Your Views on The Trinity

[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.

You did not address my understanding to your analogy above 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?

 

[synergy]

View attachment 2616

Thank you for forwarding one of the strongest verses for the Deity of Jesus, massively supporting Trinitarianism.

The context of 1 Tom 2:5 is the New Covenant that bridges the massive gap between God and man. To reconcile two estranged parties, a mediator must be representative of both parties. No angel, prophet, or agent could fill this role. Read Job 9:33. The Word, who was God, had not yet dwelt on Earth as Jesus, the only possible Mediator. Thus, only Jesus bridges that infinite gap, fulfilling Job’s longing.

Job 9:33 (NKJV):
"Nor is there any mediator between us, Who may lay his hand on us both."

• Job laments that there is no one who can place a hand on both God and man—showing that humanity lacked a true Mediator who could fully represent both parties.

Christ alone is qualified. Only because Jesus is both God and man can He be the Mediator who brings salvation. That's why the Word, who was God (John 1:1c), tabernacled on Earth as Jesus (John 1:14) in order to save man, as only God has the capability to save man.

Conclusion:
1 Timothy 2:5 does not support Arianism. Instead, it teaches the very opposite:

• The New Covenant offers salvation through a Mediator (Heb 9:15, Acts 4:12).
• That Mediator must be both God and man (Job 9:33).
• Jesus uniquely fulfills this role (John 1:1c,14).
• The verse itself affirms Monotheism without excluding Christ from deity (Titus 2:13, Colossians 1:15–17).

Keep those Trinitarian verses coming!

 

[synergy]

I find Trinitarians either stupid or dishonest. Which is it...

Take for example John 8:58...

Jesus said "ego eimi" .... God didn't. The Greek word in Exodus 3:14 is not the same word Jesus used in John 8:58. Jesus said “ego eimi” in John 8. Not “ego eimi ho eimi” which means "I am the One who is" as Exodus 3:14 is written in the Septuagint. The two statements are very different. The Greek phrase in John does mean "I am" which was a common phrase in the New Testament and isn't the name of anyone. The disciples were trying to find out who would deny the Christ at the last supper. They said literally "Not I am, Lord" Matthew 26:22, 25. No one would say the disciples were trying to deny they were God because they were using the phrase "Not I am." "I am" was a common way of designating oneself and it did not mean you were claiming to be God. In order for the Trinitarian argument that Jesus' "I am" statement in John 8:58 makes him God, his statement must be equivalent with God's "I am" statement in Exodus 3:14. And it is not. The argument is made that because Jesus was "before" Abraham that Jesus must be God. Jesus figuratively existed in Abraham's time. He did not actually physically exist as a person, but rather he existed in the mind of God as God's plan for the redemption of man.

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.

Exodus 3:14 is not good enough for you? That's so sad.

Ok, here are several OT absolute mentions of ἐγώ εἰμι, all spoken by YHWH (the Lord) Himself. The LXX is used here

Deut 32:39​

ἴδετε ἴδετε ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι…
“See now that I AM…”

Isa 41:4​

ἐγώ Κύριος ὁ Θεός… ἐγώ εἰμι
“I, the Lord God… I AM”

Isa 43:10​

…ἵνα γνῶτε… ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι
“That you may know… that I AM”

Isa 43:13​

καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν ἡμερῶν... ἐγώ εἰμι
“From the beginning… I AM”

Isa 46:4 ​

ἐγώ… ἐγώ εἰμι
“I… I AM”

Isa 48:12​

ἐγώ εἰμι πρῶτος… ἐγώ εἰμι
“I am first… I AM”

Isa 51:12​

ἐγώ εἰμι… ἐγώ εἰμι
“I AM… I AM”

Every single time "ἐγώ εἰμι" appears in an absolute sense in the LXX, it is God Himself declaring His divine identity. There are no places where an angel ,a prophet, or a human that says it in an absolute sense. Only YHWH uses it without a predicate as a divine self-revelation.

As for the blind man's usage of ἐγώ εἰμι", it is used in an idiomatic way, not in an absolute (divine self-revelation) way. It is not surrounded by theological claims (eternity, salvation) and it does not echo the Isaiah (LXX) divine formula.

 

[civic]

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.

not realizing it took the sacrifice to be both human and Divine to be able to be the Savior of the world which makes 1 Timothy 2:5 come to life.

In the book of Hebrews we learn the Mediator of the New Covenant is God known as the Son who gave His life for ours.

 

[Peterlag]

Exodus 3:14 is not good enough for you? That's so sad.

Ok, here are several OT absolute mentions of ἐγώ εἰμι, all spoken by YHWH (the Lord) Himself. The LXX is used here

Deut 32:39​

Isa 41:4​

Isa 43:10​

Isa 43:13​

Isa 46:4 ​

Isa 48:12​

Isa 51:12​

Every single time "ἐγώ εἰμι" appears in an absolute sense in the LXX, it is God Himself declaring His divine identity. There are no places where an angel ,a prophet, or a human that says it in an absolute sense. Only YHWH uses it without a predicate as a divine self-revelation.

As for the blind man's usage of ἐγώ εἰμι", it is used in an idiomatic way, not in an absolute (divine self-revelation) way. It is not surrounded by theological claims (eternity, salvation) and it does not echo the Isaiah (LXX) divine formula.

I never said Exodus 3:14 is not good enough for me. Why do you make that up?

 

[Peterlag]

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.

There's nothing in the book of Philippians that says Jesus emptied himself of his Godhood. Nothing.

What did Jesus empty himself from?

What the Scriptures say he was... the son of God, the Messiah to Israel, thus, royal blood. He humbled himself from what he was and took on the role of a servant.

 

[Peterlag]

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

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.

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

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.

The following verse is just a bad translation and it is not from an old manuscript. These are from new Bibles written by groups who are members of a trinity church.

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.

 

[amazing grace]

not realizing it took the sacrifice to be both human and Divine to be able to be the Savior of the world which makes 1 Timothy 2:5 come to life.

In the book of Hebrews we learn the Mediator of the New Covenant is God known as the Son who gave His life for ours.

Was Moses both human and divine? You do know he was the mediator of the Old Covenant - the mediator between the children of Israel and God?

Why do you guys avoid saying deity when that is what you actually mean?

That's weird ----- 1 Timothy 2:5 in my Bible doesn't read: 'For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the god-man Christ Jesus;'

 

[civic]

Was Moses both human and divine? You do know he was the mediator of the Old Covenant - the mediator between the children of Israel and God?

Why do you guys avoid saying deity when that is what you actually mean?

That's weird ----- 1 Timothy 2:5 in my Bible doesn't read: 'For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the god-man Christ Jesus;'

and who did moses save ? he couldn't even save himself because of his own sin and never made it into the promise land( which is a type of Christ). Its to bad that you do not see the entire biblical narrative points to Christ. Jesus said it was all about Him in the O.T. But you would make Jesus out to be a liar and say the O.T. was all about the Father. And we know the bible is all about God.

next fallacy

 

[amazing grace]

and who did moses save ? he couldn't even save himself because of his own sin and never made it into the promise land( which is a type of Christ). Its to bad that you do not see the entire biblical narrative points to Christ. Jesus said it was all about Him in the O.T. But you would make Jesus out to be a liar and say the O.T. was all about the Father.

next fallacy

Well, considering I never said Moses saved anyone nor did I say anything about prophecy in the OT not pointing to Jesus nor did I say that OT was all about the Father - I'd say that your response is a lie.

Do you know what a mediator is? Hint: It is not someone who saves . . .

 

[synergy]

I never said Exodus 3:14 is not good enough for me. Why do you make that up?

So then that verse was good enough for you to understand that Jesus was addressing himself in John 8:58 the same name YHWH addressed himself, proving Jesus is YHWH. Of course you'll say that you never said that, which brings us all to the Isaiah "ἐγώ εἰμι" verses that prove once again that Jesus was addressing himself the same way YHWH addressed himself, proving Jesus is YHWH.

By the way, keep presenting Trinitarian verse 1 Tim 2:15. You're doing a fantastic job for the Trinitarians.

 

[civic]

So then that verse was good enough for you to understand that Jesus was addressing himself in John 8:58 the same name YHWH addressed himself, proving Jesus is YHWH. Of course you'll say that you never said that, which brings us to all to the Isaiah "ἐγώ εἰμι" verses that prove once again that Jesus was addressing himself the same way YHWH addressed himself, proving Jesus is YHWH.

By the way, keep presenting Trinitarian verse 1 Tim 2:15. You're doing a fantastic job for the Trinitarians.

maybe another uni who soon converts to the Christian faith.

 

[amazing grace]

So then that verse was good enough for you to understand that Jesus was addressing himself in John 8:58 the same name YHWH addressed himself, proving Jesus is YHWH. Of course you'll say that you never said that, which brings us all to the Isaiah "ἐγώ εἰμι" verses that prove once again that Jesus was addressing himself the same way YHWH addressed himself, proving Jesus is YHWH.

By the way, keep presenting Trinitarian verse 1 Tim 2:15. You're doing a fantastic job for the Trinitarians.

1 Tim. 2:15 Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control. ??????

 

[civic]

1 Tim. 2:15 Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control. ??????

I think he meant 1 Timothy 2:5 it was a typo.

 

[Peterlag]

So then that verse was good enough for you to understand that Jesus was addressing himself in John 8:58 the same name YHWH addressed himself, proving Jesus is YHWH. Of course you'll say that you never said that, which brings us all to the Isaiah "ἐγώ εἰμι" verses that prove once again that Jesus was addressing himself the same way YHWH addressed himself, proving Jesus is YHWH.

By the way, keep presenting Trinitarian verse 1 Tim 2:15. You're doing a fantastic job for the Trinitarians.

I already posted my thoughts on the words "I am" and you can misquote what I said by saying I don't believe in Exodus if you want because I never said that. I said this...

Jesus said "ego eimi" .... God didn't. The Greek word in Exodus 3:14 is not the same word Jesus used in John 8:58. Jesus said “ego eimi” in John 8:58. Not “ego eimi ho eimi” which means "I am the One who is" as Exodus 3:14 is written in the Septuagint. The two statements are very different. The Greek phrase in John does mean "I am" which was a common phrase in the New Testament and isn't the name of anyone. The disciples were trying to find out who would deny the Christ at the last supper. They said literally "Not I am, Lord" Matthew 26:22, 25. No one would say the disciples were trying to deny they were God because they were using the phrase "not I am." The word "I am" was a common way of designating oneself and it did not mean you were claiming to be God. The statement Jesus made in John 8:58 concerning "I am" would have to be equivalent with God's "I am" statement in Exodus 3:14 in order for the Trinitarian argument to make Jesus God. And it is not. The argument is made that because Jesus was "before" Abraham that Jesus must be God. Jesus figuratively existed in Abraham's time. He did not actually physically exist as a person, but rather he existed in the mind of God as God's plan for the redemption of man.

 

[synergy]

I already posted my thoughts on the words "I am" and you can misquote what I said by saying I don't believe in Exodus if you want because I never said that. I said this...

Jesus said "ego eimi" .... God didn't. The Greek word in Exodus 3:14 is not the same word Jesus used in John 8:58. Jesus said “ego eimi” in John 8:58. Not “ego eimi ho eimi” which means "I am the One who is" as Exodus 3:14 is written in the Septuagint. The two statements are very different. The Greek phrase in John does mean "I am" which was a common phrase in the New Testament and isn't the name of anyone. The disciples were trying to find out who would deny the Christ at the last supper. They said literally "Not I am, Lord" Matthew 26:22, 25. No one would say the disciples were trying to deny they were God because they were using the phrase "not I am." The word "I am" was a common way of designating oneself and it did not mean you were claiming to be God. The statement Jesus made in John 8:58 concerning "I am" would have to be equivalent with God's "I am" statement in Exodus 3:14 in order for the Trinitarian argument to make Jesus God. And it is not. The argument is made that because Jesus was "before" Abraham that Jesus must be God. Jesus figuratively existed in Abraham's time. He did not actually physically exist as a person, but rather he existed in the mind of God as God's plan for the redemption of man.

So then if you think that Ex 3:14 doesn’t align with John 8:58 then you can go to these verses that clearly do align with John 8:58:

Deut 32:39​

ἴδετε ἴδετε ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι…
“See now that I AM…”

Isa 41:4​

ἐγώ Κύριος ὁ Θεός… ἐγώ εἰμι
“I, the Lord God… I AM”

Isa 43:10​

…ἵνα γνῶτε… ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι
“That you may know… that I AM”

Isa 43:13​

καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν ἡμερῶν... ἐγώ εἰμι
“From the beginning… I AM”

Isa 46:4 ​

ἐγώ… ἐγώ εἰμι
“I… I AM”

Isa 48:12​

ἐγώ εἰμι πρῶτος… ἐγώ εἰμι
“I am first… I AM”

Isa 51:12​

ἐγώ εἰμι… ἐγώ εἰμι
“I AM… I AM”

For every single time "ἐγώ εἰμι" appears in an absolute sense in the LXX, it is God Himself declaring His divine identity. There are no places where an angel, a prophet, or a human that says it in an absolute sense. Only YHWH uses it without a predicate as a divine self-revelation.

As for the blind man's usage of ἐγώ εἰμι", it is used in an idiomatic way, not in an absolute (divine self-revelation) way. It is not surrounded by theological claims (eternity, salvation) and it does not echo the Isaiah (LXX) divine formula.

By the way, keep presenting Trinitarian verse 1 Tim 2:5. You're doing a fantastic job for the Trinitarians.

 

[Peterlag]

So then if you think that Ex 3:14 doesn’t align with John 8:58 then you can go to these verses that clearly do align with John 8:58:

Deut 32:39​

Isa 41:4​

Isa 43:10​

Isa 43:13​

Isa 46:4 ​

Isa 48:12​

Isa 51:12​

For every single time "ἐγώ εἰμι" appears in an absolute sense in the LXX, it is God Himself declaring His divine identity. There are no places where an angel, a prophet, or a human that says it in an absolute sense. Only YHWH uses it without a predicate as a divine self-revelation.

As for the blind man's usage of ἐγώ εἰμι", it is used in an idiomatic way, not in an absolute (divine self-revelation) way. It is not surrounded by theological claims (eternity, salvation) and it does not echo the Isaiah (LXX) divine formula.

By the way, keep presenting Trinitarian verse 1 Tim 2:5. You're doing a fantastic job for the Trinitarians.

Where do you see a trinity from the following verse...

1 Timothy 2:5
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

 

[synergy]

Where do you see a trinity from the following verse...

1 Timothy 2:5
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

You didn't present even one argument against all those Isaiah verses supporting Jesus' claim of being the "I AM" in John 8:58. Excellent!!!! Unitarianism just crashed and burned.

Concerning 1 Tim 2:5, you still haven't offered even one argument against Job 9:33 that proves that the Mediator between God and man must be both God and man (Job 9:33). That makes 1 Tim 2:5 a glorious Trinitarian verse that proves Jesus is God.

You still want to fight for your heresies concerning the verse you yourself forwarded as your strongest unitarianism verse??? Seriously?

As for proving the Trinity, "one God" is mentioned and all I have to do is prove that the Holy Spirit is God also. In the same breath Peter, in Acts 5:3-4, says Ananias lied to the Holy Spirit, and explains that lying to the Spirit is lying to God, equating the Holy Spirit with God Himself.

 

[Peterlag]

You didn't present even one argument against all those Isaiah verses supporting Jesus' claim of being the "I AM" in John 8:58. Excellent!!!! Unitarianism just crashed and burned.

Concerning 1 Tim 2:5, you still haven't offered even one argument against Job 9:33 that proves that the Mediator between God and man must be both God and man (Job 9:33). That makes 1 Tim 2:5 a glorious Trinitarian verse that proves Jesus is God.

You still want to fight for your heresies concerning the verse you yourself forwarded as your strongest unitarianism verse??? Seriously?

As for proving the Trinity, "one God" is mentioned and all I have to do is prove that the Holy Spirit is God also. In the same breath Peter, in Acts 5:3-4, says Ananias lied to the Holy Spirit, and explains that lying to the Spirit is lying to God, equating the Holy Spirit with God Himself.

I have an argument that I posted and you will not accept it. Here it is again...

John 8:58...
Jesus said "ego eimi" .... God didn't. The Greek word in Exodus 3:14 is not the same word Jesus used in John 8:58. Jesus said “ego eimi” in John 8:58. Not “ego eimi ho eimi” which means "I am the One who is" as Exodus 3:14 is written in the Septuagint. The two statements are very different. The Greek phrase in John does mean "I am" which was a common phrase in the New Testament and isn't the name of anyone. The disciples were trying to find out who would deny the Christ at the last supper. They said literally "Not I am, Lord" Matthew 26:22, 25. No one would say the disciples were trying to deny they were God because they were using the phrase "not I am." The word "I am" was a common way of designating oneself and it did not mean you were claiming to be God. The statement Jesus made in John 8:58 concerning "I am" would have to be equivalent with God's "I am" statement in Exodus 3:14 in order for the Trinitarian argument to make Jesus God. And it is not. The argument is made that because Jesus was "before" Abraham that Jesus must be God. Jesus figuratively existed in Abraham's time. He did not actually physically exist as a person, but rather he existed in the mind of God as God's plan for the redemption of man.

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.

 

[synergy]

I have an argument that I posted and you will not accept it. Here it is again...

John 8:58...
Jesus said "ego eimi" .... God didn't. The Greek word in Exodus 3:14 is not the same word Jesus used in John 8:58. Jesus said “ego eimi” in John 8:58. Not “ego eimi ho eimi” which means "I am the One who is" as Exodus 3:14 is written in the Septuagint. The two statements are very different. The Greek phrase in John does mean "I am" which was a common phrase in the New Testament and isn't the name of anyone. The disciples were trying to find out who would deny the Christ at the last supper. They said literally "Not I am, Lord" Matthew 26:22, 25. No one would say the disciples were trying to deny they were God because they were using the phrase "not I am." The word "I am" was a common way of designating oneself and it did not mean you were claiming to be God. The statement Jesus made in John 8:58 concerning "I am" would have to be equivalent with God's "I am" statement in Exodus 3:14 in order for the Trinitarian argument to make Jesus God. And it is not. The argument is made that because Jesus was "before" Abraham that Jesus must be God. Jesus figuratively existed in Abraham's time. He did not actually physically exist as a person, but rather he existed in the mind of God as God's plan for the redemption of man.

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.

There is a 4th option. Refer also to Deut 32:39; Isaiah 41:4, 43:10, 43:13, 46:4, 48:12, and 51:12.

For every single time "ἐγώ εἰμι" appears in an absolute sense in the LXX, it is God Himself declaring His divine identity. There are no places where an angel, a prophet, or a human says it in an absolute sense. Only YHWH uses it without a predicate as a divine self-revelation.

All these Isaiah verses support Jesus' claim of being the "I AM" in John 8:58. Unitarianism just crashed and burned.

As for the blind man's usage of ἐγώ εἰμι", it is used in an idiomatic way, not in an absolute (divine self-revelation) way. It is not surrounded by theological claims (eternity, salvation) and it does not echo the Isaiah (LXX) divine formula.