Why the Trinity is a False Doctrine

[7xlightray]

Your entire argument, such as it is, rests on 2 propositions. That there is no word Trinity found within scripture.

First before I say anything else, I never said anything about the word Trinity not found within scripture. Never indulged in that argument, nor would I. That is a week argument, at best, and really no argument at all. I don't need that argument...

Acts 17:10 Then the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so.​

The scriptures teach us that what the apostles taught, must line up with O/T scriptures. These Jews are not going to read Pauls writings, to see what Paul taught was true, nor any of the other apostles writings. Guaranteed they are checking their scriptures, the O/T. Did the Jews, or the Old Testament Jews believe in a trinity, did they believe their God was a trinity? It's no secret, we all know they did not.

Deuteronomy 13:1-3 “If there arises among you a prophet or a dreamer of dreams, and he gives you a sign or a wonder, 2 and the sign or the wonder comes to pass, of which he spoke to you, saying, ‘Let us go after other gods’—which you have not known—‘and let us serve them,’ 3 you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams, for the Lord your God is testing you to know whether you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul.​

A trinity God would be a God they did not know.

What argument is Paul going to present from O/T scriptures, to get around this Deuteronomy 13 passage, to win these Jews over to the trinity?

And that since the Nicean council ratified the doctrine of the trinity at the beginning of the 4th. century it must have been originated in it's ratified form around the same time.

I would say, it was developed over time. The records we have of those that first taught it, before the 4th century, was not in the form that became ratified. That I would say.

 

[7xlightray]

Exactly. As he thinks in his heart, so he is.

"Mind" is a poor understanding of the word "heart" as it is used throughout the Bible. Your "mind" is what you reason with, yes. But your heart goes deeper than reason. Your heart is the core of your emotions. Your desires, your wants, your will. That is why all things - including thoughts - proceed from the heart.

If you need to go outside the Bible for confirmation of this, just ask anybody who's ever done marketing. It's a marketing axiom. Capture the emotions, and the mind will follow. You don't make a sale based on logic. You make an emotional sale, and then give the consumer enough reasons to justify the purchase with logic.

The real you is inside. Yes. From the real you comes what you think. That's why the apostle Paul says he takes "every thought captive..."

But if you look deeper into the verses you can see the truth. As a man thinks... As a man purposes... It doesn't say a man is his thoughts or even that a man is what the thoughts of his heart are.

Let's look at some examples.

A man who invites you into his house and says "come, eat and drink," but says in his heart "this is encroaching on my valuable time" is selfish. He's more concerned about his time than about your needs. A man who gives money to the poor, but says in his heart "they are in that state because of their own sin" is proud. A man who takes a needy woman into his house, but thinks in his heart "when I have provided for her needs, I will have my way with her" is sexually immoral. As he thinks in his heart, so he is.

So we can plainly see the purpose of these verses. Men can do all kinds of "good deeds," but that doesn't make them a "good person." If their motivation - their desire, purpose, intent - behind the deeds is evil, then they are evil.

And where is he "thinking", he is thinking in his heart, because that is where you think.

 

[nomadictheist]

And where is he "thinking", he is thinking in his heart, because that is where you think.

No. Think is too broad a term. It is where you purpose. Where you intend.

Think can be used in more than one sense. It can be used, as it is here, in the sense of intending or desiring. It can also be used in the sense of rational thought and analysis, which is done with your mind. Here are some examples of the differences:

I can think with my heart, "I want lots of money" (greed), and then I would begin with my mind to reason how to go about obtaining it. My mind invents and discards methods, sometimes instantaneously, until it settles on one that it finds reasonable.

Now both of these can be described by the word "think," but in the most literal, traditional sense of the word only the latter qualifies. The first is more in line with our English words "desire, want, will, intend, purpose..."

The Bible talks about the mind, many times. It is never as the core of the being, but as that part with which we reason - and sometimes in a negative light. The word in the Greek is noos. (For example, Romans 14:5 says "each one should be fully convinced in his own mind [noos]"). The mind can be convinced by reason. The heart will continue to believe even in the face of overwhelming evidence. This, once again, can be either good or evil, depending on if the heart belongs to God or not.

 

[Hoghead1]

However, in ancient times, the heart was also thought of as the source of the intellect. It did not mean just emotion. Furthermore, it is impossible to separate our emotion from thought.

 

[7xlightray]

Paul could give that same prophetic word to any church past or present. These dangers have always been imminent. This doesn't mean the churches will themselves fall into false doctrines. Only that they will be ravaged by them, and it continues to this day. And Ephesus fought it's way through it.

Things went very well for the churches of Asia after Paul. So well that we refer to these churches as the Johanian community. The Apostle John is said to have lived out his last days there, writing his Gospel from there in 93 A.D.. Disciples of John from this area were placed like Timothy over these churches.

Yet the scriptures you have presented are refutable or can be interpreted either way, so they provide no definitive proof. The best you can do is to suggest that if viewed from your perspective these verses could mean this.

You are earnest and sincere, but you will need something more than you have given to make a legitimate defensible argument.

There were things I was going to say, but I don't think there would be much point, at this time. Maybe you will see what Paul is saying...

2 Timothy 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine [This will happen sometime after Pauls departure Acts 20:29,30. These will not have a love for the truth, and for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie 2 Thessalonians 2:10-11.]; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;​

He is not saying, “Well, people will mess up from time to time.” Paul is not saying maybe, he is saying it is coming. There is a reason Paul is speaking in this fashion, for he also states elsewhere...

2 Thessalonians 2:3 Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed​

There must be a falling away first, before Christ can return. It can't mean just a few people here, and there. The falling away started a long time ago. After all those, that seen all the great works God did, passed away. After all the apostles, and all those that seen these great works of God, then arose another generation after them, and they forsook the Lord God of their fathers and served other gods, as goes the prophesy Judges 2:7,10,12.

This man of sin must remain till Christ returns, because he will destroy him with the brightness of his coming. And if you recall 1 John 2:18 saying, “whereby we we know it is the last time,” because there are already many antichrists, and that this certain one is coming. So, he has been around for some time now.

In this case antichrist would have to mean, one who puts himself in the place of the Messiah, seeing as God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie.
So, it's not simply leaving the church and the christian life, but falling for false doctrine, as it is said in 2 Timothy 4:3 and Acts 20:30 .

 

[Harfelugan]

My apologies for the comment of the word Trinity not being found in scripture then. I have mixed the comments of earlier posters to yours. This thread is getting so long that I'm trying not to go back into it for specifics and may have done the same for other comments in the below posts. Please correct me where I put someone's words down as yours and forgive me for the indiscretion.

Expressing the thoughts of the Father through the Spirit, Gods reasoning expressed by words – Is God. Who else is it? It is God. That is the “My word” You really are dragging this out.

So if Jesus was God, he was a – logos - being the expression of a thought, expressing the thoughts of the Father through the Spirit, reasoning expressed by words.

The word was God. It was His thoughts, the expression of Him. The word became flesh, but before this he was God. The word was God, but then the word became flesh. The word was God, but then the word became the earth.

Proverbs 23:7 KJV “For as he thinks in his heart, so is he.”

Proverbs 23:7 ASV For as he thinketh within himself, so is he: Eat and drink, saith he to thee; But his heart is not with thee.[/QUOTE]

I’ve put several of your posts together for a fuller concept of what you are thinking. Now I know that you aren’t these thoughts, they are just ideas passing through your mind. They are a part of you though, your personal will, and you will have to stand before God someday and have these thoughts examined. You will be held accountable for sinful thoughts, and the blood of Christ will cover them if you were repentant. Since what you posted are ideas not personally related to yourself, but about the nature of God for the most part, these thoughts aren’t you. They are concepts outside yourself. This shows that we can think thoughts that aren’t in any way part of ourselves. God, operating in time yet being outside of time, can think about creating objects that aren’t Himself. Otherwise you’ve entered pantheism.

From what I see that you’ve posted above your idea of a Christ, created as any other object of creation can’t be justified, without pantheism. You can restate your concept of created things as concepts of God and still hold to Christ as a created concept from the mind of God. And yes I’m anthropomorphizing that God has a mind like ours for we don’t really know how a transcendent being conceives of anything.

To sum up how this fits with Proverbs 23:7 I believe that if we think evil thoughts we are being sinful. Then sinful is what we are. If were thinking about our grandmother we don’t become our grandmother. Scripture is much deeper than the concepts you have proposed.

In other words the real you is inside, what we think.

As long as we hold this idea to be the attitudes and motives behind our thoughts. For that is how Christ says they will be evaluated in the sermon on the mount. For our motives and attitudes behind our thoughts proclaim our hearts, not concepts which merely pass through.

God breathed into Adam the breath of life. That breath of life came from God, and that same breath will return to Him, because it is His, Yet Adam is not God. That breath of life was with God, and was God, then He gave it to Adam. Adam died, and that breath of life returned to God. [/ QUOTE]


The Hebrew word for breath is also translated spirit, when referring to God in English the s is capitalized. God’s Spirit is said to proceed from him, thus is proceeded from God’s transendancy into the temporal world. The Spirit of God was God, and yet in this action became distinct from God, by some sort of separation. From non-temporal to temporal, yet still connected by being of the same essence as God, meaning that the Spirit never ceased to be God. Breathed himself, or entered Adam, bringing life unto Adam. To me this means that Adam had the indwelling of God’s Spirit yet wasn’t God in any way of himself. You say that when Adam died that Spirit of life returned to God, for it was God. I believe that when Adam sinned. the Spirit of life left him spiritually dead but physically alive. The animals were made to live in this manner, without the Spirit of life. This statement of yours above is very much a Trinitarian concept.

When God made Christ, God made him to be the fullness of Himself. Himself manifested in flesh, but that does not make Jesus God. Jesus is the image of God. If you are the image of something, you cant be that something, else you would be that something, not an image of it. We will be made in the image of Christ. Does that mean we will be Christ? No, that is not what that means. It means we will be just like him. Jesus was just like God, but he is not God.

Then his work of atonement was in vain. If Jesus wasn’t God he was strictly speaking, only human. If he was anything else, he wasn’t human. If something else other than human we could have continued sacrificing animals unto God, for they are without sin. If Jesus wasn’t God, he couldn’t remain sinless. On the Day of Atonement, better translated Day of Atonements even the entirety of the Tabernacle/Temple, including everything in the Holy of Holies had to be Atoned for because of the sinfulness around them. Because only God, his very Presence/Spirit, needed no Atonement, for he is perfectly Holy and can know/experience no sin. Christ even washed the feet of his disciples as a symbol of their imperfection from contact with the world. If Jesus wasn’t God incarnate, even though he was sinless, the taint of the world would have disqualified him as a sacrifice. This is why the blood of bulls and goats were only symbols that were acted on/sacrificed in faith. This is why sacrificing sinless human infants couldn’t bring atonement. If they could, we could bypass Christ by continuing those practices.

I don't want mans explanation, I want scripture.
Jesus would have needed O/T scripture to explain this away, or he would not have had a leg to stand on, if he was stating he was God - Yhvh.

And you keep presenting scripture, interpreted trough your perception of its meaning, and are rebutted by Christians who interpret the same scriptures from a different perception. So presentation of scripture is of no value to the resolution of this dilemma. Yet truth can only be found within scripture. This is why doctrines are formed. From the entire context of scripture, not proof texts from here or there. The Trinitarian concept is taken from the context of the entirety of scripture. It is as scriptural as any proof text and more so because it is drawn from scripture as a whole. To ask for proof texts confirming the Trinity, or the word Trinity, is on the level of the disciples asking Jesus to show them the Father.

What I meant, was in the sense of He came forth from God and was sent. Came forth from God at his conception, and was sent after his baptism. John 8:42; John 17:8.

In other places I think you say he existed from creation. So are you saying that he became human, took on flesh here, or was begotten here? Maybe your saying he was begotten twice. Specific definitions are critical here.



Not true; one can be the "image" of any number of things; compare visage, prosopon, personage.

I find it strange how you want to argue that your thoughts are you, but your image is not.

This was mentioned by another poster and is relevant.

 

[7xlightray]

Exactly. As he thinks in his heart, so he is.

"Mind" is a poor understanding of the word "heart" as it is used throughout the Bible. Your "mind" is what you reason with, yes. But your heart goes deeper than reason. Your heart is the core of your emotions. Your desires, your wants, your will. That is why all things - including thoughts - proceed from the heart.

If you need to go outside the Bible for confirmation of this, just ask anybody who's ever done marketing. It's a marketing axiom. Capture the emotions, and the mind will follow. You don't make a sale based on logic. You make an emotional sale, and then give the consumer enough reasons to justify the purchase with logic.

The real you is inside. Yes. From the real you comes what you think. That's why the apostle Paul says he takes "every thought captive..."

But if you look deeper into the verses you can see the truth. As a man thinks... As a man purposes... It doesn't say a man is his thoughts or even that a man is what the thoughts of his heart are.

Let's look at some examples.

A man who invites you into his house and says "come, eat and drink," but says in his heart "this is encroaching on my valuable time" is selfish. He's more concerned about his time than about your needs. A man who gives money to the poor, but says in his heart "they are in that state because of their own sin" is proud. A man who takes a needy woman into his house, but thinks in his heart "when I have provided for her needs, I will have my way with her" is sexually immoral. As he thinks in his heart, so he is.

So we can plainly see the purpose of these verses. Men can do all kinds of "good deeds," but that doesn't make them a "good person." If their motivation - their desire, purpose, intent - behind the deeds is evil, then they are evil.

Our emotions, desires, cravings, memories, thoughts, reasoning, and so forth, are all in our brain. They may be in different locations of the brain, if that's what you mean. Our flesh can have cravings. If we do drugs, our brain/flesh can develop cravings for a drug. We get hungry, our brain/flesh tells us it wants food. We can put thoughts together, and choose if we do, or don't eat. How we think molds our character. How, and what we think is who we are, and who we become. It's what we occupy our minds with, if we occupy it with good, then we are good, if bad, then bad.

God does not have flesh, that urges Him to eat, He is not tempted by anything. God cannot be tempted.

So, I'm not sure where your going with this, or what this has to do with the word/spirit becoming flesh.

Obviously God planed Jesus' life, He had it written out in a book, what he would say and do, before he was born, for he also says, you loved me before the foundation of the world. Some how, I don't know how, I don't know how Gods spirit works in this fashion, other then the spirit/power came upon Mary, God put His character in Christ. Jesus had a good character, and as he grew, that character grew even stronger, and resisted temptation. But even Jesus said, “Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.” All the good Jesus was/is, came from the Father.

That word/life/spirit was with God, and was God, and He (word/life/spirit) became flesh (Jesus.) He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him – recall it was the Father in Jesus doing the works, and you seen me you seen the Father. This is what Jesus meant, when saying, he was before Abraham. He is talking about that life that came down from heaven.

 

[7xlightray]

My apologies for the comment of the word Trinity not being found in scripture then. I have mixed the comments of earlier posters to yours. This thread is getting so long that I'm trying not to go back into it for specifics and may have done the same for other comments in the below posts. Please correct me where I put someone's words down as yours and forgive me for the indiscretion.

Proverbs 23:7 ASV For as he thinketh within himself, so is he: Eat and drink, saith he to thee; But his heart is not with thee.

I’ve put several of your posts together for a fuller concept of what you are thinking. Now I know that you aren’t these thoughts, they are just ideas passing through your mind. They are a part of you though, your personal will, and you will have to stand before God someday and have these thoughts examined. You will be held accountable for sinful thoughts, and the blood of Christ will cover them if you were repentant. Since what you posted are ideas not personally related to yourself, but about the nature of God for the most part, these thoughts aren’t you. They are concepts outside yourself. This shows that we can think thoughts that aren’t in any way part of ourselves. God, operating in time yet being outside of time, can think about creating objects that aren’t Himself. Otherwise you’ve entered pantheism.

From what I see that you’ve posted above your idea of a Christ, created as any other object of creation can’t be justified, without pantheism. You can restate your concept of created things as concepts of God and still hold to Christ as a created concept from the mind of God. And yes I’m anthropomorphizing that God has a mind like ours for we don’t really know how a transcendent being conceives of anything.

To sum up how this fits with Proverbs 23:7 I believe that if we think evil thoughts we are being sinful. Then sinful is what we are. If were thinking about our grandmother we don’t become our grandmother. Scripture is much deeper than the concepts you have proposed.




As long as we hold this idea to be the attitudes and motives behind our thoughts. For that is how Christ says they will be evaluated in the sermon on the mount. For our motives and attitudes behind our thoughts proclaim our hearts, not concepts which merely pass through.

Don't worry about it, I understand, it's hard to keep up over days, and much typing – I go through the same thing.

The Bible is the expression of God in words, they are His thoughts expressed in words. God is not one paragraph. I'm not try to say Jesus is a single thought, He is the image of what God is like, which I believe I've also stated somewhere in here (I'm not 100% sure either anymore), as well as His character (which I do believe I stated). Now, this is one part of what I am saying. The other part is, God had Jesus in mind before the foundation of the world, what he would be like, what he would do, and say, the plan of God, as He also, had this written in His Book. And all this became flesh. What God had in His mind for Christ. As in, the life that was written in the Book (Bible), became flesh, if you understand what I mean by this.

God does not have bad thoughts. Only God is good, all His thoughts are Him, and who He is. You are trying to dissect thoughts. Yet, without a single thought, we are not us. A hand is not your body, but it's part of what makes your body, a body. There are many parts that make us, us.

And it's not every single thought God has, and could ever have, that He put in Christ, that's not what I'm trying to say either. It's what we fill our minds with, and what we fill our minds with is who we are. If I dwell on good, then good, if bad then bad.

Someone already stated something similar, saying, if I think about Hitler, then I'm Hitler. Which I had to say, that is not what I was saying, and not good reasoning.

 

[7xlightray]

The Hebrew word for breath is also translated spirit, when referring to God in English the s is capitalized. God’s Spirit is said to proceed from him, thus is proceeded from God’s transendancy into the temporal world. The Spirit of God was God, and yet in this action became distinct from God, by some sort of separation. From non-temporal to temporal, yet still connected by being of the same essence as God, meaning that the Spirit never ceased to be God. Breathed himself, or entered Adam, bringing life unto Adam. To me this means that Adam had the indwelling of God’s Spirit yet wasn’t God in any way of himself. You say that when Adam died that Spirit of life returned to God, for it was God. I believe that when Adam sinned. the Spirit of life left him spiritually dead but physically alive. The animals were made to live in this manner, without the Spirit of life. This statement of yours above is very much a Trinitarian concept.

I would agree, though I don't know about temporal, non-temporal, or scripture to support this, though this could be, but somehow this took place. Also agree the breath of life/Spirit is God, though a measure of God, but not God Himself, as in, the person of God.

As for, Adam being spiritual, I differ. God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. That's all I see, the body became living. We die, breath returns to God, and that's it, lights out, until the resurrection; and not only that, but not all will be resurrected.

Man and beasts have the same breath of life.

Ecclesiastes 3:18 I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts. 19 For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity.​

I don't believe scripture teaches Adam died spiritually, but that he received the knowledge of good and evil. Adam was earthly made of the earth 1 Corinthians 15:47.

Then his work of atonement was in vain. If Jesus wasn’t God he was strictly speaking, only human. If he was anything else, he wasn’t human. If something else other than human we could have continued sacrificing animals unto God, for they are without sin. If Jesus wasn’t God, he couldn’t remain sinless. On the Day of Atonement, better translated Day of Atonements even the entirety of the Tabernacle/Temple, including everything in the Holy of Holies had to be Atoned for because of the sinfulness around them. Because only God, his very Presence/Spirit, needed no Atonement, for he is perfectly Holy and can know/experience no sin. Christ even washed the feet of his disciples as a symbol of their imperfection from contact with the world. If Jesus wasn’t God incarnate, even though he was sinless, the taint of the world would have disqualified him as a sacrifice. This is why the blood of bulls and goats were only symbols that were acted on/sacrificed in faith. This is why sacrificing sinless human infants couldn’t bring atonement. If they could, we could bypass Christ by continuing those practices.

You say if Jesus was anything else then human, then he was not human, yet you claim Jesus is God-Man. That would be a contradiction.

It's not just simply being sinless. Animals are like man in every way other then intelligence, and without sin, but there is a good reason why animals will not do, because they could do nothing for the sin nature. Nor could the saviour be God, because God can't be tempted. God needed to destroy sin in the flesh, so Jesus had to be made a man, and he needed to be tempted and resist temptation, to destroy sin in the flesh. Animals could not do this, nor can God.

For some reason many think only God can remain sinless, we know that's not true, for God is going to destroy sin and death forever.

And you keep presenting scripture, interpreted trough your perception of its meaning, and are rebutted by Christians who interpret the same scriptures from a different perception. So presentation of scripture is of no value to the resolution of this dilemma. Yet truth can only be found within scripture. This is why doctrines are formed. From the entire context of scripture, not proof texts from here or there. The Trinitarian concept is taken from the context of the entirety of scripture. It is as scriptural as any proof text and more so because it is drawn from scripture as a whole. To ask for proof texts confirming the Trinity, or the word Trinity, is on the level of the disciples asking Jesus to show them the Father.

I disagree, scriptures are very important to correct, and refute false doctrine. Does not mean everyone wants the truth. N/T needs to line up with O/T.

If they did, then why am I still waiting for someone to answer them. No one has rebutted these yet. No one has given an answer to these passages, nor replied to them. And seem to be avoiding them. These are totally valid questions, that need to be answered, not to me, but for yourself. If trinitarians use the entirety of scripture, then there should be no problem in answering them, those passages should be answered, need to be answered, for anyone serious in the truth.

 

[7xlightray]

In other places I think you say he existed from creation. So are you saying that he became human, took on flesh here, or was begotten here? Maybe your saying he was begotten twice. Specific definitions are critical here.

Never said Jesus existed as a person before his birth as a human Isaiah 45:4-5.

Not true; one can be the "image" of any number of things; compare visage, prosopon, personage.

I find it strange how you want to argue that your thoughts are you, but your image is not.

This was mentioned by another poster and is relevant.

2 Corinthians 4:4 glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image [1504 eikṓn - an image, likeness, bust] of God,

1504 eikṓn (from 1503 /eíkō, "be like") – properly, "mirror-like representation," referring to what is very close in resemblance (like a "high-definition" projection, as defined by the context). Image (1504 /eikṓn) then exactly reflects its source (what it directly corresponds to). For example, Christ is the very image (1504 /eikṓn, supreme expression) of the Godhead.

That's because what I'm say keeps getting altered. If I think of car, I'm not a car, but it's my thought, I produced the thought, I thought it, who's thought would it be, if not mine? We are getting far from sense of the meaning I intended.

 

[rjs330]

No 'reinterpretation'. That's not true at all. I have simply not accepted the same interpretation that you have. I have 'reinterpreted nothing'.

The funny part of your post is this:

The doctrine of 'trinity' is anything but comprehensible. The doctrine itself is defined as 'incomprehensible': a 'mystery'. Even when 'divinely revealed' according to those that 'created trinity', it still remains a 'mystery'.

So there is no such thing as a 'finite' comprehension of God contained within 'trinity'.

I already offered that it's very easy for what one believes to influence how they comprehend scripture. Those that speak in gibberish and call it tongues interpret the letters to the Corinthians as confirming their behavior as correct.

But in truth, the letters Paul wrote to them were letters of rebuke in their abuse of tongues.

So it's a matter of perspective.

I personally understand the words of Thomas perfectly. He felt guilty in his doubting the identity of the man standing before him. He didn't 'believe' that Christ had risen. By doubting this, he not only doubted Christ, but God Himself.

Place yourself in context. You have just openly voiced your doubt that the man standing before you is the Son of God, risen from the grave.

Long before your introduction to the Son, you were a faithful believer and follower of God.

Once the truth was revealed, you couldn't help but feel that you had basically betrayed, (doubted), the man standing before you, but God, the Father who had sent Him as well.

So it's not difficult for me to comprehend that I would owe them 'both' an apology. I would feel guilt towards betraying or doubting them 'both': The man claiming to be the Son of God, and God Himself who had sent the man claiming to be the Son of God.

So the words, "My Lord and my God" are perfectly understandable. I see no reason to believe that Thomas was calling Christ God. No other apostle 'ever' called Christ God. They had all witnessed Jesus praying to God. They had all witnessed Christ telling them He was sent by God. They all heard Him speak of God being His Father. So what kind of dimwit would then, after all they 'knew', call Christ God?

So the evidence points to the preconceived notion of 'trinity' being the unaccountable influence that would lead one to believe that Thomas was addressing Christ as God. For it is clear to me that he was basically acknowledging he had offended 'both' in his denial of the Son. The Son who was telling the truth and His Father, God, who had sent Him.

Blessings,

MEC

Of course you see no reason to believe Thomas was talking about Jesus because you don't want to. Just like you don't see the word was God either. Yet Thomas was speaking TO Jesus as exhibited by his actions. There is nothing in the language to explain otherwise. Thomas was not alone he was not writing something to explain anything. He was speaking to Jesus himself. Thus the words my Lord and my God. They are words meant to go together as expressions of the same being.

The word was God. The word was made flesh and dwelt among us. The wording here is what is important. It does not read God's word as a possession. It reads word was God. Hence the importance of the Word being made flesh. It does,not say the word created flesh or a fleshly being. It says the word became flesh. The word is a person and is not the creative power here. Different wording and linguistics must be used here if the word was supposed be a creative power. It's not.

Also Hebrews states that the Father calls Jesus God. "But into the son he says they throne Oh God is forever and ever.

InRevelation Jesus says "I am the Alpha and Omega" terminology used of God alone. Yet Jesus takes it for himself.

I believe its Isaiah who says of the Christ that his name shall be called mighty God.

I know this is difficult for you but because you want so badly to believe that Jesus is not God that you have tried to make the Bible say things it doesn't. Just because you can't wrap your head around it doesn't mean it's not true. There are a number of passages that state Jesus is God (which have been given) and 0 that say he is not. Therefore the passages that refer to Jesus being different from the Father MUST have a meaning other than Jesus is not God. There only other explanation is that there is a triune God. One who is above our understanding at this point.

 

[Job8]

Of course you see no reason to believe Thomas was talking about Jesus because you don't want to.

And for that reason alone, it is a total waste of time to pursue this any further.

 

[Imagican]

Ok. You are certainly free to make your own choices.

But consider this:

I know that I 'personally' have made appeals to both God and Christ, at the same time. I have asked them 'both' for forgiveness more than once. At the same time. When I pray, I pray to God in the name of Christ. I pray to them 'both'. When I ask for strength, I appeal to them 'both'.

I find it difficult to believe that you can't understand what I have offered. For I believe that it is you that are looking for something that isn't there. I seek only the truth. I have no 'preconceived notion' that I feel compelled to prove to you or anyone else. But it appears that those that profess 'trinity' do feel compelled to take scripture and alter it's meaning in order to prove something that really can't be proven.

I 'know' this: God is the Father. And Christ is the Son of the Father: God. And I have never been led to 'know' anything else. I have never felt compelled to 'make up' an idea concerning the relationship of God and His Son. I have simply accepted what has been offered and followed as I'm led.

If that causes some sort of anger or hatred or inspired spite among those that have chosen a 'different belief system', then I would suggest that it is 'that' belief system that is in error. For what I believe doesn't make me 'angry' at those that believe differently. It doesn't cause me to feel spite or malice or anything else. I certainly wouldn't torture or murder those that believe differently.

So anyone that has a 'belief system' that allows them to develop negative emotions towards others simply because of their 'differing beliefs'? I would say that their 'belief system' is certainly due some diligent discovery. Why? Why would a 'belief system' in God or His Son cause someone to hold negative emotions towards others who do not believe in the same manner.

I'll tell you what. If you can show me that my belief system is wrong according to the Bible, I change it. I'll follow whatever 'belief system' you can offer according to the Bible.

But would you be willing to make the same offer? If I can show you that my belief system is exactly what we have been instructed according to the Bible, would you change your 'belief system'?

Blessings,

MEC

 

[rjs330]

Ok. You are certainly free to make your own choices.

But consider this:

I know that I 'personally' have made appeals to both God and Christ, at the same time. I have asked them 'both' for forgiveness more than once. At the same time. When I pray, I pray to God in the name of Christ. I pray to them 'both'. When I ask for strength, I appeal to them 'both'.

I find it difficult to believe that you can't understand what I have offered. For I believe that it is you that are looking for something that isn't there. I seek only the truth. I have no 'preconceived notion' that I feel compelled to prove to you or anyone else. But it appears that those that profess 'trinity' do feel compelled to take scripture and alter it's meaning in order to prove something that really can't be proven.

I 'know' this: God is the Father. And Christ is the Son of the Father: God. And I have never been led to 'know' anything else. I have never felt compelled to 'make up' an idea concerning the relationship of God and His Son. I have simply accepted what has been offered and followed as I'm led.

If that causes some sort of anger or hatred or inspired spite among those that have chosen a 'different belief system', then I would suggest that it is 'that' belief system that is in error. For what I believe doesn't make me 'angry' at those that believe differently. It doesn't cause me to feel spite or malice or anything else. I certainly wouldn't torture or murder those that believe differently.

So anyone that has a 'belief system' that allows them to develop negative emotions towards others simply because of their 'differing beliefs'? I would say that their 'belief system' is certainly due some diligent discovery. Why? Why would a 'belief system' in God or His Son cause someone to hold negative emotions towards others who do not believe in the same manner.

I'll tell you what. If you can show me that my belief system is wrong according to the Bible, I change it. I'll follow whatever 'belief system' you can offer according to the Bible.

But would you be willing to make the same offer? If I can show you that my belief system is exactly what we have been instructed according to the Bible, would you change your 'belief system'?

Blessings,

MEC

MEC we have offered you scriptures to,point out that Jesus is called God. Not ambiguous scriptures but actual scripture such as Hebrews and Isaiah. We have also pointed out scripture where Jesus makes claims that only GOD has a right to claim.

And you have pointed out scriptures where Jesus is called the son and has been called begotten and has subjected himself to the Father. Only you have interpreted that to mean he is not God while ignoring the scripture where he is called God. The scriptures you use are absolutely true. But they explain how God is one yet being three. To say Jesus is not God is blatantly ignoring scripture where it calls him God. And it makes Jesus out to be a lunatic because he claims things that belong to,God alone.

Hey I have no hard feelings toward you! Quite the contrary. I love you my brother. But I am concerned that you are believing and teaching a false doctrine. There were times in the scripture where the churches fell,into false doctine. It didn't mean they were not saved, but the apostles did try and set them straight. That's all we are trying do here. I am certainly not trying to put you down for I see the sincerity in your belief. However it does go contrary to scripture as a whole and to the claims of Jesus.

 

[Strong in Him]

Ok. You are certainly free to make your own choices.

But consider this:

I know that I 'personally' have made appeals to both God and Christ, at the same time. I have asked them 'both' for forgiveness more than once. At the same time. When I pray, I pray to God in the name of Christ. I pray to them 'both'. When I ask for strength, I appeal to them 'both'.

I find it difficult to believe that you can't understand what I have offered.

We do; you pray to God the Father through God the Son. I do too.
We can only come to God the Father because Jesus has reconciled us to him. Jesus, God the word who became flesh, offered his life as a once for all perfect sacrifice and paid our ransom for sin. If he hadn't done that, we would never have been reconciled to God and received eternal life.
So we come to the Father through, and in the name of, the Son. But there is only one God, so two are one. When we pray, the Spirit of God intercedes for us in groans that words cannot express - so we pray in, and with the help of, the Holy Spirit. Because there is only one God, he is one with the Father and the Son.

 

[Wgw]

Ok. You are certainly free to make your own choices.

But consider this:

I know that I 'personally' have made appeals to both God and Christ, at the same time. I have asked them 'both' for forgiveness more than once. At the same time. When I pray, I pray to God in the name of Christ. I pray to them 'both'. When I ask for strength, I appeal to them 'both'.

Which is acceptable; they are one in essence but are discrete persons. In the Coptic church, of the anaphorae, two are addressed to the Father and one to the Son. The Holy Spirit is of course involed in all three.

I find it difficult to believe that you can't understand what I have offered. For I believe that it is you that are looking for something that isn't there. I seek only the truth. I have no 'preconceived notion' that I feel compelled to prove to you or anyone else.

You might well in that case opt to not continually seek to prove your own alternative Christology

But it appears that those that profess 'trinity' do feel compelled to take scripture and alter it's meaning in order to prove something that really can't be proven.

Wr have provided the only valid, logical, reasonable interpretation of John 1:1-14 and several other verses.

I 'know' this: God is the Father. And Christ is the Son of the Father: God. And I have never been led to 'know' anything else. I have never felt compelled to 'make up' an idea concerning the relationship of God and His Son. I have simply accepted what has been offered and followed as I'm led.

Trinitarians have not "made up" an idea about our Lord; we accept the teachings of the Holy Apostles and their siccessors, the persecuted Christians of the early Church, including the victims of Arian persecution.

If that causes some sort of anger or hatred or inspired spite among those that have chosen a 'different belief system', then I would suggest that it is 'that' belief system that is in error. For what I believe doesn't make me 'angry' at those that believe differently. It doesn't cause me to feel spite or malice or anything else. I certainly wouldn't torture or murder those that believe differently.

Good; neither would we. Indeed, my own church, as you well know, is not guilty of torture or murder.

So anyone that has a 'belief system' that allows them to develop negative emotions towards others simply because of their 'differing beliefs'? I would say that their 'belief system' is certainly due some diligent discovery. Why? Why would a 'belief system' in God or His Son cause someone to hold negative emotions towards others who do not believe in the same manner.

That would be an interesting question to ask the Arians who tried to kill St. Athanasius, and who did kill several of his laity.

I'll tell you what. If you can show me that my belief system is wrong according to the Bible, I change it. I'll follow whatever 'belief system' you can offer according to the Bible.

John 1:1-14 unambiguously declares Jesus Christ is God, and we have shown that many, many times, in discussions with you.

But would you be willing to make the same offer? If I can show you that my belief system is exactly what we have been instructed according to the Bible, would you change your 'belief system'?

Blessings,

MEC

If our beliefs were not Biblical, they would be open to reinterpretation. However, you simply can't show that the Trinity is false without discarding several key passages, or a literal interpretation of them; the J/Ws and Unitarian Universalists can attest to this.

Several "open questions" exist of we set askde holy Tradition; they include Nestorianism vs Cyrillianism, Calvinism vs. Arminianism, church polity, iconography, the acceptability of musical instruments, leavened vs. unleavened bread, and so on. However, the Trinity is not one of them. Indeed, it is one of the few things that one can actually settle definitively on sola scriptura or indeed nuda scriptura terms.

 

[nomadictheist]

Our emotions, desires, cravings, memories, thoughts, reasoning, and so forth, are all in our brain. They may be in different locations of the brain, if that's what you mean. Our flesh can have cravings. If we do drugs, our brain/flesh can develop cravings for a drug. We get hungry, our brain/flesh tells us it wants food. We can put thoughts together, and choose if we do, or don't eat. How we think molds our character. How, and what we think is who we are, and who we become. It's what we occupy our minds with, if we occupy it with good, then we are good, if bad, then bad.

God does not have flesh, that urges Him to eat, He is not tempted by anything. God cannot be tempted.

So, I'm not sure where your going with this, or what this has to do with the word/spirit becoming flesh.

Obviously God planed Jesus' life, He had it written out in a book, what he would say and do, before he was born, for he also says, you loved me before the foundation of the world. Some how, I don't know how, I don't know how Gods spirit works in this fashion, other then the spirit/power came upon Mary, God put His character in Christ. Jesus had a good character, and as he grew, that character grew even stronger, and resisted temptation. But even Jesus said, “Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.” All the good Jesus was/is, came from the Father.

That word/life/spirit was with God, and was God, and He (word/life/spirit) became flesh (Jesus.) He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him – recall it was the Father in Jesus doing the works, and you seen me you seen the Father. This is what Jesus meant, when saying, he was before Abraham. He is talking about that life that came down from heaven.

Jesus doesn't say "I was before Abraham." He says, "before Abraham was, I am." The phrasing is very important, and the Jews certainly didn't miss its significance. Just like they didn't miss the significance of the "Son of Man" (see Daniel if you're not clear on the importance of this). Many people believe this is just a reference by Jesus to the fact that He is human, but this is in fact a reference to the prophecies of Daniel.

The point remains that our thoughts come from us. Whether you call the heart the mind or not (which, as I have pointed out, the New Testament does not), the thoughts which "proceed from" this mind/heart are not us, nor were they us. They are a part of us, just as the sin nature is a part of us. Yet neither they nor the sin nature are us, else our resurrection into incorruptible bodies would be impossible.

I highly doubt that you would argue that my hand is me. It is part of me - it is a part of my physical body, and therefore a part of me. It can produce all kinds of things, which also are not me. Yet if I lose my hands I don't lose me. My hand is part of me, but it's not me. My eye is part of me, but it's not me. My thoughts are part of me, but they're not me.

Would you also declare God to be evil? He is omniscient - He foreknew, and therefore "thought about" - the existence of evil in the world. Does this mean that evil is also a part of God?

You are casting a human understanding onto a Biblical text. The Bible never says that God's word is God. The Bible never says that God's thoughts are God. The Bible never says that "the Word" became the earth, the sun, the moon, the stars, or any other physical entity (save Jesus, who was not solely a physical entity). You infer all of this from your need to reconcile the nature of the one God with our finite capability of understanding the concept of "being." But casting the verses in this interpretation robs the Word of His glory (not in any literal sense, since no man can deny Christ His glory or rob Him of it, but in the sense that the Christ you now preach does not have the glory of the Word).

What does it mean to be fully God and fully man? I don't know. My finite mind cannot comprehend this apparent paradox. But that doesn't mean that I deny it. What does it mean for one God to exist as three "persons," who can even will differently? I don't know. My finite mind can't comprehend this apparent paradox. But that doesn't mean that I can deny it. When I start denying God's word to satisfy my own understanding, I make a new gospel that was preached by neither Jesus nor the apostles.

 

[Imagican]

nomadictheist,

Actually, if you read what the Jews took Christ's words to mean, they did indeed take them to mean that "I existed before Abraham".

John 8:

56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.

57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?

58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

59 Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

And not 'just' the Jews, what I see when I read these words are exactly the same: "Before Abraham was, (get it? Before Abraham existed), I am".

Those that insist that these words are an indication that Christ is calling Himself: "I Am" are really 'pushing it' pretty hard. For even those that translated the Bible didn't feel that way and they too were 'trinitarians'. If they had felt that the 'I am' that Jesus used was meant to be a 'proper noun', I can assure you that they would have capitalized it. They didn't. So you trying to indicate otherwise is quite a stretch. The 'a' in 'am' is 'not' capitalized because those that translated the words did 'not' see them as Christ 'calling Himself THE I Am'. Plain and simple.

He said what He said, "Before Abraham 'was', I am". Pretty simple really. And you're right. How these words are offered does have significance. But it is 'you' and others that insist He is calling Himself God that err.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[nomadictheist]

nomadictheist,

Actually, if you read what the Jews took Christ's words to mean, they did indeed take them to mean that "I existed before Abraham".

John 8:

56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.

57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?

58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

59 Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

And not 'just' the Jews, what I see when I read these words are exactly the same: "Before Abraham was, (get it? Before Abraham existed), I am".

Those that insist that these words are an indication that Christ is calling Himself: "I Am" are really 'pushing it' pretty hard. For even those that translated the Bible didn't feel that way and they too were 'trinitarians'. If they had felt that the 'I am' that Jesus used was meant to be a 'proper noun', I can assure you that they would have capitalized it. They didn't. So you trying to indicate otherwise is quite a stretch. The 'a' in 'am' is 'not' capitalized because those that translated the words did 'not' see them as Christ 'calling Himself THE I Am'. Plain and simple.

He said what He said, "Before Abraham 'was', I am". Pretty simple really. And you're right. How these words are offered does have significance. But it is 'you' and others that insist He is calling Himself God that err.

Blessings,

MEC

If that's what the Jews understood, then why did you have to go backwards in the conversation to arrive at that conclusion?

Here's the conversation (recap, paraphrased):

Jesus "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day; and he saw it, and was glad."
Jews "What? You're not even 50 yet, and you've seen Abraham?"
Jesus "Truly I say to you, before Abraham was, I am"
Jews... pick up stones to stone him

Notice how their understanding that He claimed to have existed before/at the same time as Abraham occurred before He uttered those words? Notice how their response to those words was to pick up stones to stone Him? I wonder why they would do that? Maybe because He was declaring Himself to be God, and thus committing blasphemy in their minds?

Again, the phrasing is very important. The change from the past to the present tense is significant. Jesus didn't say "Before Abraham was, I was." He said "Before Abraham was, I am." The Jews understood the significance of this phrasing. That's why they picked up stones to stone Him.

Additionally, the translators of the King James Version were heavily influenced by the vulgate, which was heavily influenced by the septuagint, which was (as noted before) not translated from the Hebrew until almost 200 years after John's gospel was written. The septuagint translates the Hebrew phrase "ehyeh asher ehyeh" as "ego eimi ho on," which in English is translated "I am the one that is." The septuagint further uses "ho on" as the translation of "ehyeh" in the next portion of the passage, where God instructs Moses to tell the Israelites that "ehyeh" sent him. Keep in mind that this septuagint was written well after John's gospel, as well as the fact that Jesus was speaking Hebrew and not the Greek in which the book is recorded (Greek being the written language of the time). Therefore, Jesus response would have actually been "Before Abraham was, ehyeh" and not "Before Abraham was, ego eimi." (I left the first portion of the phrase in English because the Greek/Hebrew of that portion is not highly debated).

Can we say for certain that Jesus was claiming the divine title? No, but there is evidence that the Jews believed so. Based on John's frequent references to Jesus' deity, there is also evidence that John himself believed this to be the case.

Once again, if this were the only reference to Jesus' deity, I would say that you have a strong point. But taken with John 1, which clearly and unambiguously declares Jesus to be God, as well as other verses where Jesus and God are used interchangeably by the apostles, making it clear that they believed Jesus to be God (and let's not forget Genesis 1: let us create man in our own image... so God created man in his own image. In the image of God he created them..."), as well as the statement of Jesus that "all things were created by Him and for Him..." (Colossians 1).

 

[Imagican]

If that's what the Jews understood, then why did you have to go backwards in the conversation to arrive at that conclusion?

Here's the conversation (recap, paraphrased):

Jesus "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day; and he saw it, and was glad."
Jews "What? You're not even 50 yet, and you've seen Abraham?"
Jesus "Truly I say to you, before Abraham was, I am"
Jews... pick up stones to stone him

Notice how their understanding that He claimed to have existed before/at the same time as Abraham occurred before He uttered those words? Notice how their response to those words was to pick up stones to stone Him? I wonder why they would do that? Maybe because He was declaring Himself to be God, and thus committing blasphemy in their minds?

No. He was declaring that He existed thousands of years 'before' the conversation.

Now, what would you think if someone, (what you perceived to be merely a 'man'), stated that they had existed 'before' someone who lived thousands of years before? God was never mentioned in this conversation.

They picked up stones to throw at Him because they perceived Him to be a 'liar'. Not because they perceived Him claiming to be God. That's all in 'your' imagination. If He had claimed to 'be God', they wouldn't have just 'picked up' stones to throw at Him, they would have thrown those stones until He was ''dead''.

Again, the phrasing is very important. The change from the past to the present tense is significant. Jesus didn't say "Before Abraham was, I was." He said "Before Abraham was, I am." The Jews understood the significance of this phrasing. That's why they picked up stones to stone Him.

You have absolutely no basis for this statement. Purely 'self interpretation'. No evidence whatsoever. Nothing about them recognizing such is even mentioned or alluded to. Once again, if they believed the offering to be Christ claiming to be God, they wouldn't have merely picked up stones, they would have been throwing them at Him until He was dead.

Additionally, the translators of the King James Version were heavily influenced by the vulgate, which was heavily influenced by the septuagint, which was (as noted before) not translated from the Hebrew until almost 200 years after John's gospel was written. The septuagint translates the Hebrew phrase "ehyeh asher ehyeh" as "ego eimi ho on," which in English is translated "I am the one that is." The septuagint further uses "ho on" as the translation of "ehyeh" in the next portion of the passage, where God instructs Moses to tell the Israelites that "ehyeh" sent him. Keep in mind that this septuagint was written well after John's gospel, as well as the fact that Jesus was speaking Hebrew and not the Greek in which the book is recorded (Greek being the written language of the time). Therefore, Jesus response would have actually been "Before Abraham was, ehyeh" and not "Before Abraham was, ego eimi." (I left the first portion of the phrase in English because the Greek/Hebrew of that portion is not highly debated).

You know, I really couldn't care less about arguments over the translation. Either God has preserved His Word or He hasn't. And it is my firm belief that anyone that doubts Him having the power, doesn't really believe He has the power. I have no such doubts.

So your attempt, and others, to insist that one needs to 'go back' to what doesn't exist, (original writings), in order to 'find the truth'? No thanks. If you feel the need, by all means. But I refuse to 'buy in' to that argument.

I 'know' this: If those that translated the Bible, being trinitarians themselves, felt that Christ was using the 'I am' as a proper noun, they would most certainly have capitalized the 'a'. They didn't. So that means that they weren't even bold enough to take it upon themselves to believe Christ was identifying Himself as THE: "I Am".

Jesus didn't offer His words to scholars and the rich. The overwhelming majority of those He spoke to were ignorant poor people. To think that it takes a 'rocket scientist' or 'expert' in Latin or Greek to find the message we are meant to have????? Come now.

It is my opinion that Christ gave us fair warning against those that would insist upon interpreting the truth through their 'own wisdom'.

Can we say for certain that Jesus was claiming the divine title? No, but there is evidence that the Jews believed so. Based on John's frequent references to Jesus' deity, there is also evidence that John himself believed this to be the case.

It's 'only' evidence if you choose to place upon the words preconceived notions. I have 'never' perceived nor been led to believe what you say is 'obvious' in it's intent. And I have been studying the Bible for well over twenty years. Have read it more times than I can remember. The entire book. I have read the NT in parts or pieces and in it's entirety probably five times as much as the rest of the Book.

To me, there is 'no' evidence that presents itself in the manner you say it does to you.

And even what we 'are' offered concerning the accusations of the Jews, never do they accuse Him of claiming to 'be' God. They accused Him of trying to make Himself 'equal' to God. And we 'know' that these were 'false accusations'. For Christ stated openly that the Father is GREATER than the Son.

Once again, if this were the only reference to Jesus' deity, I would say that you have a strong point. But taken with John 1, which clearly and unambiguously declares Jesus to be God, as well as other verses where Jesus and God are used interchangeably by the apostles, making it clear that they believed Jesus to be God (and let's not forget Genesis 1: let us create man in our own image... so God created man in his own image. In the image of God he created them..."), as well as the statement of Jesus that "all things were created by Him and for Him..." (Colossians 1).

Once again: No. Only if you insist that the word 'Word' is a proper noun. I do not agree with the supposition that it deserves the capital letter attached to it. For it is my firm belief that the word "Word" is not a proper noun. The first verses of John are referring to God's Word. Not Christ. You know, like when 'you speak' it is 'your word'. We know that the beginning of the Bible offers that God 'spoke creation into existence': "God said, "Let there be light". It wasn't until it was time for man to be created that we have the words, "Let 'us' create man in 'our' image". Previous to that only God Himself was mentioned.

You say that Christ has always existed as a 'third person' that makes up one God. I disagree. I believe exactly as those God revealed Himself to for thousands of years before Christ was introduced. There is only 'one' God and that God is un-compounded as introduced and followed from the 'beginning' of Him introducing Himself to His creation.

And I believe in the words of Christ that state without confusion: He was 'sent' by God. He was 'not' God sent by God. But the Son of God sent by God His Father. That's what the Bible says. And that is 'the' God that has introduced Himself to me personally. He is not divided into three parts. He is one. Christ is not a 'third part' of God. He is the Son of God just like He said He is. And He is exactly who the apostles said He was/is as well: The Son of the Living God. If they had believed Christ to 'be God', (including John), they wouldn't have made vague references to something 'possible', they would have stated it outright like everything else they wished to teach those they were entrusted to teach the 'truth'. They would not have left it up to philosopher and mystics to 'discover' hundreds of years after the death of Christ.

All things were created by God. All things were not created by Christ. We know this. So it's obviously meant to be interpreted differently than you have come to insist. God was not created by Christ. So 'all things' were 'not' created by Christ.

In the beginning, God said. It does not say 'let us' or 'we said'. It states: God said. That was/is God's Word. The means He chose to communicate His wishes or His will upon the universe.

Christ stated that the words He delivered were 'not His own' but given Him by Him who sent Him: His Father: GOD. If Christ 'were THE Word', then it would be impossible for Him to say His words were 'not His own'. Get it? If He were THE Word, then certainly the words He offered 'would' have not only 'been His own', He would have 'been those very words'.

Blessings,

MEC