is indeed the only true God so that rules out Jesus.

I just believe you just misunderstood the "comma," and the "and."

The Father's testimony written by John, that the eternal life is in His Son.(1John 5:11)
Is the Father testimony still true nine verse onward? 1 John 5:20?
I just believe Unitarian don't have the honest answer to the question.

Bear in mind, 1Jn 5:12 speaks of "The one who has the Son has the life; the one who does not have the Son of God does not have the life." He is the eternal life 8 verse onward.(1John 5:20) That is what John 17:3 also means.

 

[Peterlag]

Just other verse rendetion, by relying heavily to paraphrase translations, (as I prefer word for word) you are just following the flow of thoughts of the translators not from the original Bible words. See, how it was written in Greek, from Byzantine Text Type manuscripts.
The "glorious appearing" or just the word "appearing" of the Father can you quote just a single verse outside Titus 2:13?
I have proven you one, and here's another one for Jesus, "glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ." (1Peter 1:7) See below.
That confirmed that the God in Titus 2:13 refers to Jesus.

Tit 2:13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

Tit 2:13 Looking forG4327 that blessedG3107 hope,G1680 andG2532 theG3588 gloriousG1391 appearingG2015 of theG3588 greatG3173 GodG2316 andG2532 ourG2257 SaviourG4990 JesusG2424 Christ;G5547

Tit 2:13 προσδεχομενοιG4327 V-PNP-NPM τηνG3588 T-ASF μακαριανG3107 A-ASF ελπιδαG1680 N-ASF καιG2532 CONJ επιφανειανG2015 N-ASF τηςG3588 T-GSF δοξηςG1391 N-GSF τουG3588 T-GSM μεγαλουG3173 A-GSM θεουG2316 N-GSM καιG2532 CONJ σωτηροςG4990 N-GSM ημωνG1473 P-1GP ιησουG2424 N-GSM χριστουG5547 N-GSM

1Pe 1:7 That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ:

When you have more than half of the Greek scholars translating it the way I see it then you have a problem.

 

[charismaticlady]

Jesus had not been claiming to be God in the flesh and this is why the Jews never asked him at his trial if he was God in the flesh, but instead they asked him about what he had been claiming to be, which was the Messiah. Mark 14:61-62 records the High Priest asking “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?" And Jesus said "I am.” The High Priest tore his garments and said he deserved to be put to death when Jesus stated he was the Messiah. So we see that the Jews correctly assessed that Jesus had been claiming to be the Christ, and that Jesus indeed said he was the Christ, and also that the Jews thought his claim was worthy of the death penalty.

The high priest asked him that using the word "blessed." They did not believe God had a Son. You still have not answered my questions of what you believe about John 1:1. You just copy and pasted your own pre-prepared thing on the trinity.

 

[praise_yeshua]

and @Runningman

The worst thing the Reformation changed from Catholicism was about sin. Catholics recognized the two types of sin and named them appropriately: mortal (sins unto death) and venial (sins not unto death). The Reformation started the myth that "sin is sin" making them equal. But Jesus freed our nature from sins unto death completely when we receive the seed of the Father and are born again of the Spirit. Then Jesus continues to cleanse and mature our fruit, the sins not unto death, as that is the type of sin that is continually cleansed as we abide in Jesus and walk in the Spirit in 1 John 1:7.

There are more than two types of sin. You must add sins of ignorance. Until any person learns how they affect other people's lives themselves, they can never do anything other than be ignorant of their sins.

This entire word sister continually operates in ignorance. This world system is designed to keep continually under the suffering of sin. Men sin against one another almost every day of their lives in the name of "riches" and "glory". Usually one person must suffer for another to be exalted. The exalted person praises God for "God's blessings" without any consideration of everything that took place to make it happen. Man is so lost in himself and his way.... very few people even recognize it.

I hate this world system but I'm often "caught up in it" myself until I realize otherwise. Every system in this world is designed to turn a human being that God loves into a "dollar bill" or "dollar value". It maddening to me.

So when people talk of "sin" and "living above sin"..... I'm usually very frustrated. We are our brother's keeper. This life is more than things and money. It is all about relationships and how we treat one another in meaningful ways.

So very few realize this in their lives. So very few.

 

[praise_yeshua]

The high priest asked him that using the word "blessed." They did not believe God had a Son. You still have not answered my questions of what you believe about John 1:1. You just copy and pasted your own pre-prepared thing on the trinity.

He never will. It is always about their "little world" they've isolated themselves in.....

 

[civic]

If Thomas knew Jesus was God. Then what was it Thomas was ever doubting about?

Let’s be real they didn’t even understand the gospel or Jesus dying for their sins until after His resurrection.

The uni argument fails the truth test. Not knowing it understanding something doesn’t make it false.

 

[mikesw]

I’m on record debunking the trinity doctrine using scripture. So is Peter and others here.

false records are not very convincing. I have shown how John 1 is read without calling Jesus a mere thing.

 

[Peterlag]

The high priest asked him that using the word "blessed." They did not believe God had a Son. You still have not answered my questions of what you believe about John 1:1. You just copy and pasted your own pre-prepared thing on the trinity.

I copied and pasted data from my own website where I have it saved. Would it be better if I hand wrote the same data to you?

 

[mikesw]

When you have more than half of the Greek scholars translating it the way I see it then you have a problem.

I cannot tell where you are arguing against Jesus being amended with "God and Savior." First, this follows the Granville Sharp's Rule which basically matches with the English meaning. These are two words acting as adjectives that highlight who Jesus is.

The second thing is that Tit 2:14 speaks of himself
Titus 2:14 (NASB95)
14who gave Himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed, and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds.

It is only God who has basis to purify a people for his own possession. This is singular and has Jesus as the referent. No matter how you chop this up, everything points to the deity of Jesus.

 

[Peterlag]

John 1:3 “Everything came to be through it.” The logos is an “it” not a “him.”

Translators have deliberately chosen to use “him” because they wanted to emphasize that the Word was the male person we know as Jesus. This was a theological choice, not a linguistic one.

"Do not forsake wisdom, and she will protect you; love her, and she will watch over you” (Proverbs 4:6).

Is the Wisdom in Proverbs 4:6 a distinct divine person?

The "Word" is not literally a person for the same reason that "Wisdom" is not literally a person. Both are to be taken metaphorically.

Jesus is the personification of the Word because He speaks the words of God. To listen to Jesus equals listening to the Word of God.

People often say I'm wrong when I post this because they say I looked it up in an Interlinear or Concordance and it shows the word is a "him" and not an "it." Those reference books show how the Bible translates a word and not what the Greek actually means. The pronoun is an "it" when it refers to an inanimate noun like the "Word" because Greek has grammatical gender and the "Word" in John 1 is a thing so the Greek says it's an "it."

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.

 

[mikesw]

John 1:3 “Everything came to be through it.” The logos is an “it” not a “him.”

Translators have deliberately chosen to use “him” because they wanted to emphasize that the Word was the male person we know as Jesus. This was a theological choice, not a linguistic one.

"Do not forsake wisdom, and she will protect you; love her, and she will watch over you” (Proverbs 4:6).

Is the Wisdom in Proverbs 4:6 a distinct divine person?

The "Word" is not literally a person for the same reason that "Wisdom" is not literally a person. Both are to be taken metaphorically.

Jesus is the personification of the Word because He speaks the words of God. To listen to Jesus equals listening to the Word of God.

People often say I'm wrong when I post this because they say I looked it up in an Interlinear or Concordance and it shows the word is a "him" and not an "it." Those reference books show how the Bible translates a word and not what the Greek actually means. The pronoun is an "it" when it refers to an inanimate noun like the "Word" because Greek has grammatical gender and the "Word" in John 1 is a thing so the Greek says it's an "it."

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.

{Image removed}

The hyperliteralist unitarian strikes again. The same error happens without recognition of allegory and metalepsis.

The use of logos fits well as metalepsis that takes the concept of logos shared by Philo and then John takes those attributes of the logos, with the divine implications of Philo and Greek philosophy, to identify Jesus as the One behind creation. Philo incorporates the wisdom concept of Proverbs 8 into the logos and thus bridges all these concepts into the pre-existence of Jesus. Hyperliteralists cannot however understand scripture because the nuances are completely overlooked.

Peterlag, you must catch up to the updated discussion rather than falling back on your old premises.

 

[Runningman]

What a contradiction, read Revelation 1:8 again with Greek rendition.
Again, you make the Father God died, if you interpret Rev 1:8 as refer to the Almighty God, the beginning and the end.

Rev 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

Rev 1:8 IG1473 amG1510 (G3588) AlphaG1 andG2532 (G3588) Omega,G5598 the beginningG746 andG2532 the ending,G5056 saithG3004 theG3588 Lord,G2962 which is, and which was, and which is to come,G3801 theG3588 Almighty.G3841

Rev 1:8 εγωG1473 ειμιG1510.2.1 καιG2532 τοG3588 ΑG1 καιG2532 τοG3588 ΩG5598 αρχηG746 καιG2532 τελοςG5056 λεγειG3004 κυριοςG2962 οG3588 θεοςG2316 οG3588 ωνG1510.6 καιG2532 οG3588 ηνG1510.7.3 καιG2532 οG3588 ερχομενοςG2064 οG3588 παντοκρατωρG3841

I just believe you just misunderstood the "comma," and the "and."

The Father's testimony written by John, that the eternal life is in His Son.(1John 5:11)
Is the Father testimony still true nine verse onward? 1 John 5:20?
I just believe Unitarian don't have the honest answer to the question.

Bear in mind, 1Jn 5:12 speaks of "The one who has the Son has the life; the one who does not have the Son of God does not have the life." He is the eternal life 8 verse onward.(1John 5:20) That is what John 17:3 also means.

Seems you missed everything. I won't let you off the hook that easy with attempting to change the subject.

1. Does the first and the last automatically mean someone is God? Yes or no.
2. Was the First and the Last dead at any point? Yes or no.

Revelation 1
17When I saw Him, I fell at His feet like a dead man. But He placed His right hand on me and said, “Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last, 18the Living One. I was dead, and behold, now I am alive forever and ever! And I hold the keys of Death and of Hades.

Revelation 1:4-8 doesn't call Jesus the Almighty. Jesus is never called the Almighty in the entire Bible. Again, read the context.

 

[Peterlag]

The hyperliteralist unitarian strikes again. The same error happens without recognition of allegory and metalepsis.

The use of logos fits well as metalepsis that takes the concept of logos shared by Philo and then John takes those attributes of the logos, with the divine implications of Philo and Greek philosophy, to identify Jesus as the One behind creation. Philo incorporates the wisdom concept of Proverbs 8 into the logos and thus bridges all these concepts into the pre-existence of Jesus. Hyperliteralists cannot however understand scripture because the nuances are completely overlooked.

Peterlag, you must catch up to the updated discussion rather than falling back on your old premises.

Here's a partial list of how "logos" is translated in the New Testament...
cause, communication, sayings, saying, word, words, account, talk, question, treatise, intent, tidings, speaker, matter, mouth, work, utterance, preaching, speech, concerning, show, do, doctrine, reason, with, and thing.

 

[mikesw]

Here's a partial list of how "logos" is translated in the New Testament...
cause, communication, sayings, saying, word, words, account, talk, question, treatise, intent, tidings, speaker, matter, mouth, reason, work, utterance, preaching, speech, communication, concerning, show, do, doctrine, reason, with, and thing.

that means you have no argument. when something is used allegorically, especially with metalepsis, it matters not what the meaning of the original word is. The significance is the attributes of that word that can be applied to something else. I remind you again that the hyperliteralist reading misses the obvious allegorical nature. You just repeatedly fall back on the unitarian pocket dictionary without considering how language functions in communication.

 

[Runningman]

that means you have no argument. when something is used allegorically, especially with metalepsis, it matters not what the meaning of the original word is. The significance is the attributes of that word that can be applied to something else. I remind you again that the hyperliteralist reading misses the obvious allegorical nature. You just repeatedly fall back on the unitarian pocket dictionary without considering how language functions in communication.

It just goes to show that you reject the literal plain language, used by John and others, and reinterpret everything to whatever you wish until the Bible says whatever you prefer it to say. Any reason why you can't accept what the Bible says in its plain format?

 

[Runningman]

Here's a partial list of how "logos" is translated in the New Testament...
cause, communication, sayings, saying, word, words, account, talk, question, treatise, intent, tidings, speaker, matter, mouth, work, utterance, preaching, speech, concerning, show, do, doctrine, reason, with, and thing.

You just provided the textbook definition of logos and their trin's short answer seems to be "No."

 

[mikesw]

It just goes to show that you reject the literal plain language, used by John and others, and reinterpret everything to whatever you wish until the Bible says whatever you prefer it to say. Any reason why you can't accept what the Bible says in its plain format?

Of course I reject a literal plain reading of text that is allegorical. I have picked up on characteristics of scripture and prophecy. Your hyperliteralist reading prevents you from understanding the scriptures properly. Do you think you can learn from someone how to read scripture in the style written instead of hyperliteralism?

I have been proven correct in this assessment of the unitarian as limiting himself to a hyperliteralist reading that blocks the actual meaning of the text. I suspect there also is a Sadducee-styled materialist reading too

 

[civic]

What a contradiction, read Revelation 1:8 again with Greek rendition.
Again, you make the Father God died, if you interpret Rev 1:8 as refer to the Almighty God, the beginning and the end.

Rev 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

Rev 1:8 IG1473 amG1510 (G3588) AlphaG1 andG2532 (G3588) Omega,G5598 the beginningG746 andG2532 the ending,G5056 saithG3004 theG3588 Lord,G2962 which is, and which was, and which is to come,G3801 theG3588 Almighty.G3841

Rev 1:8 εγωG1473 ειμιG1510.2.1 καιG2532 τοG3588 ΑG1 καιG2532 τοG3588 ΩG5598 αρχηG746 καιG2532 τελοςG5056 λεγειG3004 κυριοςG2962 οG3588 θεοςG2316 οG3588 ωνG1510.6 καιG2532 οG3588 ηνG1510.7.3 καιG2532 οG3588 ερχομενοςG2064 οG3588 παντοκρατωρG3841

I just believe you just misunderstood the "comma," and the "and."

The Father's testimony written by John, that the eternal life is in His Son.(1John 5:11)
Is the Father testimony still true nine verse onward? 1 John 5:20?
I just believe Unitarian don't have the honest answer to the question.

Bear in mind, 1Jn 5:12 speaks of "The one who has the Son has the life; the one who does not have the Son of God does not have the life." He is the eternal life 8 verse onward.(1John 5:20) That is what John 17:3 also means.

Spot on another major failure by the uni with the identity of the Alpha/Omega, First/Last, Beginning/End, Almighty who are the same Person.