Non-Trinitarianism is unscriptural

Wgw said:

If we accept Matthew 28:19 as literal, then we are commanded to use the Trinitarian formula.

Click to expand...

If this is so then how is it that in this passage we read,

On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. (Acts 19:5)

If using the triune formula is so quintessential as you say, don't you think the apostles would've taken extra care in mentioning it in their writings in reference to the baptisms they performed? All baptisms were done in the NAME OF JESUS CHRIST ALONE. There are also clear indications from various sources that Matthew 28:19 has been tampered with by the catholic church. You being an apparent historian should know about the speculation concerning this. I choose to side in baptizing in the name of Jesus Christ because that is how the apostles did it, and we are instructed to do all things in the name of Jesus Christ anyways by Jesus himself in another passage,

You can ask for anything in my name, and I will do it, so that the Son can bring glory to the Father. (John 14:13)

Therefore, regardless of speculation concerning that verse, by mere virtue of other scriptures all things are to be done in the name of Jesus Christ alone.

Wgw said:

Except begat does not mean "only child;" in the geneaology of the Lord you find several persons begetting others, who are known to have siblings.

Click to expand...

Quote me the scripture and lets study the usage of the word in the passage you are quoting.

Imagican said:

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:

Click to expand...

If three persons were in a room, each one of them would be fully human, not one third PART human.

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.

Click to expand...

Both the King and Prince are human. The difference is in the offices they occupy (King or Prince), but their human nature is the same.

The nature of the Father and the Son are the same divine nature.

If a duck can only produce ducks.

Click to expand...

Ducks do indeed only produce ducks.

So many insist that God's son can only be GOD.

Click to expand...

That's because the Bible also insists.

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'.

Click to expand...

I think not.

Man is not a single person, Man consists of all persons that are human.

God is not a single person, God consists of all persons that are divine.

Jesus is the Son of God and the Son of Man, being fully God and fully Man.

He was not a 'lesser man' than Man is, nor was He a 'lesser god' than God is.

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?

Click to expand...

NO.

A divine Prince is no less divine than a divine King. They are both fully divine, fully God. It is the offices they occupy that are different: divine Master and divine Servant.

A human servant is no less human than a human master.

Take all that we are offered into consideration: SENT by God, CREATED by God

Click to expand...

Jesus was not created by God, He was begotten by God. Begotten of His Father, born of His mother.

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?

Click to expand...

I, as a father, am 'greater' than my son who is still a minor. I, as an experienced adult, also know more than my son does. But my son is as much human as I am. Jesus is as much divine as His Father is despite His Father knowing more than He does.

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.

Click to expand...

Jesus was both divine God and human Man.

As divine God, He had an eternal spiritual mind, and as human Man, he had a temporal physical body.

The nature of Jesus was that of an eternal spiritual mind in complete union with a temporal physical body.

Jesus died as a physical Man on the behalf of physical Man. His physical body died and was buried, but His spiritual mind returned to God from whom it came.

*Jesus called out with a loud voice, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." When He had said this, He breathed His last.*-- (Luke 23:46).

*The dust returns to the ground it came from, and the spirit returns to God who gave it.* -- (Eccl 12:7).

Wgw said:

It is my contention, after participating in several debates in this forum, that the rejection of the Trinity in general, and the divinity of Jesus Christ in particular, is not only contrary to the tradition of my specific Church, but is more generally incompatible with the canonical New Testament.

Click to expand...

In fact, it is heretical. And to claim that it is not necessary to believe in the triune Godhead in order to be saved is also incorrect. Belief in the Deity of Christ -- that He is indeed God the Word made manifest in the flesh -- automatically ensures that there are at least two Divine Persons in the Godhead (Jn 1:1-34).

A proper reading of Scripture also makes it clear that the Holy Spirit is God. To baptize believers "in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit (Mt 28:19) would mean (a) that the Gospel would have included this truth, and (b) that because "the Name" is singular but there are three Divine Persons mentioned, all three are God.

People stumble at the doctrine of the Trinity because they wish to "understand" God with their limited human reasoning. But if only the are told that this a part of the Mystery of God, they should believe it in simple faith.

Butch5 said:

Can you give you definition of the Trinity?

Click to expand...

The Trinity according to Scripture is spelled out in 1 John 5:7 (KJV):
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

You won't find this in the modern bible versions, which have deliberately expunged it even though there is sufficient manuscript and documentary evidence to establish that this is authentic Scripture. The Lord Jesus Christ is both the Word of God and the Son of God.

Hence we have the words of Christ (of which there can be absolutely no doubt) in Matthew 28:19: Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

cgaviria said:

To BE BEGOTTEN is TO BE CREATED.

Click to expand...

That's like saying "To BE BORN is TO BE CREATED."

I was not CREATED by my parents. I was begotten of my father and born of my mother.

Adam was created. Jesus was incarnated by being begotten of His Father through His human birth.

If Jesus had existed always, then what need would he have to BEEN BEGOTTEN?

Click to expand...

Jesus always existed as a divine Spirit, but He was incarnated by being given the form of a physical human through His human birth. He was incarnated by being begotten of His Father and born of His mother.

And NOT ONLY THAT, TO BE A SON BY VERY VIRTUE IMPLIES THAT HE WAS CREATED. Does A SON EXIST BEFORE HIS FATHER? NO. A FATHER EXISTS FIRST, THEN COMES A SON. IF Jesus and the Father had existed always, the Father would have called Jesus his BROTHER, not his SON.

Click to expand...

Jesus became the Son only after He was incarnated from a divine Spirit to a physical human through His human birth.

After His death and resurrection, He was restored to His original state of divine Spirit while maintaining His sonship and human appearance.

*And now, Father, glorify Me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.* -- (John 17:5).

Doveaman said:

That's like saying "To BE BORN is TO BE CREATED."

I was not CREATED by my parents. I was begotten of my father and born of my mother.

Adam was created. Jesus was incarnated by being begotten of His Father through His human birth.
Jesus always existed as a divine Spirit, but He was incarnated by taking on the form of a physical human through His human birth. He was incarnated by being begotten of His Father and born of His mother.
Jesus became the Son only after He was incarnated from a divine Spirit to a physical human through His human birth.

After His death and resurrection, He was restored to His original state of divine Spirit while maintaining His sonship and human appearance.

*And now, Father, glorify Me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.* -- (John 17:5).

Click to expand...

You were brought forth INTO EXISTENCE by your father and mother. Call it as anyone may, "begotten", or "created", the same thing is being conveyed in you coming FORTH from your parents.

I've already clarified what the word "begotten" means in the original Greek word, "monogenēs", means ONLY CHILD, not BEGOTTEN, or "conceived" as you are alluding to just now. Neither does it convey his incarnation as human, for there have been others that have been called sons of God and are human. The verse you are alluding to is,

For thus God loved the world, so that [*4*son *2*his *3*only born *1*he gave], that every one trusting in him, should not perish, but should have [*2*life *1*eternal]. (John 3:16 [ABP])

This is where the word "begotten" is used in different translations. The evidence of this are in other usages of the same Greek word,

And as he approached to the gate of the city, that behold, [*2*was conveyed *1*one having died], a son, an only child of his mother, and she was a widow; and a multitude of the city, a fit amount was with her. (Luke 7:12 [ABP])

for his daughter was an only child to him, about [*2*years old *1*twelve], and she was dying. And in his going, the multitudes thronged him. (Luke 8:42 [ABP])

What "only child" conveys is that Jesus Christ was in fact the only being that has ever been directly created by the Father. All other living beings were brought forth into existence by the Son who spoke them into existence.

Hoghead1 said:

Well, Berean 777, I can't say I agree with your exegesis of Genesis here. If you are interested in language, then I point out it is even more apparent these are two very different accounts. Modern biblical scholarship would date 2 and having been written much earlier than, long before the source (P0 for on1 came into being. Also, I find a number of unsupported points. You say that it's just the way ancient people used language. OK, fine. How do you know that?

Click to expand...

There are professors in this field who have studied the ancient culture and their languages and listening to one particular professor years back emphasized that the author of Genesis is not concerned about chronology, but rather the function of one object from the vantage point of the object of focus. In Gen 2 Adam is the main object of focus and so the author places him before the animals and plants in function and it may somehow appear to us that there is a change in chronological order as compared to Gen 1, but the author never intended to highlight order, rather function to the reference object who is Adam.

cgaviria said:

YES TO ALL THREE.

Click to expand...

So you are saying that there are two Yahweh's, that is two Creators, is that right?

cgaviria said:

It actually is. Look at the Genesis account. What was there before Jesus began uttering? The earth and water was already there. So how could Jesus have LITERALLY CREATED EVERYTHING if things already existed before he began speaking? So then you have to study the real meaning of the word "world" thats being used. As you research the other usages of the word, you find the exact meaning of "world". Yes, it is my interpretation, but so far my interpretation of scripture has outweighed anything you've said. The only thing you've said this whole time that sorta got me was when you said "begot" relating to conception. And when I looked up the real meaning of the word as they are used in other passages, then it clarified what the text really means. Only child. And my interpretation threw your conception logic out the door. So doing the research on the usages of words is VERY important in studying scripture.

Click to expand...

Actually the earth and the water are not earth and water from a material context. The material universe came into being when the declaration let there be Light was announced. The author express a language that suggests to an abstract mind that the earth and the water existed, but what the author is conveying is the earth and the water that was to be formed after the declaration was before that declaration a void, meaning nothingness, that is darkness.

Doveaman said:

That's like saying "To BE BORN is TO BE CREATED."

I was not CREATED by my parents. I was begotten of my father and born of my mother.

Adam was created. Jesus was incarnated by being begotten of His Father through His human birth.
Jesus always existed as a divine Spirit, but He was incarnated by being given the form of a physical human through His human birth. He was incarnated by being begotten of His Father and born of His mother.
Jesus became the Son only after He was incarnated from a divine Spirit to a physical human through His human birth.

After His death and resurrection, He was restored to His original state of divine Spirit while maintaining His sonship and human appearance.

*And now, Father, glorify Me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.* -- (John 17:5).

Click to expand...

The Living Word who was Spirit before the material universe was created by him, came into his creation as the Angel of Yahweh's presence to Moses, as the Son of Man to prophet Daniel and later took on the servant form as the man Jesus of Nazareth.

When he went up into heaven he went up into his glorified body that is not earthy but heavenly, which points to the Angel of Yahweh's presence. When we are raised we put on the heavenly body as one of the many hosts of heaven, the symbol of the white cloud that the Angel of Yahweh's presence rides with. We know that this heavenly form that the Lord has reverted back to is the one witnessed by the Old Testament Saints.

The Genesis account is the spiritual form of the Living Word, the consciousness of the Son along with the Father who being of the same substance/entity/Spirit but with different personas.

cgaviria said:

You were brought forth INTO EXISTENCE by your father and mother. Call it as anyone may, "begotten", or "created", the same thing is being conveyed in you coming FORTH from your parents.

I've already clarified what the word "begotten" means in the original Greek word, "monogenēs", means ONLY CHILD, not BEGOTTEN, or "conceived" as you are alluding to just now. Neither does it convey his incarnation as human, for there have been others that have been called sons of God and are human. The verse you are alluding to is,

For thus God loved the world, so that [*4*son *2*his *3*only born *1*he gave], that every one trusting in him, should not perish, but should have [*2*life *1*eternal]. (John 3:16 [ABP])

This is where the word "begotten" is used in different translations. The evidence of this are in other usages of the same Greek word,

And as he approached to the gate of the city, that behold, [*2*was conveyed *1*one having died], a son, an only child of his mother, and she was a widow; and a multitude of the city, a fit amount was with her. (Luke 7:12 [ABP])

for his daughter was an only child to him, about [*2*years old *1*twelve], and she was dying. And in his going, the multitudes thronged him. (Luke 8:42 [ABP])

What "only child" conveys is that Jesus Christ was in fact the only being that has ever been directly created by the Father. All other living beings were brought forth into existence by the Son who spoke them into existence.

Click to expand...

But there are two different meanings to only begotten, which points to one of his kind or the one and only. If we look at the word firstborn which is also mentioned about the Lord we have a preeminent one. Couple the preeminent one with one of his kind, then you have a unique person. You see the word firstborn and only begotten must hold the same meaning and not contradict one another.

If you took only begotten from a procreation context that is the Father created the Son, then the first born implies that God created more of the same and chose one of his many sons to be the firstborn amongst the rest of his created sons. Does scripture say that there are more than one son.

The latter procreation context is very dangerous and the Mormons have slid on the band wagon and made Lucifer the twin brother of the Logos and so to imply that God had two sons and one of them he favoured as first born and the other he condemned to being called Satan.

The path you are taking to the use of the word only begotten is Mormon territory. Don't go there.

This is their belief

The Mormon teaching that Jesus and Satan are brothers is based on their concept of God being the Father of all pre-existent spirits. Since Jesus is the son of the Father and all other spirits, including Satan, are sons and daughters of the Father then all are brothers and sisters! This idea has been part of Mormon teaching from the time of Joseph Smith and continues today. Few LDS authorities have been bold enough to plainly state this.

Click to expand...

here is the link

http://www.bible-truth.org/jesusbro.htm

This is the twisted Mormon explanation that declares the Father to have many sons.

"Hence, there is -- and must be -- a devil, and he is the father of lies and of wickedness. He and the fallen angels who followed him are spirit children of the Father. As Christ is the Firstborn of the Father in the spirit, so Lucifer is a son of the morning, one of those born in the morning of preexistence. He is a spirit man, a personage, an entity, comparable in form and appearance to any of the spirit children of the Eternal Father. He was the source of opposition among the spirit hosts before the world was made; he rebelled in preexistence against the Father and the Son, and he sought even then to destroy the agency of man. He and his followers were cast down to earth, and they are forever denied mortal bodies. And he, here on earth, along with all who follow him -- both his spirit followers and the mortals who hearken to his enticements -- is continuing the war that commenced in heaven."

Click to expand...

Here is a question for you. Do you believe that there are more than one son that the Father has like the Logos?

Berean777 said:

Actually the earth and the water are not earth and water from a material context. The material universe came into being when the declaration let there be Light was announced. The author express a language that suggests to an abstract mind that the earth and the water existed, but what the author is conveying is the earth and the water that was to be formed after the declaration was before that declaration a void, meaning nothingness, that is darkness.

Click to expand...

Now you're making stuff up. The water was already LITERALLY there. And when God made HIS FIRT UTTERANCE, he brought forth LIGHT into existence. NOT water AND light, ONLY light. So therefore you have to study further to understand why it is happening this way.

Job8 said:

The Trinity according to Scripture is spelled out in 1 John 5:7 (KJV):
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

You won't find this in the modern bible versions, which have deliberately expunged it even though there is sufficient manuscript and documentary evidence to establish that this is authentic Scripture. The Lord Jesus Christ is both the Word of God and the Son of God.

Hence we have the words of Christ (of which there can be absolutely no doubt) in Matthew 28:19: Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Click to expand...

I'll have to disagree with you on 1 John 5:7. I don't find there to be sufficient evidence for this passage. It's only found in a few midieval manuscripts.

Mathew 28 doesn't mention the Trinity, it says, baptize them in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I don't see how that proves the Trinity.

Berean777 said:

But there are two different meanings to only begotten, which points to one of his kind or the one and only. If we look at the word firstborn which is also mentioned about the Lord we have a preeminent one. Couple the preeminent one with one of his kind, then you have a unique person. You see the word firstborn and only begotten must hold the same meaning and not contradict one another.

If you took only begotten from a procreation context that is the Father created the Son, then the first born implies that God created more of the same and chose one of his many sons to be the firstborn amongst the rest of his created sons. Does scripture say that there are more than one son.

The latter procreation context is very dangerous and the Mormons have slid on the band wagon and made Lucifer the twin brother of the Logos and so to imply that God had two sons and one of them he favoured as first born and the other he condemned to being called Satan.

The path you are taking to the use of the word only begotten is Mormon territory. Don't go there.

This is their belief



here is the link

http://www.bible-truth.org/jesusbro.htm

Click to expand...

I don't side with Mormons, I side with scripture. And yes God did have more sons, hence,

And it came to pass this day, and behold, [*4*came *1*the *2*sons *3*of God] to stand before the LORD, and the devil came in the midst of them. (Job 1:6 [ABP])

This verse speaks of angels, who are ALSO considered sons of God. Therefore, it comes to question, how is Jesus Christ an ONLY SON OF GOD THEN? It is because ONLY HE was created DIRECTLY BY THE FATHER, and then when JESUS BEGAN UTTERING THE WORLD INTO EXISTENCE, DID ALL LIFE COME THROUGH HIM. This is why he is ALSO FIRSTBORN OF CREATION. BECAUSE HE WAS CREATED FIRST, THEN ALL LIFE WAS CREATED AFTER THROUGH HIM. Its pretty clear if you just unlearn everything you've been taught growing up, and just let the scripture speak to you.

Berean777 said:

But there are two different meanings to only begotten, which points to one of his kind or the one and only. If we look at the word firstborn which is also mentioned about the Lord we have a preeminent one. Couple the preeminent one with one of his kind, then you have a unique person. You see the word firstborn and only begotten must hold the same meaning and not contradict one another.

If you took only begotten from a procreation context that is the Father created the Son, then the first born implies that God created more of the same and chose one of his many sons to be the firstborn amongst the rest of his created sons. Does scripture say that there are more than one son.

The latter procreation context is very dangerous and the Mormons have slid on the band wagon and made Lucifer the twin brother of the Logos and so to imply that God had two sons and one of them he favoured as first born and the other he condemned to being called Satan.

The path you are taking to the use of the word only begotten is Mormon territory. Don't go there.

This is their belief



here is the link

http://www.bible-truth.org/jesusbro.htm

Click to expand...

I advise you to read my spiel on this subject matter on the beginning of Jesus, http://www.christianforums.com/thre...ly-the-father-has-no-beginning-moved.7919007/