Non-Trinitarianism is unscriptural

[Butch5]

What you said makes no sense. How can something that has no beginning BRING FORTH something that has no beginning. They very BRINGING FORTH implies that it BEGAN. So if Jesus COMES OUT OF HIM, it by mere virtue IMPLIES THAT HE BEGAN. Like I've said in previous posts, if both the Father and Jesus existed always, the Father would've called Jesus his brother, NOT HIS SON. A SON does not precede NOR does it COME at the same time as a father. A Father comes FIRST, and then a SON. And since the Father has no beginning, then we know that the Son must've PROCEEDED FORTH FROM THE FATHER AND BEGUN, because both a Father and Son DO NOT come at the SAME TIME. What you're saying is a paradox. It's like saying if two parallel lines will intersect. By the very definition of parallel does it imply intersection never occurs.

It makes perfect sense. As a being the Son came forth and had a beginning. However, His substance existed in the Father prior to His coming forth as the Son. The Early Christians used fire as an example. Let's suppose you have an fire. If you stick a branch into the fire it begins to burn. It's still part of that that fire. Now, if you take that branch out of the fire you now have two separate fires. The second fire has just come into existence, however, in it's substance, the fire itself is as old as the original fire. At the same time the original fire is not diminished in any way.

 

[Imagican]

It's not quite that simple. The Greek word Arche means origin. Christ is the origin of the creation of God. Scripture says all things were created by Him

I can name MANY things that were NOT 'created by Christ'. If I can NAME BUT ONE, that means that you and others have misinterpreted the MEANING of 'all things'. You take it literal, but I can PROVE that it's NOT. So it is misinterpretation that makes your position POSSIBLE. I have no such preconceived notions that are in MY way to understanding.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Wgw]

I can name MANY things that were NOT 'created by Christ'. If I can NAME BUT ONE, that means that you and others have misinterpreted the MEANING of 'all things'. You take it literal, but I can PROVE that it's NOT. So it is misinterpretation that makes your position POSSIBLE. I have no such preconceived notions that are in MY way to understanding.

Blessings,

MEC

Which furthers my point that non-Trinitarians cannot accept John 1:1-14 as written. John 1:3 is inconvenient to your non-Biblical position, so you reject a literal interpretation of it.

 

[Butch5]

I can name MANY things that were NOT 'created by Christ'. If I can NAME BUT ONE, that means that you and others have misinterpreted the MEANING of 'all things'. You take it literal, but I can PROVE that it's NOT. So it is misinterpretation that makes your position POSSIBLE. I have no such preconceived notions that are in MY way to understanding.

Blessings,

MEC

Would that include the verse you just posted that is wrongly translated? I don't argue that all things means everything that exists. But rather all things that were created in the beginning.

 

[Imagican]

It makes perfect sense. As a being the Son came forth and had a beginning. However, His substance existed in the Father prior to His coming forth as the Son. The Early Christians used fire as an example. Let's suppose you have an fire. If you stick a branch into the fire it begins to burn. It's still part of that that fire. Now, if you take that branch out of the fire you now have two separate fires. The second fire has just come into existence, however, in it's substance, the fire itself is as old as the original fire. At the same time the original fire is not diminished in any way.

Oh my. Another one of those: "You know, God is like ICE" comments. While these may well be suitable examples of the IDEAS of men and their teachings, I have found NONE in the scriptures.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Imagican]

Would that include the verse you just posted that is wrongly translated? I don't argue that all things means everything that exists. But rather all things that were created in the beginning.

Guess I misunderstood the meaning behind your previous post. For it SEEMED to me you were indicating that Christ created ALL things. I didn't notice the 'all things pertaining to 'creation'. For that is CERTAINLY a more accurate understanding of the 'all things'.

So how about this: if Christ is not responsible for the creation of ALL things, WHO IS? And if there were things that were created BEFORE Christ that means He had a BEGINNING.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Butch5]

Oh my. Another one of those: "You know, God is like ICE" comments. While these may well be suitable examples of the IDEAS of men and their teachings, I have found NONE in the scriptures.

Blessings,

MEC

If you read the post it says that it's an early Christian understanding. I didn't claim it was Scripture. If you haven't read my posts I don't hold the typical understanding of the Trinity as espoused by many.

 

[cgaviria]

I doubt that John had a 21st century scientific understanding of time. It seems pretty obvious that his words "in the beginning" are a reference to Gen 1. If time began at "the beginning" then before all ages would be before time began. Ignatius, who was Johns's disciple states that Christ was begotten before all ages.

I find it interesting that you mentioned time began in the beginning. That in itself is very true. All things that have been made are in subjection to time. We perceive the passing of time because we are created and have things like the sun and rotation of the earth to help measure the passing of time. Creation itself was made so that one thing happens after the other, so we then perceive this continuance pattern of one thing happening after the other and hence we have perception of time. The slow passing of time is merely our perception though, to God everything has happened already. Take for example sleep, how quick it happens from the moment you sleep to the moment you wake up. Its quick because you don't perceive the passing of the time. Before things were brought forth into existence, there was no time because nothing existed. It was only black in the nothingness of no existence of anything. The earth, and all the things that are created, are suspended and created in this void of nothingness. Why do you think Job says,

He stretches out the north wind upon nothing, and hangs the earth upon nothing; (Job 26:7 [ABP])

What do you think "space" is? It is NOTHING, but in the NOTHINGNESS exists THINGS. The stars, the sun, the earth, these are all the things that exist. But in between these things, is SPACE, NOTHING. THIS NOTHING stretches forth from here and onward infinitely because it is nothing and nothing does not start nor does it end because it is nothing.

 

[Butch5]

Guess I misunderstood the meaning behind your previous post. For it SEEMED to me you were indicating that Christ created ALL things. I didn't notice the 'all things pertaining to 'creation'. For that is CERTAINLY a more accurate understanding of the 'all things'.

So how about this: if Christ is not responsible for the creation of ALL things, WHO IS? And if there were things that were created BEFORE Christ that means He had a BEGINNING.

Blessings,

MEC

As I said, I've not argued that Christ didn't have a beginning, He did. He was begotten before all world. However, He was NOT created, He was begotten.

There are lots of things that have been created that Christ didn't create. People create things all the time. However, concerning the creation that is spoken of "in the beginning" Christ did create that.

 

[Butch5]

I find it interesting that you mentioned time began in the beginning. That in itself is very true. All things that have been made are in subjection to time. We perceive the passing of time because we are created and have things like the sun and rotation of the earth to help measure the passing of time. Creation itself was made so that one thing happens after the other, so we then perceive this continuance pattern of one thing happening after the other and hence we have perception of time. The slow passing of time is merely our perception though, to God everything has happened already. Take for example sleep, how quick it happens from the moment you sleep to the moment you wake up. Its quick because you don't perceive the passing of the time. Before things were brought forth into existence, there was no time because nothing existed. It was only black in the nothingness of no existence of anything. The earth, and all the things that are created, are suspended and created in this void of nothingness. Why do you think Job says,

He stretches out the north wind upon nothing, and hangs the earth upon nothing; (Job 26:7 [ABP])

What do you think "space" is? It is NOTHING, but in the NOTHINGNESS exists THINGS. The stars, the sun, the earth, these are all the things that exist. But in between these things, is SPACE, NOTHING. THIS NOTHING stretches forth from here and onward infinitely because it is nothing and nothing does not start nor does it end because it is nothing.

This is mostly speculation. We don't know what exists outside of what we see. You could be correct or God could have other whole universes beyond this one, who knows? We surely don't. So, I don't build doctrine on assumptions, speculation, or inferences. I build it one what I read positively in the Scripture as I understand it. I'm kind of surprised at this post given that you said you only build you doctrine on what you find in the Scriptures.

 

[Imagican]

As I said, I've not argued that Christ didn't have a beginning, He did. He was begotten before all world. However, He was NOT created, He was begotten.

There are lots of things that have been created that Christ didn't create. People create things all the time. However, concerning the creation that is spoken of "in the beginning" Christ did create that.

Ok, Begotten. Now, how do we find a proper definition of this very word?

Do we turn to the Catholic Church and accept THEIR definition? Or do we simply accept the definition offered in the Bible.

For EVERY use of the term 'begotten' in the Bible is in reference to one being BORN. To BEGET is to conceive or bare. There is NOTHING offered in the Bible that would indicate that there are MORE than ONE meaning.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Imagican]

This is mostly speculation. We don't know what exists outside of what we see. You could be correct or God could have other whole universes beyond this one, who knows? We surely don't. So, I don't build doctrine on assumptions, speculation, or inferences. I build it one what I read positively in the Scripture as I understand it. I'm kind of surprised at this post given that you said you only build you doctrine on what you find in the Scriptures.

Do you profess to believe in and follow the doctrine of 'trinity'?

Blessings,

MEC

 

[cgaviria]

It makes perfect sense. As a being the Son came forth and had a beginning. However, His substance existed in the Father prior to His coming forth as the Son. The Early Christians used fire as an example. Let's suppose you have an fire. If you stick a branch into the fire it begins to burn. It's still part of that that fire. Now, if you take that branch out of the fire you now have two separate fires. The second fire has just come into existence, however, in it's substance, the fire itself is as old as the original fire. At the same time the original fire is not diminished in any way.

Its actually NOT QUITE like that but I get what you're saying. Its more like one GREATER thing brought FORTH a LESSER thing. The Father is the greater thing, the Son is the lesser. And what is the lesser? It is a very IMAGE of himself. In Genesis we have an example of God creating man as an IMAGE of himself. Also in the new testament we have Jesus Christ said to be THE VERY IMAGE OF GOD HIMSELF. Why is he the VERY IMAGE of God himself? Because HE CREATED, just as the FATHER CREATED. But in a much larger sense than Adam bringing forth children as an indirect way of "creating". He spoke the world into existence. That is why is also called the "word" of God. Word in the Greek means speech, talking. When the utterances of "let there be light" were spoken there in the Genesis account, it was Jesus speaking things into existence. Why is he also said to be the "first born of creation?" Because he was brought forth into existence FIRST among ALL living creatures, and then THROUGH HIM, were ALL living creatures in heaven and earth brought forth into existence. The same can be said of why Jesus referred to himself as only child. How is he only child? Because he was the only living being that was created DIRECTLY by the father, and then all OTHER LIVING BEINGS were spoken into existence by Jesus. What I'm telling you is very powerful. Please take my pearls. God has hidden his wisdom in the way he created things. Don't let the logic of man and readings outside of scripture steer you away from the wisdom of God.

 

[Paul1963]

Can you give you definition of the Trinity?

All we need do is look in Genesis chapter1 2ndvrs the spirt of God also in Genesis 1 vrs26 God says Let us make man. I state this that in the first book and first chapter of the Bible it shows the first glimpse of the trinity! This theam is then shown through the the rest of the Bible. Remember the Bible is the infallible written word of God.

 

[Butch5]

Ok, Begotten. Now, how do we find a proper definition of this very word?

Do we turn to the Catholic Church and accept THEIR definition? Or do we simply accept the definition offered in the Bible.

For EVERY use of the term 'begotten' in the Bible is in reference to one being BORN. To BEGET is to conceive or bare. There is NOTHING offered in the Bible that would indicate that there are MORE than ONE meaning.

Blessings,

MEC

Agreed, that is what I said in another post. Begotten is to be born. Just as child is begotten from it's mother. The child comes out of the mother. Jesus said He came out of the Father.

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. (Jn. 8:42 KJV)

The word from that I bolded is the Greek word "ek" it means to come out of.

 

[Wgw]

A quote from Wgw:

From this, we can interpret the Nicene Creed in saying "Begotten before all ages" as implying that the mysterious and impenetrable mystery of the generation of our Lord occurred before time, that is to say, outside of it, rather than as a temporal event comprehensible by the human mind according to the limits of causality.

Now, please explain to us WHY there MUST be such a MYSTERY that you suppose or QUOTE? "mysterious and impenetrable mystery of the GENERATION of our Lord".

Where do you find THAT in the Bible? Why not simply accept what the Bible OFFERS? Instead of trying to create some MYSTERY that cannot be understood, instead of making up NEW definitions to try and make the words FIT your 'mystery', why not just accept what we've been offered?

The Bible testifies in many places that the inner workings of God are impenetrable and unknowable, and thus, mysterious. For example, 1 Corinthians 11:33-34. To reject the idea of the divine mystery is to reject Scripture itself. Any man who can claim to be able to answer any arbitrary question as to the divine essence (inner workings) as opposed to the divine energies (outer workings) or prosopa (revealed persons, personalities, hypostases) is either lying or gravely deluded. At best, we can only roughly surmise the extent of this mystery through apophatic theology; apophatic theology allows us to know God in the sense that the Jews knew him in John 4:22; whereas the Samaritans erroneously believe that God dwells specifically on Mount Gerizim, the Jews recognized His omnipresence, or more precisely, that there was no place where God was not.

If you accept the words: "Firstborn of every creature", the "beginning of the creation of God". Simply accept them in the SIMPLICITY in which they have been offered rather than try and make up some NEW 'mystery'.

If you accept John 1:1-14 in the simplicity in which they have been offered, rather than relying on your own mysterious non-literal interpretation of them, you might well have a point. You are presupposing I do not accept the verses you quote literally (which in fact I do), and proceed to criticize me for this, when you yourself do not literally accept John 1:1-14, for example.

Now I on the other hand do literally accept the verses in question, and consider that they refute your position. We have alreay discussed how our Lord is "the [beginning/origin/arche] of all creation;" He is also the end ("I am the Alpha and Omega"). He refers of course to his creation of creation, and His impending judgement.

The phrase "Firstborn of all creation" attests further to His generation as opposed to His actually being created. For He was not in fact created; rather he was begotten of the Father before all worlds; in the Beginning of Creation He created all things. This sets him as the Firstborn apart from us, in that He presides over us to an infinite degree in terms of dignity and honour; he is by nature and ontology the Son of God according to essence, whereas we can become sons of God through grace and adoption, according to energy.

 

[Wgw]

Oh my. Another one of those: "You know, God is like ICE" comments. While these may well be suitable examples of the IDEAS of men and their teachings, I have found NONE in the scriptures.

Blessings,

MEC

Well, whereas what @Butch5 wrote is not inherently Sabellian, likening the Trinity to ice/water/steam is a classic Modalist/Sabellian argument commonly made by Oneness Pentecostals, who foolishly ignore high-energy plasma, degenerate matter, singularities amd certain other states in their false analogy.

I might well post a thread sometime regarding Sabellianism, of Sabellian members should happen to grace us with their presence.

 

[Butch5]

Its actually NOT QUITE like that but I get what you're saying. Its more like one GREATER thing brought FORTH a LESSER thing. The Father is the greater thing, the Son is the lesser. And what is the lesser? It is a very IMAGE of himself. In Genesis we have an example of God creating man as an IMAGE of himself. Also in the new testament we have Jesus Christ said to be THE VERY IMAGE OF GOD HIMSELF. Why is he the VERY IMAGE of God himself? Because HE CREATED, just as the FATHER CREATED. But in a much larger sense than Adam bringing forth children as an indirect way of "creating". He spoke the world into existence. That is why is also called the "word" of God. Word in the Greek means speech, talking. When the utterances of "let there be light" were spoken there in the Genesis account, it was Jesus speaking things into existence. Why is he also said to be the "first born of creation?" Because he was brought forth into existence FIRST among ALL living creatures, and then THROUGH HIM, were ALL living creatures in heaven and earth brought forth into existence. The same can be said of why Jesus referred to himself as only child. How is he only child? Because he was the only living being that was created DIRECTLY by the father, and then all OTHER LIVING BEINGS were spoken into existence by Jesus. What I'm telling you is very powerful. Please take my pearls. God has hidden his wisdom in the way he created things. Don't let the logic of man and readings outside of scripture steer you away from the wisdom of God.

I read your other post and I think you had a few unwarranted assumptions in it. I disagree with what you've said here in regard to Jesus being a lesser. He is equal to the Father in substance or essence. There was no misses to contribute any DNA for lack of a better term, to the Son. He is the exact same substance as the Father. It's just as when human father begets a son via the mother. The son is no less and no more human than that father, they are equally human. It is in order and personal attributes that they differ. The Father has authority over the Son, thus He is greater than the Son. There are also other attributes in which they differ. The Father alone has immortality, the Father alone is unbgotten. The Son is begotten. Jesus said He didn't know the hour of His return but only the Father knew. So, there are aspect where they differ, however, in substance they are equal.

 

[Imagican]

The Bible testifies in many places that the inner workings of God are impenetrable and unknowable, and thus, mysterious. For example, 1 Corinthians 11:33-34. To reject the idea of the divine mystery is to reject Scripture itself. Any man who can claim to be able to answer any arbitrary question as to the divine essence (inner workings) as opposed to the divine energies (outer workings) or prosopa (revealed persons, personalities, hypostases) is either lying or gravely deluded. At best, we can only roughly surmise the extent of this mystery through apophatic theology; apophatic theology allows us to know God in the sense that the Jews knew him in John 4:22; whereas the Samaritans erroneously believe that God dwells specifically on Mount Gerizim, the Jews recognized His omnipresence, or more precisely, that there was no place where God was not.



If you accept John 1:1-14 in the simplicity in which they have been offered, rather than relying on your own mysterious non-literal interpretation of them, you might well have a point. You are presupposing I do not accept the verses you quote literally (which in fact I do), and proceed to criticize me for this, when you yourself do not literally accept John 1:1-14, for example.

Now I on the other hand do literally accept the verses in question, and consider that they refute your position. We have alreay discussed how our Lord is "the [beginning/origin/arche] of all creation;" He is also the end ("I am the Alpha and Omega"). He refers of course to his creation of creation, and His impending judgement.

The phrase "Firstborn of all creation" attests further to His generation as opposed to His actually being created. For He was not in fact created; rather he was begotten of the Father before all worlds; in the Beginning of Creation He created all things. This sets him as the Firstborn apart from us, in that He presides over us to an infinite degree in terms of dignity and honour; he is by nature and ontology the Son of God according to essence, whereas we can become sons of God through grace and adoption, according to energy.

Just when I think that there is NO hope of mutual agreement, you come THAT close to convincing me that we have MORE to agree upon than disagree.

For you admit that Jesus IS the Son of God in His very ESSENCE. And this would seem to be CONTRARY to the "TRINITY" most here attempt to discuss. For surely the essence of the Son is not the SAME as the Father. Surely the Son and the Father are NOT the same in any manner other than intent.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[cgaviria]

This is mostly speculation. We don't know what exists outside of what we see. You could be correct or God could have other whole universes beyond this one, who knows? We surely don't. So, I don't build doctrine on assumptions, speculation, or inferences. I build it one what I read positively in the Scripture as I understand it. I'm kind of surprised at this post given that you said you only build you doctrine on what you find in the Scriptures.

These things are scriptural as well. Time is a creation of God and he has made creation in subjection to it, notice this,

And God said, Let there be luminaries in the firmament of the heaven for giving light upon the earth, to part between the day and between the night! And let them be for signs, and for times, and for days, and for years! (Genesis 1:14 [ABP])

These are things pertaining to time and he has given us things in the heaven to help us measure the passing of time. He has also made us to be able to perceive the passing of time. He could've easily made us to see everything happen at once, but he did not choose things to be this way.

As for the nothingness of space, this is also scriptural. I gave you the reference in Job. Jesus Christ also alludes to being cast into "outer darkness", and also "perish". What do you think these things mean? It means to be pushed out into non-existence. What do you think death is? To ultimately die is to cease to exist.