Trinity: Is Jesus really God?

[Christ4Ever]

But the passage explicitly states that the one God is the Father. If Paul believed in a Trinity, one would not expect him to make a distinction between God and Jesus, yet he does.

It seems this hierarchy teaching is yet another addition to the Trinity doctrine. That in itself is a problem. How does a Biblical doctrine evolve? the Trinity doctrine as it was codified states this,

Actually, in a hierarchy the opposite of what you said would be the case. If he is understanding this to be true, he would have to make that distinction because Jesus is also fully human!

So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Ghost almighty. And yet they are not three Almighties, but one Almighty.

Exactly! They are all in agreement!

And in this Trinity none is before or after other; none is greater or less than another; But the whole three Persons are coeternal together and coequal, so that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshiped.

It seems to me that the original teaching states plainly that there is no hierarchy. None of the three comes before or after any of the others. So, it must follow then that this hierarchy in the Godhead is yet another variation from the original teaching. This is a common occurrence with other Christian doctrines also but that's another thread.

You failed to understand what I wrote to you, or you don't want to understand it, because I have said nothing about them not being co-eternal or co-equal because they are. Did you look at the graphic? If you look at that, then you'd understand how that is so.

I agree that He wouldn't have been God the Father. He wouldn't even have been God. The problem is that people equivocate when it comes to the word god. The word god simply means a ruler. It's not an essence. It's a title.

So, before Creation what was He? He won't need a name and has one that we might understand if but a little bit, who He Is.
You are correct it is only a Title! The essence is Father, Son, Holy Spirit. They actually don't even need that distinction because they know each other fully. The distinction exists that we might understand who He is.

Since the first thing God did in creation was to beget a Son that would then make Him Father.

Yes, and the Father and Son are from the same essence doing so by the Holy Spirit that is of the same essence for there was nothing else. So, it would be impossible for one to be less than the other. And so is the beginning of the Trinity & Hierarchy.

Note: Please don't think of begotten in human terms of procreation, because if you do than you'll go down the rabbit hole of those who see the Holy Spirit as Mother! Which we had a new member who had been part of a church that believes that, and sadly has been chased away, by one of our not so loving members.

When I converse with God, I address all three persons of the Trinity. However, when I speak specifically to the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit, I am still communicating with God, but with a particular focus within the divine hierarchy.

Because God is a title and not an essence, His offspring is not necessarily going to be God. His offspring will be of the same essence as the being we call God. Consider a father and Son. If the father is president of the US his son is of the same essence, however, the son is not president of the US. The word president, like god, is a title not an essence.

Why not if they are the same essence? That is why I believe it was in this thread, or might have been another, I said "A rose by any other name is still a rose." The inherent qualities are not changed at all no matter what you title it. This is where hierarchy comes into play. Each choose to willingly be who they are in the Godhead/Divinity. Which is why they are always in agreement. Father, Son, Holy Spirit is positional only and why they are God when acting on behalf of each other.

If this doesn't make sense to you, I'm truly sorry in failing to explain this to you in such a way that you would know. It is also the reason I sought some outside references that would be able to communicate to you and others in words that would be able to answer the questions you might have concerning this topic. And the reason I provided the link to the .pdf in my last post.

If we say that god is an essence, then we must accept the idea that all of the pagan gods are of the same essence as the Father. I think most of us would find that idea absurd. We know that is not the case. Thus, the word god cannot denote an essence but rather must be a title. I'm in agreement that the Son is of the same essence as the Father. However, that essence doesn't make the Son God. In order to be called God the Son must have a kingdom and people over which He rules. That begs the question, is there a time when the Son has a kingdom and people over which He rules? If He does, then at that time He can be called God.

All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew [it] unto you. John 16:15 KJV

Note: Which includes the Holy Spirit in this verse!

1 My heart is inditing a good matter:
I speak of the things which I have made touching the king:
My tongue is the pen of a ready writer.
2 Thou art fairer than the children of men:
Grace is poured into thy lips:
Therefore God hath blessed thee for ever.
3 Gird thy sword upon thy thigh, O most mighty,
With thy glory and thy majesty.
4 And in thy majesty hride prosperously
Because of truth and meekness and righteousness;
And thy right hand shall teach thee terrible things.
5 Thine arrows are sharp
In the heart of the king’s enemies;
Whereby the people fall under thee.
6 Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever:
The sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre.
7 Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness:
Therefore mGod, thy God, hath anointed thee
With the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

King James Ps 45:1–7.

Here we have a prophecy of Christ. Notice He is called God in reference to a kingdom. He has a throne, a scepter, and a kingdom, and He is called God here.

Now consider the words of Jesus.

18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

Holy Bible: Mt 28:17–18.

After His resurrection Jesus was given all power. God the Father handed over all power and authority to Christ to rule over creation, thus Jesus now has the title of God. He is the ruler at this present time. Consider Pau's words.

1 GOD, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; 3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; 4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. 5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? 6 And sagain, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him. 7 And xof the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire. 8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. 9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. 10

Bible: King James Heb 1.

In this passage Paul quotes or alludes to several Old Testament passages. Here he says God has spoken to them through His Son. Note that regarding God's Son, Paul quotes Psalm 45:6-7. He quotes this when speaking of the excellency of Christ. Again, Jesus is called God in relation to His ruling in the Kingdom. It's a title.

However, notice what else Paul says. "And sagain, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world." He's speaking of God bringing the firstborn into the world. The literal first born man was Cain. So, what Paul is saying is that Jesus was literally the firstborn. He was begotten out of the Father. If He was born, then He had a beginning and thus could not be eternal. We see in proverbs 8 that Jesus was the first born.



The Lord created me as the beginning of his ways,
for the sake of his works.
23 Before the present age he founded me,
in the beginning.
24 Before he made the earth and before he made the depths,
before he brought forth the springs of the waters,
25 before the mountains were established
and before all the hills, he begets me.
26 The Lord made countries and uninhabited spaces
and the habitable heights of that beneath the sky.
27 When he prepared the sky, I was present with him,
and when he marked out his own throne on the winds.
28 When he made strong the clouds above
and when he made secure the springs beneath the sky,
29 when he made strong the foundations of the earth,
30 I was beside him, fitting together;
it is I who was the one in whom he took delight.
And each day I was glad in his presence at every moment,
31 when he rejoiced after he had completed the world
and rejoiced among the sons of men.


Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright, eds., “Proverbs,” in A New English Translation of the Septuagint (Primary Texts), trans. Johann Cook (New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), Pr 8:22–31

In verse 22 the word created isn't the best translation. The Greek word literally means to bring into existence. God did bring Christ into existence by begetting Him as a Son. Notice it says he was brought forth unto the works. The works of creation. Who was it that created all things? It was the Son, or Jesus. Verse 25 says, "he begets me." 27 says "I was present with Him." Notice verse 30, it says, "I was beside him, fitting together." That's the Son. And notice that it was Him that God took delight in. Now lets consider Jesus words.

39 They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham’s children, ye would do the works of Abraham. 40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham. 41 Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God. 42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.

King James Jn 8:39–42.

The word from, bolded above is the Greek word "ek." It literally means to come out of. The literal translation is that Jesus proceeded forth and came out of God. Let's consider more.


25 They said therefore to him: Who art thou? Jesus said to them: The beginning, who also speak unto you.

Holy Bible, Jn 8:25.

When the Jews asked Jesus who He was He answered, "the beginning." What did verse 22 say? the Lord created me as the beginning of His ways.

14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;

Bible: King James Re 3:14.

Here again we see Jesus referred to as the beginning Just like we saw in Proverbs 8. Notice in verse 30 where He speaks of being the one in whom God delighted. What do we find in Scripture?

16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: 17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

King James Mt 3:16–17.

Literally, it is "was well pleased" Again, we can see the clear reference back to Proverbs 8. We also see God making this statement When Peter, James, and John were with Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration. It's clear that this passage in Proverbs 8 is speaking of the Son and the Son was begotten out of God

It all makes sense if you understand that God is out of "Time" and sees (maybe lives) it all in the "Now". Past, present, future, is in the "Now" until Jesus/Son of God as Son of Man was manifested in the flesh and He laid the attributes He had since before Time in order to do so.

The rest is just going back over what is covered above.

With the Love of Christ Jesus.
YBIC
Nick
\o/
<><

 

[Butch5]

Actually, in a hierarchy the opposite of what you said would be the case. If he is understanding this to be true, he would have to make that distinction because Jesus is also fully human!

Not so. By making the distinction He is acknowledging that Jesus is not God.

Exactly! They are all in agreement!

But it's not talking about agreement. It's talking about power. The word means All might. Three different coequal persons cannot have all might. They would each have certain amount of might. Only one can have all might.

You failed to understand what I wrote to you, or you don't want to understand it, because I have said nothing about them not being co-eternal or co-equal because they are. Did you look at the graphic? If you look at that, then you'd understand how that is so.

Yes, I looked at the graphic. I'm familiar with it. It makes no sense.

So, before Creation what was He? He won't need a name and has one that we might understand if but a little bit, who He Is.
You are correct it is only a Title! The essence is Father, Son, Holy Spirit. They actually don't even need that distinction because they know each other fully. The distinction exists that we might understand who He is.

He was the same being He is now. If there is no one and nothing to rule over there would be no need for the title god. I disagree that there are three that know each other fully.

27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him. King James Version, Mt 11:27.

This is one of the verses that disproves the doctrine. The word "man" is not in the Greek text, it was added by translators. The passage reads none know the Son but the Father. And vice versa. And Jesus uses the Greek word epiginosko, which means to fully know. One has to wonder if the Holy Spirit is a third person how is it that He doesn't know the Father or the Son? However, if the Holy Spirit is a reference to the Father this passage makes perfect sense.

Yes, and the Father and Son are from the same essence doing so by the Holy Spirit that is of the same essence for there was nothing else. So, it would be impossible for one to be less than the other. And so is the beginning of the Trinity & Hierarchy.

Note: Please don't think of begotten in human terms of procreation, because if you do than you'll go down the rabbit hole of those who see the Holy Spirit as Mother! Which we had a new member who had been part of a church that believes that, and sadly has been chased away, by one of our not so loving members.

That's what the word means. I can't change it to make it fit something preconceived. You don't have to worry about the mother issue. As I see it the Holy Spirit is a reference to God the Father, just as Jesus said.

When I converse with God, I address all three persons of the Trinity. However, when I speak specifically to the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit, I am still communicating with God, but with a particular focus within the divine hierarchy.

I'm confused. When you converse with God, you're addressing all three, but when you speak to just one, you're still speaking to God? So that would mean that when you're speaking to just one, you're actually speaking to all three, correct?

Why not if they are the same essence? That is why I believe it was in this thread, or might have been another, I said "A rose by any other name is still a rose." The inherent qualities are not changed at all no matter what you title it. This is where hierarchy comes into play. Each choose to willingly be who they are in the Godhead/Divinity. Which is why they are always in agreement. Father, Son, Holy Spirit is positional only and why they are God when acting on behalf of each other.

Because essence doesn't confer title. I gave an example. If the president has a son the son is of the same essence however, the son is not president. You agreed the word god is a title. Essentially, it's a ruler. If Jesus is begotten yet has no kingdom or people to rule over, how is He a ruler or God? He can't be. The title requires a kingdom and people to rule over.

If this doesn't make sense to you, I'm truly sorry in failing to explain this to you in such a way that you would know. It is also the reason I sought some outside references that would be able to communicate to you and others in words that would be able to answer the questions you might have concerning this topic. And the reason I provided the link to the .pdf in my last post.

Don't be sorry Nick. You're trying to explain that which can't be explained. It's been 1500 years, and no one has been able to explain it. That was one of the big red flags to me. I don't understand how people have a doctrine that no one can explain, isn't in Scripture, and yet they so adamantly defend. It's bewildering.

All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew [it] unto you. John 16:15 KJV

Note: Which includes the Holy Spirit in this verse!


It all makes sense if you understand that God is out of "Time" and sees (maybe lives) it all in the "Now". Past, present, future, is in the "Now" until Jesus/Son of God as Son of Man was manifested in the flesh and He laid the attributes He had since before Time in order to do so.

The rest is just going back over what is covered above.

With the Love of Christ Jesus.
YBIC
Nick
\o/
<><

I have to disagree. The "God is outside of time" argument is just speculation. God may be outside of time; however, no one knows what that entails. I know some claim that to God, past, present, and future are all simultaneous, however that is mere speculation. As I see it, there is no way it makes sense. The doctrine simply requires me to suspend reality to accept it and I can't do that. God is not a God confusion.

 

[Butch5]

Апологетика — Вікіпедія

https://www.apprising.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/14.jpg

There are different types of images that reflect this. So, I'm not particular to these two Still the point is made that you can see visually.
This makes it simple for you to see how the Trinity exists and why we also believe there is only One God.
They have existed eternally. Which Bible verses have been posted throughout this and other threads on the Trinity.
I'm trying to find something visual that shows how you see it, and God the Father, Son of God, Holy Spirit. Now how that might show visually if I had a graphics program, I might be able to make one that would show what I am assuming you see as God the Father, with the Son, and Holy Spirit as outliers. With the rest of Creation as outliers to the Son, and Holy Spirit.

Since you all like reason, and you don't see this (Trinity) as being reasonable. If God the Father pre-existed both the Son & Holy Spirit, to my thinking He could not be God the Father, but just God. Then to become God the Father, the essence of God would have had to been separated to the Father, Son, & Holy Spirit, their existence at that time then is God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, because the essence is the same, and eternal, unless you believe that there is a separate God, from the Father, Son, & Holy Spirit that exists as well. I have no issue with the hierarchy, and some would say authority being God the Father, Son of God, & Holy Spirit. It does not remove the Godhead/Divinity from existing equally for all three.

You are welcome to take a look at the Heidelberg Catechism - Zacharias Ursinus that addresses many issues, on the Divinity of Christ start on page 326. Try to save you a rather long read of 1023 pages which is a translation from the original Latin!

https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/sdg/ursinus/Commentary%20on%20the%20Heidelberg%20Ca%20-%20Zacharias%20Ursinus.pdf

However, just in case you are interested which I might have stated before on my belief/understanding in the hierarchy of the Trinity was not founded upon this document or others that are out there on the subject, since I didn't even know of their existence before doing a bit of searching about a month ago. lol I did this because some who will remain unnamed by me thought me to be a liar/idiot/consciously/unconsciously or all of them, because I had no confirmed truth of the Trinity yeah/nay from reading scripture.

What the person failed to understand was that I could see many of the concepts being bandied about from a variety of people, but none so convincingly to hitch myself to a particular wagon of said belief, Trinity included. As I believe it should be, all in God's time, it will be made known to me/anyone, if He wills it to be so. Perhaps it is patience or simply my simple-minded nature, but it was not until the Holy Spirit said "Hierarchy" while I was reading Scripture in search of something, and repeated it twice when I paused, that I thought to myself, "Huh." lol The second time it just clicked. All the concepts of God, with the variety of Scripture now made sense. It all came together, and I've not doubted it ever since, which would be between 5-7 years ago!!! Meaning I was in my 60''s after having been drawn by the Holy Spirit on 19 December 1979 in a small Baptist Church in Germany. Of all places for a Spanish kid from Bklyn NY to come to the Lord! Anyway, I digress.

Now you can accept my testimony/understanding on this or not, and think its wrongheaded, without reason, etc. Like I've said, you would not be the first to insinuate/question my sanity or reasoning, but there you have it. I remember how you said you came to see the unreasonableness of the Trinity after a time of reading through Scripture. To me I just don't see how one could come by that, when so many of the concepts being bandied about (expression of the day it appears), could just as easily be justified as being correct, but I'm not you or know the struggle you went through to come to the understanding you hold to. No matter the scripture, you point to (within context) it speaks to the Divinity/Godhead, hierarchy of positional authority, that makes God = God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit, since Eternity. Enjoy the read! \o/

With the Love of Christ Jesus.
YBIC
Nick
\o/
<><

Hi Nick,

I'd like to address this point you made.

"This makes it simple for you to see how the Trinity exists and why we also believe there is only One God.
They have existed eternally. Which Bible verses have been posted throughout this and other threads on the Trinity."

You said that Bible verses have been posted throughout this and other threads on the Trinty that show why people believe the Trinity. While I acknowledge that passages have been posted, I would contend that none of them suggest a Trinity. I would submit that the only reason one would see a Trinity in said passages is because one came to those passages initially with the understanding that a Trintiy existed.

We have God's communication to man, the Bible. It tells us all about God. It gives us the history of God and Israel, His people. It tells us that God is just, love, merciful, powerful, and almighty. And I'm sure I missed several. It tells us all about faith. It tells us how to live. It tells us how to love. It gives us a great amount of Information. Yet, it says absolutely nothing about a Trinity. It says nothing about one God in three persons.

Attempts to prove that idea come from passages of Scripture that are misunderstood, misapplied, out of context, or are simply not unused in a valid manner. One argument is that the Bible refers to Jesus as God therefore Jesus and the Father must be the same God. this not only defies logic, but it also defies physics. One being cannot consist of several. However, if we use that same line of reasoning what are we to do with Baal and Molech? They are also called gods. So, if Jesus being called God makes Him one God with the Father, It would also make Baal and Molech the same. We know that that is not a valid conclusion. thus, we must conclude that that line of reasoning is flawed and invalid. So, the argument that Jesus being called God makes Him one with the Father is not a valid argument and thus doesn't prove a Trinity. It's arguments like this that people use to try to prove this doctrine, however, the arguments are not valid.

 

[Butch5]

Incorrect. We get the trinity from scripture. We need to keep to exactly what scripture tells us, the A-Z of it, as understanding God is not easy.

No, we don't! If it was from Scripture, the apostles would have taught it. They didn't teach it so it's not from Scripture.

 

[KingJ]

No, we don't! If it was from Scripture, the apostles would have taught it. They didn't teach it so it's not from Scripture.

Butch, I mean this in all honesty and the nicest way possible. You are dodging in every single post you have made. Explain how God is not evil if He ordained the crucifixion of Jesus for sins He did not commit.

There is no way to defend God as good unless He lay His own life down.

The only options for a non-trinitarian belief are:

A - God is unjust and therefore evil as He punished a creation for sin He did not commit.
B - For God to be good, Jesus must have suffered no pain and not have been abandoned.
C - For God to be good, Jesus must have been guilty of His own sin.

Is there a D and E or do you concede to one of these?

 

[Butch5]

Explain how God is not evil if He ordained the crucifixion of Jesus for sins He did not commit.

There is no way to defend God as good unless He lay His own life down.

This is simply your opinion. It's impossible for one being to consist of three persons. Since it's impossible your conclusion is not valid. That makes your question invalid. What that should tell us is that you may want reconsider your question and conclusion.

I have already done that for you. You simply dismissed it. The question goes away when acknowledge that God did not punish Jesus.

I have already explained this to you several posts ago when I explained the Ransom theory of the Atonement.

You hold a doctrine that is not Biblical, Penal Atonemnt. This doctrine is what has force you to take the position that God pinished Himself in order to avoid the question of evil. Thus you have concluded that Jesus must be God. However, as we have seen this is not possible and is flatly refuted by Scripture. Those two factors should cause you to seek a different answer to the problem.

The problem you're confronted with is solved by the Ransom theory. God didn't punish Christ, thus there is no issue with God punishing one in place of another which you claim is evil.

Here is the reply to a 5 second Google search.


"The early church's view of the atonement, often referred to as the "Christus Victor" or "ransom" theory, emphasized Jesus's victory over Satan and death, rather than a penal substitution model, where Jesus died in place of sinners to satisfy God's wrath.

Here's a more detailed explanation:

• Christus Victor/Ransom Theory:
• This view, prominent in the early church, understood Jesus's death and resurrection as a victory over the powers of darkness, including Satan and death, which held humanity in bondage.
• It depicted humanity as being enslaved by Satan after the fall, and Jesus's death as a ransom paid to Satan to release humanity from this bondage.
• The key idea is that Christ's death and resurrection broke the power of the devil and death, freeing humanity from their dominion.
• Distinction from Penal Substitution:
• In contrast to the penal substitution theory, which emphasizes that Jesus died in the place of sinners to bear their punishment and satisfy God's wrath, the early church's view focused on the liberation and victory achieved through Christ's sacrifice.
• While some church fathers did use language that could be interpreted as hinting at penal substitution, the dominant emphasis was on Christ's victory over evil and the restoration of humanity"

This was the view for the first 1000 years of Christian history. The Penal Atonement doctrine is a product of the Reformers and the Reformation. And, like so many other things, the Reformers got this wrong also.

But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: 8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

(1 Corinthians 2:7–8, KJV 1900)

Notice who it was that killed Christ. It was the princes of this age. It was demonic forces. It wasn't God.

So, I'm not dancing around you question. On the other hand, much of what I've posted you've simply dismissed as "a croc" without addressing any of it. I've repeatedly asked you, if the punishment is death and God killed Himself, who brought Him back to life? You have yet to make an attempt to answer this question. It seems to me if anyone is dancing here it's not me.

So, if you want to continue this discussion I'll need you to address the flaws in your argument, answer questions, and address the evidence. If all you're going to do is make comments like anyone with a working brain would believe the Trinity I'm not interested.

 

[Butch5]

Butch, I mean this in all honesty and the nicest way possible. You are dodging in every single post you have made. Explain how God is not evil if He ordained the crucifixion of Jesus for sins He did not commit.

There is no way to defend God as good unless He lay His own life down.

The only options for a non-trinitarian belief are:

A - God is unjust and therefore evil as He punished a creation for sin He did not commit.
B - For God to be good, Jesus must have suffered no pain and not have been abandoned.
C - For God to be good, Jesus must have been guilty of His own sin.

Is there a D and E or do you concede to one of these?

How many times do I have to answer this question? GOD DID NOT PUNISH JESUS!!!!! Since God did not punish Jesus, your question is moot.

In your scenario, would it be evil? One might be able to make that argument. However, as I said, it's a moot point because God didn't punish Jesus. Since God didn't punish Jesus, the conclusion you've drawn that not believing in the Trinity doctrine portrays God as evil is patently false.

On a side note, are you suggesting God "created" Jesus? I mean, you're arguing for a Trinity doctrine that claims all three are eternal and in this post, you've suggested that Jesus is created.

 

[KingJ]

This is simply your opinion.

No, its a logical deduction.

It's impossible for one being to consist of three persons.

This has nothing to do with my question to you.

Since it's impossible your conclusion is not valid. That makes your question invalid. What that should tell us is that you may want reconsider your question and conclusion.

My question is from a non-trinitarian view.

I have already done that for you. You simply dismissed it. The question goes away when acknowledge that God did not punish Jesus.

I have already explained this to you several posts ago when I explained the Ransom theory of the Atonement.

You moving the goal posts. Jesus endured suffering. If you want to term that as not being a 'punishment' then call it whatever you want. I am not interested or give two hoots where you decide to place the goal posts. Let me know when you have placed them.

Jesus suffered a cruel death such that He sweat blood in anticipation of it. This is a fact you are trying to avoid as you don't want to state that your ridiculous belief incriminates God as EVIL.

You hold a doctrine that is not Biblical, Penal Atonemnt. This doctrine is what has force you to take the position that God pinished Himself in order to avoid the question of evil. Thus you have concluded that Jesus must be God. However, as we have seen this is not possible and is flatly refuted by Scripture. Those two factors should cause you to seek a different answer to the problem.

The problem you're confronted with is solved by the Ransom theory. God didn't punish Christ, thus there is no issue with God punishing one in place of another which you claim is evil.

Jesus endured suffering. AKA punishment. Whether His suffering was as a ransom or penalty paid, is completely and utterly irrelevant. Please for the love of God, try understand that.

Hold to your ransom theory as much as you want. You just change the question to.....

Is a God that specially selected some random person who clearly drew the shortest straw called Jesus, to endure a cruel and vicious death for sin He did not commit as a ransom for humans, unjust, sadistic and evil? Yes or No. If No, explain why.

Go floor is yours.....please EXPLAIN.......!!!!!!???????

 

[KingJ]

Notice who it was that killed Christ. It was the princes of this age. It was demonic forces. It wasn't God.

So, I'm not dancing around you question

Oh for crying out aloud what a load of croc. Have you decided on resting the goal posts here now or can I expect you to try move it again?

If a warden places a nun in a prison cell with a rapist and the nun gets raped as ''''''''''RANSOM''''''''''' for the prisoner that was in the cell previously, is the warden just, righteous and good? Yes or No?

Go floor is yours.....please EXPLAIN.......!!!!!!???????

 

[Butch5]

No, its a logical deduction.



This has nothing to do with my question to you.



My question is from a non-trinitarian view.



You moving the goal posts. Jesus endured suffering. If you want to term that as not being a 'punishment' then call it whatever you want. I am not interested or give two hoots where you decide to place the goal posts. Let me know when you have placed them.

Jesus suffered a cruel death such that He sweat blood in anticipation of it. This is a fact you are trying to avoid as you don't want to state that your ridiculous belief incriminates God as EVIL.



Jesus endured suffering. AKA punishment. Whether His suffering was as a ransom or penalty paid, is completely and utterly irrelevant. Please for the love of God, try understand that.

Hold to your ransom theory as much as you want. You just change the question to.....

Is a God that specially selected some random person who clearly drew the shortest straw called Jesus, to endure a cruel and vicious death for sin He did not commit as a ransom for humans, unjust, sadistic and evil? Yes or No. If No, explain why.

Go floor is yours.....please EXPLAIN.......!!!!!!???????

Dude, what is so hard to understand here? Yes, Jesus suffered. However, it was "NOT" at God's hand. I gave you Scripture showing that it was Satan who killed Jesus, NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT God.


And, as is par for the course, once again you ignored the flaws in your reasoning that have been pointed out. You need to stop playing games. Everyone can see that your claims of moving the goals posts, dancing, and what not, are nothing more than an attempt to avoid the problems with your claim. I believe you'd get more respect if you simply said nothing.

 

[Butch5]

Oh for crying out aloud what a load of croc. Have you decided on resting the goal posts here now or can I expect you to try move it again?

If a warden places a nun in a prison cell with a rapist and the nun gets raped as ''''''''''RANSOM''''''''''' for the prisoner that was in the cell previously, is the warden just, righteous and good? Yes or No?

Go floor is yours.....please EXPLAIN.......!!!!!!???????

And once again you ignored the passage of Scripture.

 

[Butch5]

.

 

[KingJ]

Dude, what is so hard to understand here? Yes, Jesus suffered. However, it was "NOT" at God's hand. I gave you Scripture showing that it was Satan who killed Jesus, NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT God.

And... I gave you an example of a prison warden who puts a nun in a cell with a rapist. Are you insinuating that God did not know Jesus would suffer terribly? It was prophesied that Jesus would be a Lamb to the slaughter Isa 53:7.

Let's use a personal example, maybe it makes more sense to you as you are clearly not grasping a very simple fact.

Let's say I made a gun (mankind). I knew that the gun would get no sales unless it was known to have killed someone (nobody would go to heaven unless Jesus was '''''ransomed'', '''punished'', ''paid penalty for sin'', pick whatever words you want). I gave the gun to a person called lucifer (the most evil being on the planet) and chose your innocent and young daughter (Jesus was sinless and innocent like a child) as the victim. Knowing that by choosing Lucifer your daughter would not just be shot but tortured and then shot (Jesus was abandoned, beaten and crucified). Would you think of me as a good, righteous and just person?

The fact that you just do not 'get' this fact is absolutely shocking. You have a most epic case of ostrich syndrome. As long as it is not you or your daughter, it does not matter right?

And, as is par for the course, once again you ignored the flaws in your reasoning that have been pointed out.

You have not pointed out flaws. You are attempting to dodge the question by creating rabbit trails.

You need to stop playing games. Everyone can see that your claims of moving the goals posts, dancing, and what not, are nothing more than an attempt to avoid the problems with your claim. I believe you'd get more respect if you simply said nothing.

Where am I dancing? You seem to think quoting long passages from Google explaining penal and ransom atonement better make your case. It is quite hilarious actually. Like watching you think that choosing your daughter as a ransom to a Mexican drug cartel for your son to get a green card justifies you as a good person. All because you were..... not the one to torture and punish her.

Your mind is not on the topic. I wish you would just deal with the question in a logical and intellectually honest manner.

I am at least glad that you are most definitely helping to shine light on how sick and twisted a non-trinitarian belief is. You simply cannot deal directly with the question.

An honest and direct reply from a non-trinitarian would be:

1. ''KingJ, I disagree that God is evil because I do not believe He knew Jesus would suffer and be crucified. God is quite dumb''.
2. ''KingJ I believe that we must not worship Jesus, only God, as God is jealous. Everyone worshiping and praying to Jesus is evil''.
3. KingJ, yes, God made mankind knowing a ransom of a cruel and terrible death would be required, but I don't see anything wrong with that. If I passed a law that enabled a drug cartel to kidnap your children, you can rest peacefully knowing that I already planned to send my young innocent daughter to suffer a cruel death for you to be ransomed.

I guess it is logical to expect one to dance and or stick their head in the ground like an ostrich hoping these facts magically vanish.

 

[Dave M]

New International Version
For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

New Living Translation
For a child is born to us, a son is given to us. The government will rest on his shoulders. And he will be called: Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

English Standard Version
For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Berean Standard Bible
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, and the government will be upon His shoulders. And He will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

King James Bible
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

New King James Version
For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

 

[Dave M]

Some things of God are not understood by mans limited cursed mind. Somethings have to be reveled, somethings you just have to believe, because Gods words says it. Gods Word is proven !!

Believing and yet not understanding, is faith in God's word !!

How can one understand that a child is born unto us, that is Mighty God, everlasting father, it is not humanly possible to make sense of that, yet I believe it because God says it. The only way to make sense of it ,,is they are one, yet that make not earthly sense does it !! Praise Jesus I do not need to understand I believe


New King James Version
For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

 

[Dave M]

If Jesus is not GOD how can he be called everlasting father, how can he be called Mighty God, you either believe the word of God that is proven or you do not

 

[Dylan569]

The full Deity of the Messiah, the Christ is still clearly seen in the 'liberal' NRSV & NRSVue -

"For a child has been born for us, a son given to us; authority rests upon his shoulders, and he is named Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Great will be his authority, and there shall be endless peace for the throne of David and his kingdom. He will establish and uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time onward and forevermore. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will do this." (Isa 9:6-7 NRSV Updated Edition/2021)

The NRSV & NRSVue neither one translate the OT from the perspective of the Christian NT, so the question of Trinitarian theology is not an influence here. It is clear the Messiah, the Christ was to be Mighty God, Everlasting Father so therefore Yahweh, the LORD.

The English "Mighty God" translates the Hebrew gibbowr el and that same exact combination is used in the next chapter -

"On that day the remnant of Israel and the survivors of the house of Jacob will no longer lean on the one who struck them but will lean on the LORD, the Holy One of Israel, in truth. A remnant will return, the remnant of Jacob, to the mighty God. For though your people, O Israel, were like the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will return. Destruction is decreed, an overwhelming verdict. For the Lord GOD of hosts will make a full end, as decreed, in all the earth." (Isa 10:20-23 NRSVue)

 

[Butch5]

And... I gave you an example of a prison warden who puts a nun in a cell with a rapist. Are you insinuating that God did not know Jesus would suffer terribly? It was prophesied that Jesus would be a Lamb to the slaughter Isa 53:7.

Let's use a personal example, maybe it makes more sense to you as you are clearly not grasping a very simple fact.

Let's say I made a gun (mankind). I knew that the gun would get no sales unless it was known to have killed someone (nobody would go to heaven unless Jesus was '''''ransomed'', '''punished'', ''paid penalty for sin'', pick whatever words you want). I gave the gun to a person called lucifer (the most evil being on the planet) and chose your innocent and young daughter (Jesus was sinless and innocent like a child) as the victim. Knowing that by choosing Lucifer your daughter would not just be shot but tortured and then shot (Jesus was abandoned, beaten and crucified). Would you think of me as a good, righteous and just person?

The fact that you just do not 'get' this fact is absolutely shocking. You have a most epic case of ostrich syndrome. As long as it is not you or your daughter, it does not matter right?

Why the incessant desire to blame God? Did God cause Adam to sin?

You have not pointed out flaws. You are attempting to dodge the question by creating rabbit trails.

Now you're just being ridiculous

Where am I dancing? You seem to think quoting long passages from Google explaining penal and ransom atonement better make your case. It is quite hilarious actually. Like watching you think that choosing your daughter as a ransom to a Mexican drug cartel for your son to get a green card justifies you as a good person. All because you were..... not the one to torture and punish her.

Your mind is not on the topic. I wish you would just deal with the question in a logical and intellectually honest manner.

I am at least glad that you are most definitely helping to shine light on how sick and twisted a non-trinitarian belief is. You simply cannot deal directly with the question.

An honest and direct reply from a non-trinitarian would be:

1. ''KingJ, I disagree that God is evil because I do not believe He knew Jesus would suffer and be crucified. God is quite dumb''.
2. ''KingJ I believe that we must not worship Jesus, only God, as God is jealous. Everyone worshiping and praying to Jesus is evil''.
3. KingJ, yes, God made mankind knowing a ransom of a cruel and terrible death would be required, but I don't see anything wrong with that. If I passed a law that enabled a drug cartel to kidnap your children, you can rest peacefully knowing that I already planned to send my young innocent daughter to suffer a cruel death for you to be ransomed.

I guess it is logical to expect one to dance and or stick their head in the ground like an ostrich hoping these facts magically vanish.

Your examples are just asinine, and they don't even reflect the actual situation. Rather, they reflect this scenario you have created in your mind. Why this incessant desire to blame God?

 

[Dylan569]

God's Will of Decree, what He ordains, even if He determines it through the human will -

Over All:
All the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, and he does what he wills with the host of heaven and the inhabitants of the earth. There is no one who can stay his hand or say to him, “What are you doing?” (Dan 4:35, NRSV)

Whatever the LORD pleases he does, in heaven and on earth, in the seas and all deeps. (Ps 135:6, NRSV)

But he stands alone and who can dissuade him? What he desires, that he does. (Job 23:13, NRSV)

Even before they had been born or had done anything good or bad (so that God’s purpose of election might continue, (Rom 9:11, NRSV)

Over Sin:
Even though you intended to do harm to me, God intended it for good, in order to preserve a numerous people, as he is doing today. (Gen 50:20, NRSV)

this man, handed over to you according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of those outside the law. (Acts 2:23, NRSV)

For in this city, in fact, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place. (Acts 4:27-28, NRSV)

For the Son of Man is going as it has been determined, but woe to that one by whom he is betrayed!” (Luke 22:22, NRSV)

The LORD said to Satan, “Very well, all that he has is in your power; only do not stretch out your hand against him!” So Satan went out from the presence of the LORD. (Job 1:12, NRSV)

 

[Christ4Ever]

Not so. By making the distinction He is acknowledging that Jesus is not God.

You feel that way because you give no thought to what I said concerning it.

But it's not talking about agreement. It's talking about power. The word means All might. Three different coequal persons cannot have all might. They would each have certain amount of might. Only one can have all might.

That is why you will not be open to the Trinity. If you viewed it within the hierarchy, then you would see it as possible. Otherwise, then without equivocating you must then accept Jesus as God, because if what you say is true that it's about power, and hierarchy is not a consideration then it can't be delegated or the originator no longer retains it and ceases to be "All might", but the other who the power was delegated to now becomes "All might".

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 KJV

I am the alpha and the omega, says [the] Lord - God the [one] being - the one who is and the [one who] was and the [one] coming, the Almighty. Greek Interlinear Rev 1:8

Yes, I looked at the graphic. I'm familiar with it. It makes no sense.

And yet to me it makes perfect sense! Maybe you have a graph that can reflect what you believe with who we know exists, in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and look at what you have. Maybe then you can say there is no hierarchy.

So, before Creation what was He? He won't need a name and has one that we might understand if but a little bit, who He Is.
You are correct it is only a Title! The essence is Father, Son, Holy Spirit. They actually don't even need that distinction because they know each other fully. The distinction exists that we might understand who He is.

He was the same being He is now. If there is no one and nothing to rule over there would be no need for the title god. I disagree that there are three that know each other fully.

27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him. King James Version, Mt 11:27.

This is one of the verses that disproves the doctrine. The word "man" is not in the Greek text, it was added by translators. The passage reads none know the Son but the Father. And vice versa. And Jesus uses the Greek word epiginosko, which means to fully know. One has to wonder if the Holy Spirit is a third person how is it that He doesn't know the Father or the Son? However, if the Holy Spirit is a reference to the Father this passage makes perfect sense.

Since you did not dispute my statement, I assume that, apart from my mention of the Holy Spirit, you acknowledge the validity of my position, particularly as you provided scripture to support what I said about the Father & Son. That they don't need the distinction because they know each other fully, is evident in Matthew 11:27, but for the sake of us knowing God it is made plain for us to see.

Once I have your agreement here, we can discuss the Holy Spirit.

Yes, and the Father and Son are from the same essence doing so by the Holy Spirit that is of the same essence for there was nothing else. So, it would be impossible for one to be less than the other. And so is the beginning of the Trinity & Hierarchy.

Note: Please don't think of begotten in human terms of procreation, because if you do than you'll go down the rabbit hole of those who see the Holy Spirit as Mother! Which we had a new member who had been part of a church that believes that, and sadly has been chased away, by one of our not so loving members.

That's what the word means. I can't change it to make it fit something preconceived. You don't have to worry about the mother issue. As I see it the Holy Spirit is a reference to God the Father, just as Jesus said.

Not preconceived, but taking into account that it also means "of its kind", as well as "to go out, come out, exit, go forth" etc.

Glad you don't see the Holy Spirit as Mother. However, I must ask this question that comes to me from what you stated above about the Holy Spirit. So, whenever the Holy Spirit is mentioned in scripture you believe it just as easily can be replaced with God the Father? So, that they are not just the same in essence, but are one and the same.

When I converse with God, I address all three persons of the Trinity. However, when I speak specifically to the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit, I am still communicating with God, but with a particular focus within the divine hierarchy.

I'm confused. When you converse with God, you're addressing all three, but when you speak to just one, you're still speaking to God? So that would mean that when you're speaking to just one, you're actually speaking to all three, correct?

Yes.

Why not if they are the same essence? That is why I believe it was in this thread, or might have been another, I said "A rose by any other name is still a rose." The inherent qualities are not changed at all no matter what you title it. This is where hierarchy comes into play. Each choose to willingly be who they are in the Godhead/Divinity. Which is why they are always in agreement. Father, Son, Holy Spirit is positional only and why they are God when acting on behalf of each other.

Because essence doesn't confer title. I gave an example. If the president has a son the son is of the same essence however, the son is not president. You agreed the word god is a title. Essentially, it's a ruler. If Jesus is begotten yet has no kingdom or people to rule over, how is He a ruler or God? He can't be. The title requires a kingdom and people to rule over.

Are you saying that though they are of the same essence, that a title makes them different?
If so, doesn't that speak to what I've been saying all along about a hierarchy?

If this doesn't make sense to you, I'm truly sorry in failing to explain this to you in such a way that you would know. It is also the reason I sought some outside references that would be able to communicate to you and others in words that would be able to answer the questions you might have concerning this topic. And the reason I provided the link to the .pdf in my last post.

Don't be sorry Nick. You're trying to explain that which can't be explained. It's been 1500 years, and no one has been able to explain it. That was one of the big red flags to me. I don't understand how people have a doctrine that no one can explain, isn't in Scripture, and yet they so adamantly defend. It's bewildering.

You must have many red flags, brother, or you know everything there is to know about Scripture that anyone has ever known. lol

I hope you get a chance to check out the .pdf file I shared.

All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew [it] unto you. John 16:15 KJV

Note: Which includes the Holy Spirit in this verse!


It all makes sense if you understand that God is out of "Time" and sees (maybe lives) it all in the "Now". Past, present, future, is in the "Now" until Jesus/Son of God as Son of Man was manifested in the flesh and He laid the attributes He had since before Time in order to do so.

The rest is just going back over what is covered above.

With the Love of Christ Jesus.
YBIC
Nick
\o/
<><

I have to disagree. The "God is outside of time" argument is just speculation. God may be outside of time; however, no one knows what that entails. I know some claim that to God, past, present, and future are all simultaneous, however that is mere speculation. As I see it, there is no way it makes sense. The doctrine simply requires me to suspend reality to accept it and I can't do that. God is not a God confusion.

Actually, it makes perfect sense that God lives in the "Now". We too in a certain way live it to it as well, though our awareness is quite restricted. Think of salvation and it will start to make more sense...or maybe not. lol

Апологетика — Вікіпедія

https://www.apprising.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/14.jpg
There are different types of images that reflect this. So, I'm not particular to these two Still the point is made that you can see visually.
This makes it simple for you to see how the Trinity exists and why we also believe there is only One God.
They have existed eternally. Which Bible verses have been posted throughout this and other threads on the Trinity.
I'm trying to find something visual that shows how you see it, and God the Father, Son of God, Holy Spirit. Now how that might show visually if I had a graphics program, I might be able to make one that would show what I am assuming you see as God the Father, with the Son, and Holy Spirit as outliers. With the rest of Creation as outliers to the Son, and Holy Spirit.

Since you all like reason, and you don't see this (Trinity) as being reasonable. If God the Father pre-existed both the Son & Holy Spirit, to my thinking He could not be God the Father, but just God. Then to become God the Father, the essence of God would have had to been separated to the Father, Son, & Holy Spirit, their existence at that time then is God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, because the essence is the same, and eternal, unless you believe that there is a separate God, from the Father, Son, & Holy Spirit that exists as well. I have no issue with the hierarchy, and some would say authority being God the Father, Son of God, & Holy Spirit. It does not remove the Godhead/Divinity from existing equally for all three.

You are welcome to take a look at the Heidelberg Catechism - Zacharias Ursinus that addresses many issues, on the Divinity of Christ start on page 326. Try to save you a rather long read of 1023 pages which is a translation from the original Latin!

https://www.monergism.com/thethresh... on the Heidelberg Ca - Zacharias Ursinus.pdf

However, just in case you are interested which I might have stated before on my belief/understanding in the hierarchy of the Trinity was not founded upon this document or others that are out there on the subject, since I didn't even know of their existence before doing a bit of searching about a month ago. lol I did this because some who will remain unnamed by me thought me to be a liar/idiot/consciously/unconsciously or all of them, because I had no confirmed truth of the Trinity yeah/nay from reading scripture.

What the person failed to understand was that I could see many of the concepts being bandied about from a variety of people, but none so convincingly to hitch myself to a particular wagon of said belief, Trinity included. As I believe it should be, all in God's time, it will be made known to me/anyone, if He wills it to be so. Perhaps it is patience or simply my simple-minded nature, but it was not until the Holy Spirit said "Hierarchy" while I was reading Scripture in search of something, and repeated it twice when I paused, that I thought to myself, "Huh." lol The second time it just clicked. All the concepts of God, with the variety of Scripture now made sense. It all came together, and I've not doubted it ever since, which would be between 5-7 years ago!!! Meaning I was in my 60''s after having been drawn by the Holy Spirit on 19 December 1979 in a small Baptist Church in Germany. Of all places for a Spanish kid from Bklyn NY to come to the Lord! Anyway, I digress.

Now you can accept my testimony/understanding on this or not, and think its wrongheaded, without reason, etc. Like I've said, you would not be the first to insinuate/question my sanity or reasoning, but there you have it. I remember how you said you came to see the unreasonableness of the Trinity after a time of reading through Scripture. To me I just don't see how one could come by that, when so many of the concepts being bandied about (expression of the day it appears), could just as easily be justified as being correct, but I'm not you or know the struggle you went through to come to the understanding you hold to. No matter the scripture, you point to (within context) it speaks to the Divinity/Godhead, hierarchy of positional authority, that makes God = God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit, since Eternity. Enjoy the read! \o/

With the Love of Christ Jesus.
YBIC
Nick
\o/
<><
Click to expand...

Hi Nick,

I'd like to address this point you made.

"This makes it simple for you to see how the Trinity exists and why we also believe there is only One God.
They have existed eternally. Which Bible verses have been posted throughout this and other threads on the Trinity."

You said that Bible verses have been posted throughout this and other threads on the Trinty that show why people believe the Trinity. While I acknowledge that passages have been posted, I would contend that none of them suggest a Trinity. I would submit that the only reason one would see a Trinity in said passages is because one came to those passages initially with the understanding that a Trintiy existed.

We have God's communication to man, the Bible. It tells us all about God. It gives us the history of God and Israel, His people. It tells us that God is just, love, merciful, powerful, and almighty. And I'm sure I missed several. It tells us all about faith. It tells us how to live. It tells us how to love. It gives us a great amount of Information. Yet, it says absolutely nothing about a Trinity. It says nothing about one God in three persons.

Attempts to prove that idea come from passages of Scripture that are misunderstood, misapplied, out of context, or are simply not unused in a valid manner. One argument is that the Bible refers to Jesus as God therefore Jesus and the Father must be the same God. this not only defies logic, but it also defies physics. One being cannot consist of several. However, if we use that same line of reasoning what are we to do with Baal and Molech? They are also called gods. So, if Jesus being called God makes Him one God with the Father, It would also make Baal and Molech the same. We know that that is not a valid conclusion. thus, we must conclude that that line of reasoning is flawed and invalid. So, the argument that Jesus being called God makes Him one with the Father is not a valid argument and thus doesn't prove a Trinity. It's arguments like this that people use to try to prove this doctrine, however, the arguments are not valid.

I too felt that way, but unlike you, I made no decision to disbelieve the Trinity as a doctrine and move on to another doctrine of belief concerning God. As I mentioned before, until I was told the "Hierarchy," I neither professed faith in the Trinity nor rejected it. What I could say was that I did not know for certain.

With the Love of Christ Jesus.
YBIC
Nick
\o/
<><