Non-Trinitarianism is unscriptural

Wgw · Nov 24, 2015

Hoghead1 said:
Hello, WgW, Hoghead1 again. Thank you for your thoughtful and informed response. it raises my hopes about this site. I am new and disgruntled, as much I have received and read seems little better that inflammatory rhetoric from individuals who have no real knowledge of what they are talking about. Hence, seeing your level of scholarship raises my hopes about what I can look forward to. Now, I don't mean to pry, but I am really curious what your background is. I am going to guess at least a graduate degree in theology, possibly an M.Div.

Alas I cannot claim to have an MDiv; I am by trade a network engineer, although in future I might well pursue an MDiv or equivalent.

On my end, I have a doctorate in theology, plus solid history of academic publications, including my dissertation, plus loads of major paper presentations, and absolutely zero work in academia. I don't know if you have looked, but for years the job market in theology and related areas has been nil. All dressed up and no place to go, that's me. Although I do not have a full-time teaching position yet, I just going to jump in, grab a seat, and consider myself among the ranks of contemporary Protestant theologians and scholars. So, I came here to at least keep in shape.

I don't know of any seminaries that are particularly booming right now, which is unfortunate. This is a separate problem which we might well discuss elsewhere. No one really does theological work for the money however.

Now regarding my point abut the Bible and the Trinity, I did not say it was unbiblical, I said it is not clearly stated in Scripture, and my experience tells me that yes, many theologians would agree with me here. As I recall, the Johannie comma is only found in later Bibles, for example.

The Comma Johanneum is not reauired in order to show the doctrine of the Trinity; we can accomplish the same really just using the Gospels of Ss. Matthew and John.

Another example, is that Paul, in Rom.8, does snot, at least not to my satisfaction, make a clear distinction between the Second and Third persons. Gen. 1 maybe implies a Trinity, maybe.
However, the "Let us," which implies one is talking to a group of fellows, appears basically tritheistic to me.

Actually, there is no need to read a particularly Trinitarian context into Genesis 1:1, as God elsewhere frequently refers to himself in the singular. So you will not see me using Genesis 1:1 in an eisgetical manner to prove the Trinity; I feel this is strictly speaking unneeded, and the third person context of Genesis 1 may or may not have any greater mystagogical signifigance. That said, you have given me a mind to review the Patristic commentary on this verse.

Moving on, Your concept of the social theory of the Trinity interests me. I gather you feel it is comparable with monotheism. I am interested in hearing your case. To me, it is blatantly polytheistic, among other problems.

It's not my theory, but rather, your description of "Social theory" seemed akin to an argument that +Kallistos made in The Orthodox Way. PM me if you want more information on this. His Eminence is an auxillary Metropolitan of the Greek Orthodox Church in the UK under the Ecumenical Patriarch, and he served as a professor at Oxford for many years in addition to running the local Orthodox parish.

In my field, process theology, Joseph A. Bracken has published a social theory of the Trinity. I don't mean to toot my horn, but in my dissertation on process pneumatology, revised and published as a book, through Susquehanna University Press, I criticized Bracken on the grounds this model is polytheistic, citing Lewis Ford as one authority to back me. But there is far more to it than that. Now, as I am sure you probably already know about process, I am not gong into a lot of details here. My biggest problem with Bracken or any other social theory of the Trinity, viewed from my process orientation, is that these seriously violate Whitehead's principle of relativity, of which God is supposed to be the finest example. Basically, this principle state, among other things, that the basic rhythm of reality is that the many always become one, and by one Whitehead means an actual entity. God, then, should be viewed as a true personality which is a synthesis of all other personalities.

I am aware of process theology. We might well have a discussion of it in another thread if you wish.

Now, on the subject of your remark that God "should be viewed as a true personality which is a synthesis of all other personalities," I would object to this in that it seems to me to come rather too close to Hindu pantheism for my tastes. Orthodoxy emphatically rejects the idea that humans can experience apotheosis and become ontologically united with God; our view is that salvation is through theosis, or energetic participation.

What is more, from a Nicene perspective inplying that God has a singular "personality" is misleading in that the Nicene position is clearly one of God consisting of three prosopa and three hypostases, one of which, that of the incarnate Logos, represents a hypostatic union between the divine and human natures, facilitating theosis.

But Bracken, and I might also accuse of this, though I haven't seen your account yet, arbitrarily block this process from reaching completion, by stopping it with a divine manyness that somehow failed to become one. What I am saying is that I can accept God as a harmony or synthesis of the Three persons, indeed as a synthesis of all personalities, but then that makes God a meta-personality. Bracken fails to see this. Granted three divine persons, they and do fuse together into one personality, one overriding state of emoti0on and consciousness, which, I guess, can be best described as meta-God. I have also considered the radical possibility of eliminating the Trinity totally, from my process metaphysic, as this doctrine just creates too many bugaboos in the first place. I have never met a scholar yet said anything but that the Trinity is basically a paradox, and I don't like paradoxes.

The problem is that apparent paradoxes, as opposed to actual paradoxess, do exist in nature. As much as I am loathe to even consider mentioning Quantum Mecahnics in a theological thread, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle might well seem paradoxical to the uninitiated. For that matter, one might well be forgiven for considering the singularity of a black hole, as being paradoxical, or indeed the origins of the universe, and its eventual demise due to thermal entropy.

Based on these natural phenomena that boggle the mind, we should not be afraid of the idea od an apparent paradox on theological affairs. Orthodoxy goes a step further and insists that God is incomprehensible in His essence; we can only understand His uncreated energies.

What is more, the paradox itself is biblical, or else, we must simply dismiss Exodus 3:14-15 as being mere tautology, which seems to me to do a disservice to the text.

Moving on, official or no, I believe the Creed is inadequate, especially on the nature of the Spirit. The problem I have here is that most of the literature focuses on problems with the Second Person, gets so hung up there, that the Spirit ends of being the least-elaborated member of the Trinity.

Orthodox pneumatology is highly developed. I reccommend a study of the hymns of St. Ephrem the Syrian, and the classic Orthodox Dogmatic Theology by Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky, in addition to the aforementioned work by +Kallistos.

One thing that in Western theology can contribute to a relatively de-emphasized understanding of Pneumatology, even a de-personalized understanding of the Holy Spirit, os the Filioque Clause. The position of double procession is in my mind nothing less than semi-Pneumatomachianism, which is why the Orthodox object so strongly to it (the Romans, to their credit, do agreeably say that the filioque would be heretical if expressed in Greek, and this does potentially lay the groundwork for Catholic-Orthodox ecumenical reconciliation on the basis of the idea that the procession from the Son is not, how shall I express it, generative, although one still might worry that the doctrine remains ambiguously expressed, and that the personality of the Spirit as a distinct prosopon is de-emphasized).

One final note; in seeking to understand Orthodox pneumatology, one should make a very concerted effort to avpid the works of St. Pavel Florensky (who is a saint only by virtue of having been martyred by the Soviets before his doctrine was repudiated), or his colleague Sergei Bulgakov. Their position of Sophianism was denounced as heretical by the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia, and rejected as erroneous by the Moscow Patriarchate.

The problem I have with the Creed is that, revised or no, I never comes right out and clearly states, as it does with Christ, that the Spirit is God. And in much early writing, the Spirit, when introduced, is never said to Be God and given a minor role, unlike what one would expect from God. It's one thing to officially state a creed, it is wholly another whether others truly followed in its footsteps. After all, Arius came back into vogue when Constantine's son came into power. Indeed, Constantine had to force signatures. So, centrally not all of Christendom was or is happy with it.

There is little to suggest that the resurgence of Arianism after the death of St. Constantine was due to anything other than political intrigues on the part of Eusebius of Nicomedia; it was introduced as "Christianity" to certain peoples, like the Visiogths, through state-sponsored "Evangelism," but outside of these groups, there is little to suggest this was ever a popular doctrine outside of the Imperial court.

Take Augustine. He wrote a whole work on the Trinity, "De Trinitate." I am sure you know it. Note how many different models he sets up, the psychological model,etc. I certainly he wrote all this just to pass the time, well content with official pronouncements on the Trinity. He wrote all this because he realized, brother, are we ever in trouble here. Well, I could go on. Let me know if you are interested and I will go more into detail.

On the subject of De Trinitate, I would argue that St. Augustine is certainly not proposing different doctrines but rather different models for comprehending the Niceno-Constantinopolitan doctrine.

At any rate, I believe a great flaw in Western theology is a tendency to look first to St. Augustine among Patriatic voices. I consider that if we desire a more balanced perspective, we should pay particular attention to St. Athanasius, St. Basil and St. Gregory the Theologian, when it comes to Triadology. The role of those saints in the Arian controversy is critical in providing clarity on this doctrine.

I would certainly welcome discussing this with you in greater detail. I would respectfully suggest by the way that you include a bit more whitespace, as one massive paragraph on these fora is a bit hard to read with the default font and all.

I do very much appreciate your contribution, as it is nice to have a shcolarly perspective and see a robust, intellectual contribution to this discussion. I think we might well enjoy discussing not only this, but several other theological quesrions, on this forum, in the weeks and months ahead.

God bless.

Grafted In · Nov 25, 2015

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Math.28:19

“Peter replied, ‘Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.’”
Acts 2:38

Berean777 · Nov 25, 2015

Grafted In said:
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Math.28:19

“Peter replied, ‘Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.’”
Acts 2:38

Acts of the Apostles is the Great Commission in preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Peter in Acts after preaching Jesus Christ would say be baptised in the name of Jesus Christ to rally people to accept Christ in their lives. However when the apostles actually got around to baptised new members in Jesus Christ, the Apostles would follow the formal trinitarian prayer by saying in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Imagican · Nov 25, 2015

Doveaman said:
Sometimes all that's required is simple logic.

Jesus is divine because His Father is divine, just as we are human because our fathers were human.

Both the Father and the Son are divine, just as our fathers and us are human.

Only God is divine, just as only Man is human.

The Father and the Son share in God's divinity, just as our fathers and us share in Man's humanity.

Jesus also shared in Man's humanity through His human mother, which makes Him both God and Man.

I can't help but ask: If God WERE to create an entity, are you saying that it would be IMPOSSIBLE to create that entity and attach to it the existence of divinity?

If so, that would be like offering that it would be impossible for God to create an entity that is Holy.

What I see are words that attempt to limit an attribute simply because MEN incorporated the IDEA that ONLY God Himself is divine.

The Bible tells us that WE, human beings, were created in the IMAGE of God Himself. Obviously, since God is 'spirit' that our PHYSICAL image is not the same as God. But there is SOMETHING about our image that is the SAME as God.

So if He can create in us, His very image, I find it hard to accept that He is incapable of creating LESSER deities. Jesus stated that the Father: God, is greater than the Son.

And NEVER are we told that God is the ONLY God. Only that there is NO OTHER God LIKE Him. I would say that refers to POWER or AUTHORITY more so than EXISTENCE. For the Bible even goes so far as to name US 'gods'.

So don't let the teachings of MEN interfere with potential understanding. When you start FOLLOWING the doctrines of MEN, you basically BLOCK the potential ability to see BEYOND that which is created by MEN.

Blessings,

MEC

BelieveTheWord · Nov 25, 2015

Wgw said:
Whereas I would not ordinarily be inclined to respond to this post in full due to the contradiction I mentioned previously, I do feel obliged to address certain points made herein.

Your interpretation of Genesis 1:1 cannot be accepted as it is quintessentially polytheistic. As I expressed earlier, it has the effect of making God the Father out to be akin to the Polynesian deity Tangaru'a, "The father of all gods and goddesses." It also directly contradicts your application of the Shema against the Trinity. The Shema cannot be held to refute the Trinity on the one hand, while we accede to polytheism on the other. And the worship of created deities would be prohibited, which rules out worship of Jesus Christ under this scheme. It is simply unacceptable.

In fact you manage to immediately refute your own position by denying the Judeo-Christian monotheistic understanding of Elohim, while insisting that the Tetragrammaton somehow specifically refutes the idea of a single triune God, which it does not according to Christianity as defined by this site's own Statement of Faith.

In John 1:1, you further impose a strain on your credulity by suggesting that John 1:1 could conceivably refer to Moses, something impossible in that Moses cannot be God, ontologically or according to nature; what is more, John 1:14 would make no sense given such an interpretation.

What is more, your argument that the Greek word Theos, translated into English as God, could conceivably refer to other gods besides God (YHWH) is entieely inconsistent with the Shema, and the first and second commandments, and all use of the word in the New Testament. Throughout the New Testament, monotheism is stressed by the Apostles, and your willingness to regard the word "God" as referring to someone else is simply inconsistent with the entire Bible.

If you put your hate and pride on hold for a second, you can see I've already given the reasons why everything you stated above is wrong. The are many Gods in the Bible and I've already proven that. If you want to remain ignorant with your heavy-handed attitude, just go for it.

civilwarbuff · Nov 25, 2015

Doveaman said:
Sometimes all that's required is simple logic.

Jesus is divine because His Father is divine, just as we are human because our fathers were human.

Both the Father and the Son are divine, just as our fathers and us are human.

Only God is divine, just as only Man is human.

The Father and the Son share in God's divinity, just as our fathers and us share in Man's humanity.

Jesus also shared in Man's humanity through His human mother, which makes Him both God and Man.

An excellent, simple explanation with reasoning anyone should be able to grasp.

Wgw · Nov 25, 2015

Imagican said:
I can't help but ask: If God WERE to create an entity, are you saying that it would be IMPOSSIBLE to create that entity and attach to it the existence of divinity?

If so, that would be like offering that it would be impossible for God to create an entity that is Holy.

What I see are words that attempt to limit an attribute simply because MEN incorporated the IDEA that ONLY God Himself is divine.

The Bible tells us that WE, human beings, were created in the IMAGE of God Himself. Obviously, since God is 'spirit' that our PHYSICAL image is not the same as God. But there is SOMETHING about our image that is the SAME as God.

So if He can create in us, His very image, I find it hard to accept that He is incapable of creating LESSER deities. Jesus stated that the Father: God, is greater than the Son.

And NEVER are we told that God is the ONLY God. Only that there is NO OTHER God LIKE Him. I would say that refers to POWER or AUTHORITY more so than EXISTENCE. For the Bible even goes so far as to name US 'gods'.

So don't let the teachings of MEN interfere with potential understanding. When you start FOLLOWING the doctrines of MEN, you basically BLOCK the potential ability to see BEYOND that which is created by MEN.

Blessings,

MEC

The Orthodox doctrine of theosis is that it is possible for human beings to become divine, created gods according to energy, but not uncreated God according to essence.

Now regarding the theology of the image, this makes rather more sense in light of the incarnation; your own position seems to stretch the meaning of the text more than one might consider plausible.

Wgw · Nov 25, 2015

BelieveTheWord said:
If you put your hate and pride on hold for a second, you can see I've already given the reasons why everything you stated above is wrong. The are many Gods in the Bible and I've already proven that. If you want to remain ignorant with your heavy-handed attitude, just go for it.

You have not proven this, at all, unless one considers as gods the gods of the gentiles, which are demons according to Psalm 95 v 5 (LXX), or humanity in the scheme of theosis.

Imagican · Nov 25, 2015

Hoghead,

Very nice post and welcome to this discussion.

I as well see the Godhead as a unit or fraternity of sorts. But the very use of the word God FIRST seems to place the emphasis on 'The Father', who we KNOW is God Himself. And it is MY firm belief that this was established by the premier entity: God.

Which plainly illustrates that HE is the 'head'.

Couple this with the words of Christ Himself and we see that WE TOO can be ONE with both Christ and His Father, (and I assume this includes the 'Spirit' of God as well. I don't really see 'the Spirit' as a SEPARATE 'person' as 'trinity' insists).

So all the attempts to use "ONE" to indicate 'same' has NO bearing on 'entity' as 'trinity' offers. If WE can be one with Christ and His Father, then obviously this doesn't mean we TOO can become God Himself.

Then consider the 'evolution of trinity' and one is forced to wonder: did God REALLY reveal Himself in times past? Or did He do it in stages?

I think that there were those of ancient times that KNEW God better than ANYONE today. Time has a way of 'getting in the way'. And we have the example that in a relatively short space of time from 'in the beginning', the entire population descended from Adam became almost COMPLETELY separated from God. Only ONE man appears to have KNOWN Him at this point in history.

This leads to the 'time' that has transpired since. I would say that there are SO MANY MORE 'things' in the way NOW. That Satan has HAD HIS WAY among men to the point that it's all but impossible to KNOW God as He has been known at times closer to the 'beginning'.

So what is the INDICATION we can conclude about what those that KNEW God understood about His nature as compared to 'trinity'? I would say we could come to a more REALISTIC understanding by studying what THEY knew than what men thousands of years later and a ton of different religions and mythologies and philosophies would imagine.

And that is HOW I see 'trinity'. Men familiar with many DIFFERENT ideas became increasingly insistent upon defining something that was already sufficiently defined. Due to all the different manner of understanding, instead of defining something already defined, they ended up RE defining it in their OWN terms. Ultimately creating something NEW instead of that which had already always existed.

Blessings,

MEC

Imagican · Nov 25, 2015

Wgw said:
You have not proven this, at all, unless one considers as gods the gods of the gentiles, which are demons according to Psalm 95 v 5 (LXX), or humanity in the scheme of theosis.

See, you are choosing to ignore scripture and rely solely upon your own understanding.

The Bible STATES that there are 'gods many'. And it also states that we TOO are 'gods'.

While the majority of 'gods' are 'false gods', that doesn't eliminate that it is certainly not BEYOND the capacity or ability of God to MAKE 'lesser gods'. For He simply stated that there are NO OTHER GODS LIKE HIM. Never are we offered in scripture that there are 'no other gods'.

Blessings,

MEC

Wgw · Nov 25, 2015

Imagican said:
See, you are choosing to ignore scripture and rely solely upon your own understanding.

The Bible STATES that there are 'gods many'. And it also states that we TOO are 'gods'.

While the majority of 'gods' are 'false gods', that doesn't eliminate that it is certainly not BEYOND the capacity or ability of God to MAKE 'lesser gods'. For He simply stated that there are NO OTHER GODS LIKE HIM. Never are we offered in scripture that there are 'no other gods'.

Blessings,

MEC

On the contrary, I am simply relying on the Shema and other declarations as to the ontological uniqueness of God. Polythteism, in the sense of there being multiple gods according to essence, is entirely unscriptural; this is the consensus of Judaism, Christianity and indeed Samaritanism (the three religions one can describe as "authentically Abrahamic").

I really did not expect that anyone would attempt to argue against the doctrine of the Trinity from the perspective of polytheism, particularly when they have, like yourself, repeatedly condemned the Trinity as tritheistic.

We really have reached somewhat of a new low, in that there is so much special pleading and inconsistency in your position and that of @BelieveTheWord as to in effect render your position as rather lacking in credibility. For on the one hand, you insist that Jesus Christ cannot be God, and on the other hand, you admit the existence of lesser created deities and refuse to distinguish between them and God according to essence or ontology. It is truly distressing people choose to ignore the revelation of God that there is but one God.

Wgw · Nov 25, 2015

Imagican said:
Hoghead,

Very nice post and welcome to this discussion.

I as well see the Godhead as a unit or fraternity of sorts. But the very use of the word God FIRST seems to place the emphasis on 'The Father', who we KNOW is God Himself. And it is MY firm belief that this was established by the premier entity: God.

Which plainly illustrates that HE is the 'head'.

Couple this with the words of Christ Himself and we see that WE TOO can be ONE with both Christ and His Father, (and I assume this includes the 'Spirit' of God as well. I don't really see 'the Spirit' as a SEPARATE 'person' as 'trinity' insists).

So all the attempts to use "ONE" to indicate 'same' has NO bearing on 'entity' as 'trinity' offers. If WE can be one with Christ and His Father, then obviously this doesn't mean we TOO can become God Himself.

Then consider the 'evolution of trinity' and one is forced to wonder: did God REALLY reveal Himself in times past? Or did He do it in stages?

I think that there were those of ancient times that KNEW God better than ANYONE today. Time has a way of 'getting in the way'. And we have the example that in a relatively short space of time from 'in the beginning', the entire population descended from Adam became almost COMPLETELY separated from God. Only ONE man appears to have KNOWN Him at this point in history.

This leads to the 'time' that has transpired since. I would say that there are SO MANY MORE 'things' in the way NOW. That Satan has HAD HIS WAY among men to the point that it's all but impossible to KNOW God as He has been known at times closer to the 'beginning'.

So what is the INDICATION we can conclude about what those that KNEW God understood about His nature as compared to 'trinity'? I would say we could come to a more REALISTIC understanding by studying what THEY knew than what men thousands of years later and a ton of different religions and mythologies and philosophies would imagine.

And that is HOW I see 'trinity'. Men familiar with many DIFFERENT ideas became increasingly insistent upon defining something that was already sufficiently defined. Due to all the different manner of understanding, instead of defining something already defined, they ended up RE defining it in their OWN terms. Ultimately creating something NEW instead of that which had already always existed.

Blessings,

MEC

So in a sense, tritheism, with Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost members of a pantheon. This is what you are describing.

Der Alte · Nov 25, 2015

Imagican said:
The Father and Son, according to Christ Himself, are NOT equal. The Father is GREATER than the Son.

ALL indications are that the Father CREATED the Son. If so, that means that the Son is NOT eternal from the past. He had a BEGINNING. God does not.
The biggest problem being a misunderstanding of what 'in the beginning' REALLY means. It does not mean from ETERNITY. It simply means that in the beginning of 'creation' as it pertains to US: MANKIND.

So Christ being in existence since 'in the beginning' has NO bearing on His being created or NOT created. For 'in the beginning' does NOT refer to the BEGINNING of God. God has NO beginning.

What are "all indications?" John 1 does not say the Logos began in the beginning. In the beginning the Logos already existed. In the beginning God created the world, etc. before that Jesus had glory with the Father.

John 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

And there are things that the Father KNOWS that the Son DOES NOT.

All these things utterly refute any possibility of 'trinity' AS IT IS DEFINED, being correct. I have offered a NUMBER of issues that refute 'trinity'. If only ONE is correct, that's STILL enough to utterly destroy the notion of 'trinity' as it is DEFINED by MEN.

Jesus was/is NOT 'all knowing'. He STATES that this is NOT SO. The Bible basically STATES that He was 'created' by God. So he can't be CO eternal. And the FACT that Jesus STATES that the Father is GREATER than the Son, that the Son was SENT by the Father plainly illustrates WHO is GREATER. And there is NO equality if ONE is GREATER.
Blessings,
MEC

Jesus existed in one form, Philippians 2, vs. 6, but took upon himself another form, vs. 7.
What was Jesus’ form before? If he was literally, actually a man afterward what was he literally, actually before?

Philippians 2:6-11 6. Who, being [continual existence] in the form [μορφη] of God, thought it not robbery [something to be grasped] to be equal with God:

(Greek Interlinear) Philippians 2:6-11 ος {who,} εν {in [the]} μορφη {form} θεου {of god} υπαρχων {subsisting,} ουχ {not} αρπαγμον {something to be used to his own advantage} ηγησατο το {esteemed it} ειναι {the being} ισα {equal} θεω {with god;}

The verb ειναι, translated ”to be,” in the KJV, which appears to be a future tense in English, is a present infinitive, not a future tense. “the being equal with god,” was a, then, present reality not something considered and rejected.

7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him[self] the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

Jesus’ earthly ministry occurred between verses, 7 and 8. Where the one who was equal with God, vs. 6, the one who, acting upon himself, became flesh, cf. John 1:16, made himself of no reputation, vs. 7, cf. Heb 2:17, took upon himself the form of a servant, and was in the likeness of men, vs. 7. After which God, not merely exalted him, but “highly exalted” him, and glorified him with the same glory he had with the Father before the world existed (John 17:5)

It was here where all the things anti-Trinitarians cannot comprehend happened, e.g. “If Jesus was God, why didn’t he know the hour of his return?” etc., etc., etc.

8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

If Jesus was only a mere human being, how does a human being, “humble himself and become obedient unto death?” All mankind is appointed to death, no obedience or humbling involved! Heb 9:27. Were the criminals who were crucified with Jesus also obedient, did they also humble themselves unto death on the cross?

9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, cf. [יהוה/YHWH, Isa 65:23] of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, cf. [ יהוה/YHWH, Isa 65:23] to the glory of God the Father.

In verses 10,11 Paul applies Isaiah 65:23, which refers to יהוה/YHWH], to Jesus as I have shown above!

The Committee on Bible Translation worked at updating the New International Version of the Bible to be published in 2011.

In it's notes under "Progress in Scholarship" it discusses the following change:

When the NIV was first translated, the meaning of the rare Greek word αρπαγμον /harpagmos, rendered ‟something to be grasped,” in Philippians 2:6 was uncertain. But further study has shown that the word refers to something that a person has in their possession but chooses not to use to their own advantage. The updated NIV reflects this new information, making clear that Jesus really was equal with God when he determined to become a human for our sake: ‟[Christ Jesus], being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage.”

See full translators notes at: Bible Gateway NIV Translator’s Notes

A short excerpt from the 25 page Harvard theological review article αρπαγμον /harpagmos, by Roy Hoover, referenced in the NIV.

‘O petros de arpagmon ton dia stavrou thanton epoieito dia tas soterious elpidas”

(And Peter considered death by means of the cross harpagmon on account of the hope of salvation, Comm in Luc 6)

“Tines…ton thanaton arpagma themenoi ten ton dussebon moxtherias”

(Since some regarded death as harpagma in comparison with the depravity of ungodly men. Hist. Eccl VCIII,12.2)

Not only are arpagma and arpagmos used synonymously in these two statements, but they are used synonymously by the same author in reference to the same object—death—and in expressions whose form precisely parallels that of the arpagmos remark in Phil 2:6.

What [Eusebius] wants to say, rather, is that because of the hope of salvation crucifixion was not a horror to be shunned, but an advantage to be seized.

“Arpagma” is used exactly this way in Hist. Eccl. VIII,12.2. At this point Eusebius is recounting the sufferings of Christians in periods of persecution. Some believers in order to escape torture threw themselves down from rooftops. There can be no suggestion of “robbery” or of violent self-assertion in this remark, nor can self-inflicted death under such circumstances be considered an unanticipated windfall.

Roy W. Hoover, Harvard Theological Review (1971) 95-119, pg. 108

Link to: Hoover Article

BelieveTheWord · Nov 25, 2015

Wgw said:
On the contrary, I am simply relying on the Shema and other declarations as to the ontological uniqueness of God. Polythteism, in the sense of there being multiple gods according to essence, is entirely unscriptural; this is the consensus of Judaism, Christianity and indeed Samaritanism (the three religions one can describe as "authentically Abrahamic").

I really did not expect that anyone would attempt to argue against the doctrine of the Trinity from the perspective of polytheism, particularly when they have, like yourself, repeatedly condemned the Trinity as tritheistic.

We really have reached somewhat of a new low, in that there is so much special pleading and inconsistency in your position and that of @BelieveTheWord as to in effect render your position as rather lacking in credibility. For on the one hand, you insist that Jesus Christ cannot be God, and on the other hand, you admit the existence of lesser created deities and refuse to distinguish between them and God according to essence or ontology. It is truly distressing people choose to ignore the revelation of God that there is but one God.

You simply can't comprehend the argument. If English isn't your first language, then I can be sympathetic. At any rate, I'm out.

Wgw · Nov 25, 2015

BelieveTheWord said:
You simply can't comprehend the argument. If English isn't your first language, then I can be sympathetic. At any rate, I'm out.

What I cannot comprehend is that how one can similtaneously reject the Trinity on the basis of the Shema, and then proceed to argue for the existence of an entire pantheon of subordinate deities, who are so ontologically undifferentiated from God that you can call one of them God and worship one properly without violating the Second Commandment. It is simply not a coherent position.

Wgw · Nov 25, 2015

Der Alter said:
It was here where all the things anti-Trinitarians cannot comprehend happened, e.g. “If Jesus was God, why didn’t he know the hour of his return?” etc., etc., etc.

8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

If Jesus was only a mere human being, how does a human being, “humble himself and become obedient unto death?” All mankind is appointed to death, no obedience or humbling involved! Heb 9:27. Were the criminals who were crucified with Jesus also obedient, did they also humble themselves unto death on the cross?

Thank you for this very excellent contribution. I feel obliged to observe, regarding the quote of yours I provide above, that Christologically speaking, most arguments against the divnity of our Lord seem in part based on an inability to comprehend the idea of hypostatic union from or in two natures, and instead imply something like an extreme view of Eutychianism, since their rejection of the trinity is based chiefly on an argument against Theopaschitism.

civilwarbuff · Nov 25, 2015

Imagican said:
See, you are choosing to ignore scripture and rely solely upon your own understanding.

The Bible STATES that there are 'gods many'. And it also states that we TOO are 'gods'.

While the majority of 'gods' are 'false gods', that doesn't eliminate that it is certainly not BEYOND the capacity or ability of God to MAKE 'lesser gods'. For He simply stated that there are NO OTHER GODS LIKE HIM. Never are we offered in scripture that there are 'no other gods'.

You are ignoring scripture such to the extent you only quote fragments because you know in context it denies what you say.
1Co 8:5 For even if there are "gods" in heaven and on earth (as indeed there are many so-called "gods" and "lords"),
1Co 8:6 yet for us there is only one God, the Father, from whom everything came into being and for whom we live. And there is only one Lord, Jesus the Messiah, through whom everything came into being and through whom we live.

I apologize, this is a bit of a long read: (all names from gotquestions.org)

We know the names of God:
EL, ELOAH: God "mighty, strong, prominent" (Nehemiah 9:17; Psalm 139:19) – etymologically, El appears to mean “power,” as in “I have the power to harm you” (Genesis 31:29). El is associated with other qualities, such as integrity (Numbers 23:19), jealousy (Deuteronomy 5:9), and compassion (Nehemiah 9:31), but the root idea of “might” remains.
ELOHIM: God “Creator, Mighty and Strong” (Genesis 17:7; Jeremiah 31:33) – the plural form of Eloah, which accommodates the doctrine of the Trinity. From the Bible’s first sentence, the superlative nature of God’s power is evident as God (Elohim) speaks the world into existence (Genesis 1:1).
EL SHADDAI: “God Almighty,” “The Mighty One of Jacob” (Genesis 49:24; Psalm 132:2,5) – speaks to God’s ultimate power over all.
ADONAI: “Lord” (Genesis 15:2; Judges 6:15) – used in place of YHWH, which was thought by the Jews to be too sacred to be uttered by sinful men. In the Old Testament, YHWH is more often used in God’s dealings with His people, while Adonai is used more when He deals with the Gentiles.
YHWH / YAHWEH / JEHOVAH: “LORD” (Deuteronomy 6:4; Daniel 9:14) – strictly speaking, the only proper name for God. Translated in English Bibles “LORD” (all capitals) to distinguish it from Adonai, “Lord.” The revelation of the name is first given to Moses “I Am who I Am” (Exodus 3:14). This name specifies an immediacy, a presence. Yahweh is present, accessible, near to those who call on Him for deliverance (Psalm 107:13), forgiveness (Psalm 25:11) and guidance (Psalm 31:3).
YAHWEH-JIREH: "The Lord Will Provide" (Genesis 22:14) – the name memorialized by Abraham when God provided the ram to be sacrificed in place of Isaac.
YAHWEH-RAPHA: "The Lord Who Heals" (Exodus 15:26) – “I am Jehovah who heals you” both in body and soul. In body, by preserving from and curing diseases, and in soul, by pardoning iniquities.
YAHWEH-NISSI: "The Lord Our Banner" (Exodus 17:15), where banner is understood to be a rallying place. This name commemorates the desert victory over the Amalekites in Exodus 17.
YAHWEH-M'KADDESH: "The Lord Who Sanctifies, Makes Holy" (Leviticus 20:8; Ezekiel 37:28) – God makes it clear that He alone, not the law, can cleanse His people and make them holy.
YAHWEH-SHALOM: "The Lord Our Peace" (Judges 6:24) – the name given by Gideon to the altar he built after the Angel of the Lord assured him he would not die as he thought he would after seeing Him.
YAHWEH-ELOHIM: "LORD God" (Genesis 2:4; Psalm 59:5) – a combination of God’s unique name YHWH and the generic “Lord,” signifying that He is the Lord of Lords.
YAHWEH-TSIDKENU: "The Lord Our Righteousness” (Jeremiah 33:16) – As with YHWH-M’Kaddesh, it is God alone who provides righteousness to man, ultimately in the person of His Son, Jesus Christ, who became sin for us “that we might become the Righteousness of God in Him” (2 Corinthians 5:21).
YAHWEH-ROHI: "The Lord Our Shepherd" (Psalm 23:1) – After David pondered his relationship as a shepherd to his sheep, he realized that was exactly the relationship God had with him, and so he declares, “Yahweh-Rohi is my Shepherd. I shall not want” (Psalm 23:1).
YAHWEH-SHAMMAH: "The Lord Is There” (Ezekiel 48:35) – the name ascribed to Jerusalem and the Temple there, indicating that the once-departed glory of the Lord (Ezekiel 8—11) had returned (Ezekiel 44:1-4).
YAHWEH-SABAOTH: "The Lord of Hosts" (Isaiah 1:24; Psalm 46:7) – Hosts means “hordes,” both of angels and of men. He is Lord of the host of heaven and of the inhabitants of the earth, of Jews and Gentiles, of rich and poor, master and slave. The name is expressive of the majesty, power, and authority of God and shows that He is able to accomplish what He determines to do.
EL ELYON: “Most High" (Deuteronomy 26:19) – derived from the Hebrew root for “go up” or “ascend,” so the implication is of that which is the very highest. El Elyon denotes exaltation and speaks of absolute right to lordship.
EL ROI: "God of Seeing" (Genesis 16:13) – the name ascribed to God by Hagar, alone and desperate in the wilderness after being driven out by Sarah (Genesis 16:1-14). When Hagar met the Angel of the Lord, she realized she had seen God Himself in a theophany. She also realized that El Roi saw her in her distress and testified that He is a God who lives and sees all.
EL-OLAM: "Everlasting God" (Psalm 90:1-3) – God’s nature is without beginning or end, free from all constraints of time, and He contains within Himself the very cause of time itself. “From everlasting to everlasting, You are God.”
EL-GIBHOR: “Mighty God” (Isaiah 9:6) – the name describing the Messiah, Christ Jesus, in this prophetic portion of Isaiah. As a powerful and mighty warrior, the Messiah, the Mighty God, will accomplish the destruction of God’s enemies and rule with a rod of iron (Revelation 19:15).

We know the names of Christ:
There are some 200 names and titles of Christ found in the Bible. Following are some of the more prominent ones, organized in three sections relating to names that reflect the nature of Christ, His position in the tri-unity of God, and His work on earth on our behalf.
The Nature of Christ
Chief Cornerstone: (Ephesians 2:20) – Jesus is the cornerstone of the building which is His church. He cements together Jew and Gentile, male and female—all saints from all ages and places into one structure built on faith in Him which is shared by all.
Firstborn over all creation: (Colossians 1:15) – Not the first thing God created, as some incorrectly claim, because verse 16 says all things were created through and for Christ. Rather, the meaning is that Christ occupies the rank and pre-eminence of the first-born over all things, that He sustains the most exalted rank in the universe; He is pre-eminent above all others; He is at the head of all things.
Head of the Church: (Ephesians 1:22; 4:15; 5:23) – Jesus Christ, not a king or a pope, is the only supreme, sovereign ruler of the Church—those for whom He died and who have placed their faith in Him alone for salvation.
Holy One: (Acts 3:14; Psalm 16:10) – Christ is holy, both in his divine and human nature, and the fountain of holiness to His people. By His death, we are made holy and pure before God.
Judge: (Acts 10:42; 2 Timothy 4:8) – The Lord Jesus was appointed by God to judge the world and to dispense the rewards of eternity.
King of kings and Lord of lords: (1 Timothy 6:15; Revelation 19:16) – Jesus has dominion over all authority on the earth, over all kings and rulers, and none can prevent Him from accomplishing His purposes. He directs them as He pleases.
Light of the World: (John 8:12) – Jesus came into a world darkened by sin and shed the light of life and truth through His work and His words. Those who trust in Him have their eyes opened by Him and walk in the light.
Prince of peace: (Isaiah 9:6) – Jesus came not to bring peace to the world as in the absence of war, but peace between God and man who were separated by sin. He died to reconcile sinners to a holy God.
Son of God: (Luke 1:35; John 1:49) – Jesus is the “only begotten of the Father” (John 1:14). Used 42 times in the New Testament, “Son of God” affirms the deity of Christ.
Son of man: (John 5:27) – Used as a contrast to “Son of God” this phrase affirms the humanity of Christ which exists alongside His divinity.
Word: (John 1:1; 1 John 5:7-8) – The Word is the second Person of the triune God, who said it and it was done, who spoke all things out of nothing in the first creation, who was in the beginning with God the Father, and was God, and by whom all things were created.
Word of God: (Revelation 19:12-13) – This is the name given to Christ that is unknown to all but Himself. It denotes the mystery of His divine person.
Word of Life: (1 John 1:1) – Jesus not only spoke words that lead to eternal life, but according to this verse He is the very words of life, referring to the eternal life of joy and fulfillment which He provides.
His position in the trinity
Alpha and Omega: (Revelation 1:8; 22:13) – Jesus declared Himself to be the beginning and end of all things, a reference to no one but the true God. This statement of eternality could apply only to God.
Emmanuel: (Isaiah 9:6; Matthew 1:23) – Literally “God with us.” Both Isaiah and Matthew affirm that the Christ who would be born in Bethlehem would be God Himself who came to earth in the form of a man to live among His people.
I Am: (John 8:58, with Exodus 3:14) – When Jesus ascribed to Himself this title, the Jews tried to stone Him for blasphemy. They understood that He was declaring Himself to be the eternal God, the unchanging Yahweh of the Old Testament.
Lord of All: (Acts 10:36) – Jesus is the sovereign ruler over the whole world and all things in it, of all the nations of the world, and particularly of the people of God's choosing, Gentiles as well as Jews.
True God: (1 John 5:20) – This is a direct assertion that Jesus, being the true God, is not only divine, but is the Divine. Since the Bible teaches there is only one God, this can only be describing His nature as part of the triune God.
His Work on earth
Author and Perfecter of our Faith: (Hebrews 12:2) – Salvation is accomplished through the faith that is the gift of God (Ephesians 2:8-9) and Jesus is the founder of our faith and the finisher of it as well. From first to last, He is the source and sustainer of the faith that saves us.
Bread of Life: (John 6:35; 6:48) – Just as bread sustains life in the physical sense, Jesus is the Bread that gives and sustains eternal life. God provided manna in the wilderness to feed His people and He provided Jesus to give us eternal life through His body, broken for us.
Bridegroom: (Matthew 9:15) – The picture of Christ as the Bridegroom and the Church as His Bride reveals the special relationship we have with Him. We are bound to each other in a covenant of grace that cannot be broken.
Deliverer: (Romans 11:26) – Just as the Israelites needed God to deliver them from bondage to Egypt, so Christ is our Deliverer from the bondage of sin.
Good Shepherd: (John 10:11,14) – In Bible times, a good shepherd was willing to risk his own life to protect his sheep from predators. Jesus laid down His life for His sheep, and He cares for and nurtures and feeds us.
High Priest: (Hebrews 2:17) – The Jewish high priest entered the Temple once a year to make atonement for the sins of the people. The Lord Jesus performed that function for His people once for all at the cross.
Lamb of God: (John 1:29) – God’s Law called for the sacrifice of a spotless, unblemished Lamb as an atonement for sin. Jesus became that Lamb led meekly to the slaughter, showing His patience in His sufferings and His readiness to die for His own.
Mediator: (1 Timothy 2:5) – A mediator is one who goes between two parties to reconcile them. Christ is the one and only Mediator who reconciles men and God. Praying to Mary or the saints is idolatry because it bypasses this most important role of Christ and ascribes the role of Mediator to another.
Rock: (1 Corinthians 10:4) – As life-giving water flowed from the rock Moses struck in the wilderness, Jesus is the Rock from which flow the living waters of eternal life. He is the Rock upon whom we build our spiritual houses, so that no storm can shake them.
Resurrection and Life: (John 11:25) – Embodied within Jesus is the means to resurrect sinners to eternal life, just as He was resurrected from the grave. Our sin is buried with Him and we are resurrected to walk in newness of life.
Savior: (Matthew 1:21; Luke 2:11) – He saves His people by dying to redeem them, by giving the Holy Spirit to renew them by His power, by enabling them to overcome their spiritual enemies, by sustaining them in trials and in death, and by raising them up at the last day.
True Vine: (John 15:1) – The True Vine supplies all that the branches (believers) need to produce the fruit of the Spirit— the living water of salvation and nourishment from the Word.
Way, Truth, Life: (John 14:6) – Jesus is the only path to God, the only Truth in a world of lies, and the only true source of eternal life. He embodies all three in both a temporal and an eternal sense.

We know the names of the Holy Spirit:
The Holy Spirit is known by many names and titles, most of which denote some function or aspect of His ministry. Below are some of the names and descriptions the Bible uses for the Holy Spirit:
Author of Scripture: (2 Peter 1:21; 2 Timothy 3:16) The Bible is inspired, literally “God-breathed,” by the Holy Spirit, the third Person of the Trinity. The Spirit moved the authors of all 66 books to record exactly what He breathed into their hearts and minds. As a ship is moved through the water by wind in its sails, so the biblical writers were borne along by the Spirit’s impulse.
Comforter / Counselor / Advocate: (Isaiah 11:2; John 14:16; 15:26; 16:7) All three words are translations of the Greek parakletos, from which we get “Paraclete,” another name for the Spirit. When Jesus went away, His disciples were greatly distressed because they had lost His comforting presence. But He promised to send the Spirit to comfort, console, and guide those who belong to Christ. The Spirit also “bears witness” with our spirits that we belong to Him and thereby assures us of salvation.
Convicter of Sin: (John 16:7-11) The Spirit applies the truths of God to men’s own minds in order to convince them by fair and sufficient arguments that they are sinners. He does this through the conviction in our hearts that we are not worthy to stand before a holy God, that we need His righteousness, and that judgment is certain and will come to all men one day. Those who deny these truths rebel against the conviction of the Spirit.
Deposit / Seal / Earnest: (2 Corinthians 1:22; 5:5; Ephesians 1:13-14) The Holy Spirit is God’s seal on His people, His claim on us as His very own. The gift of the Spirit to believers is a down payment on our heavenly inheritance, which Christ has promised us and secured for us at the cross. It is because the Spirit has sealed us that we are assured of our salvation. No one can break the seal of God.
Guide: (John 16:13) Just as the Spirit guided the writers of Scripture to record truth, so does He promise to guide believers to know and understand that truth. God’s truth is “foolishness” to the world, because it is “spiritually discerned” (1 Corinthians 2:14). Those who belong to Christ have the indwelling Spirit who guides us into all we need to know in regard to spiritual matters. Those who do not belong to Christ have no “interpreter” to guide them to know and understand God’s Word.
Indweller of Believers: (Romans 8:9-11; Ephesians 2:21-22; 1 Corinthians 6:19) The Holy Spirit resides in the hearts of God’s people, and that indwelling is the distinguishing characteristic of the regenerated person. From within believers, He directs, guides, comforts, and influences us, as well as producing in us the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23). He provides the intimate connection between God and His children. All true believers in Christ have the Spirit residing in their hearts.
Intercessor: (Romans 8:26) One of the most encouraging and comforting aspects of the Holy Spirit is His ministry of intercession on behalf of those He inhabits. Because we often don’t know what or how to pray when we approach God, the Spirit intercedes and prays for us. He intercedes for us “with wordless groans,” so that when we are oppressed and overwhelmed by trials and the cares of life, He comes alongside to lend assistance as He sustains us before the throne of grace.
Revealer / Spirit of Truth: (John 14:17; 16:13; 1 Corinthians 2:12-16) Jesus promised that, after the resurrection, the Holy Spirit would come to “guide you into all truth.” Because of the Spirit in our hearts, we are able to understand truth, especially in spiritual matters, in a way that non-Christians cannot. In fact, the truth the Spirit reveals to us is “foolishness” to them, and they cannot understand it. But we have the mind of Christ in the Person of His Spirit within us.
Spirit of God / the Lord / Christ: (Matthew 3:16; 2 Corinthians 3:17; 1 Peter 1:11) These names remind us that the Spirit of God is indeed part of the triune godhead and that He is just as much God as the Father and the Son. He is first revealed to us at the creation, when He was “hovering over the waters,” denoting His part in creation, along with that of Jesus who “made all things” (John 1:1-3). We see this same Trinity of God again at Jesus’ baptism, when the Spirit descends on Jesus and the voice of the Father is heard.
Spirit of Life: (Romans 8:2) The phrase “Spirit of life” means the Holy Spirit is the one who produces or gives life, not that He initiates salvation, but rather that He imparts newness of life. When we receive eternal life through Christ, the Spirit provides the spiritual food that is the sustenance of the spiritual life. Here again, we see the triune God at work. We are saved by the Father through the work of the Son, and that salvation is sustained by the Holy Spirit.
Teacher: (John 14:26; 1 Corinthians 2:13) Jesus promised that the Spirit would teach His disciples “all things” and bring to their remembrance the things He said while He was with them. The writers of the New Testament were moved by the Spirit to remember and understand the instructions Jesus gave for the building and organizing of the Church, the doctrines regarding Himself, the directives for holy living, and the revelation of things to come.
Witness: (Romans 8:16; Hebrews 2:4; 10:15) The Spirit is called “witness” because He verifies and testifies to the fact that we are children of God, that Jesus and the disciples who performed miracles were sent by God, and that the books of the Bible are divinely inspired. Further, by giving the gifts of the Spirit to believers, He witnesses to us and the world that we belong to God.

You said:
"The Bible STATES that there are 'gods many'.......While the majority of 'gods' are 'false gods', that doesn't eliminate that it is certainly not BEYOND the capacity or ability of God to MAKE 'lesser gods'. For He simply stated that there are NO OTHER GODS LIKE HIM. Never are we offered in scripture that there are 'no other gods'."

You STRONGLY imply that God has created lesser gods (otherwise why even bother to bring it up). Since we know the names of God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit please provide us with the name of one of these God "created" lesser gods with scriptural support. If you can't, then please stop blowing smoke and discuss something that is scripturally accurate.

Imagican · Nov 25, 2015

I guess you failed to take into consideration the topic of the thread itself.

I do not accept 'trinity'. I believe that it is a man made concept that only exists in the minds and hearts of those that choose to accept it.

I believe that the Bible couldn't offer more clearly that Christ was 'created' by God, HIS FATHER. We are told that God is the GOD OF CHRIST as well as OUR God.

The reason I posed what I posted was in response to the idea of 'deity'.

The Catholic Church has imposed it's definition that I do not believe is correct. They have offered that deity is reserved for God ALONE. I don't accept this definition.

Since I firmly believe that God 'created' His Son, I would offer that one of the names you ask for but are obviously NOT going to accept, is: Jesus Christ. His Son. Instead of whatever is a part of God MUST be God, how about God creating a lesser God by creating His Son.

Since everyone that professes to believe in 'trinity' insists that God consists of three persons, that His Son, being LIKE Him, MUST be a one third PART of God, let us consider this:

A King is SINGULAR. But when he has a son that son become heir to his kingdom. But so long as the father remains KING, the son can ONLY be PRINCE.

If a duck can only produce ducks. So many insist that God's son can only be GOD. I offer a different perspective in that, if we can create such isms and insist that they MUST be TRUE, my idea of a King and his son being PRINCE is just as logical and FITS the Bible more precisely than the idea of 'three persons equaling ONE God'.

But let's insert the word 'god' in place of prince. For Christ openly stated that the Father is GREATER than the Son. Therefore, if there is ANY practicality in labeling the Son 'God', wouldn't it of a necessity make the Son 'god' instead of "God"? Basically a 'lesser god' than His Father?

Take all that we are offered into consideration: SENT by God, CREATED by God, all that He possesses was GIVEN Him by God. The Father is greater than the Son. Things that ONLY the Father knows. Heck, the word SON itself. Isn't it OBVIOUS that Christ is NOT 'equal' to His Father? And don't we ALL KNOW that the Father IS GOD?

No man has EVER SEEN God at ANY TIME. Not my words. Yet we KNOW that there were THOUSANDS that SAW Christ. God CANNOT die. But Christ did. And remained DEAD for THREE DAYS. So if Christ were TRULY 'fully man/fully God, in order to BE 'fully God', that would mean that GOD died. God CAN'T DIE.

But back to the question. I do not know how many 'gods' may be in existence. I know that I worship ONE God. But as far as most have insisted: GOD CAN DO ANYTHING. Certainly if this has a SEMBLANCE of truth to it, He could certainly create a 'being' or 'entity' and place upon it the title of 'god'.

I have hears some say: God can DO ANYTHING. Including lying and dying, He simply chooses NOT to do these things. So if this is true, certainly those same people wouldn't DENY that if God desired, He could create 'other gods'?

Blessings,

MEC

civilwarbuff · Nov 25, 2015

Imagican said:
If a duck can only produce ducks. So many insist that God's son can only be GOD. I offer a different perspective in that, if we can create such isms and insist that they MUST be TRUE, my idea of a King and his son being PRINCE is just as logical and FITS the Bible more precisely than the idea of 'three persons equaling ONE God'.

But let's insert the word 'god' in place of prince. For Christ openly stated that the Father is GREATER than the Son. Therefore, if there is ANY practicality in labeling the Son 'God', wouldn't it of a necessity make the Son 'god' instead of "God"? Basically a 'lesser god' than His Father?

Other than conjecture, your scriptural support is.....?

Imagican said:
No man has EVER SEEN God at ANY TIME. Not my words. Yet we KNOW that there were THOUSANDS that SAW Christ. God CANNOT die. But Christ did. And remained DEAD for THREE DAYS. So if Christ were TRULY 'fully man/fully God, in order to BE 'fully God', that would mean that GOD died. God CAN'T DIE.

Joh 14:7 If you have known me, you will also know my Father. From now on you know him and have seen him."
Joh 14:8 Philip told him, "Lord, show us the Father, and that will satisfy us."
Joh 14:9 "Have I been with you all this time, Philip, and you still do not know me?" Jesus asked him. "The person who has seen me has seen the Father. So how can you say, 'Show us the Father'?
Joh 14:10 You believe, don't you, that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own. It is the Father who dwells in me and who carries out his work.
You need to brush up on your scripture.

civilwarbuff said:
You STRONGLY imply that God has created lesser gods (otherwise why even bother to bring it up). Since we know the names of God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit please provide us with the name of one of these God "created" lesser gods with scriptural support. If you can't, then please stop blowing smoke and discuss something that is scripturally accurate.

Still waiting for the name of the lesser god....

cgaviria · Nov 25, 2015

Trinitarianism is an exhausting topic to discuss with certain people because the people that believe in it have had this topic so drilled in their heads that they are blinded to understand anything else. But beside that, the scripture does not conspicuously say, "God is a trinity". It does say, however, that the Father acts through his Son, and through his Spirit. I believe the trinity to be false, because if the three things were truly equal, then wouldn't it also be true that the Son could tell the Father what to do since they are literally equal as the trinity teaches? No, so mere logic states that the equality is NOT LITERAL. The father and son are equal in that the Son is a REFLECTION of the Father. He is THE VERY IMAGE of the Father. He is LESSER than the Father. He DOES everything the FATHER WANTS. He is ONE with the Father. By mere virtue of this logic it breaks the notion of the trinity. The trinity is a label and doctrine that is pushed as something outside of scripture, its merely just a doctrine of man. Anytime I have ever had this discussion with anyone believing in the trinity, NONE have ever been able to provide me with actual scriptures to prove it, just "babbles" and quotations and references to old catholic influenced church documents saying that it is true.

Non-Trinitarianism is unscriptural

Pray For Brussels!

Newbie

Servant of Christ Jesus. Stellar Son.

old dude

Hebrew Roots Christian

Well-Known Member

Pray For Brussels!

Pray For Brussels!

old dude

old dude

Pray For Brussels!

Pray For Brussels!

This is me about 1 yr. old.

Hebrew Roots Christian

Pray For Brussels!

Pray For Brussels!

Well-Known Member

old dude

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads