Non-Trinitarianism is unscriptural

[Imagican]

I agree and I think it OBVIOUS why I made the remark. If an evil spirit may be what's leading ME, I feel it only prudent to point out that I have no reason to believe that the opposite may just as well be TRUE.

But you are CORRECT, I don't think that ANYONE should make such accusations against others. But I also don't think anyone should do LOTS of things that once done, opens up the DOOR for others to react in the SAME MANNER.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Imagican]

John 1:1-14, Matthew 28:19, and a plethora of other verses provided by @Der Alter and other members.

Note by the way, in providing these verses, I am not wishing to imply that any member has been misled by an evil spirit. That would be the sort of inflammatory remark that I believe we should stay away from as much as possible.

Already pointed out over and over that John 1 makes not a SINGLE allusion to 'trinity'. You keep saying it does, but in TRUTH, not a single word of John 1 mentions anything of the sort. It can be interpreted to mean MANY things, but the LEAST of which is 'trinity'.

And you continually indicate that 'scripture' DEFINES 'trinity' when the creators of 'trinity' themselves openly admit that it MUST be divinely revealed and even THEN remains a mystery. So your attempt to SAY that John 1 defines 'trinity' is contrary to the explanation offered by the Catholic Church itself.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Wgw]

I find it absolutely amazing how LITTLE most KNOW about 'trinity'. They insist that it's ALL important in understanding but don't have the FIRST clue as to what it IS.

The Trinitarian members of this thread have been consistent in their approach to it.

Ask a HUNDRED different people to explain 'trinity' and you'll get a HUNDRED DIFFERENT replies. As if there are a HUNDRED DIFFERENT 'trinities'. Are there REALLY a HUNDRED DIFFERENT 'three part gods' out there? or a thousand. or a MILLION?

This argument is simply wrong,mand we have been over this before. Once again, there are only two officially sanctioned doctrines of the Trinity one will encounter in a mainstream church: the Western filioque model, and the Eastern/Oriental/Assyrian model.

I've asked over and over to be SHOWN the scriptures that define 'trinity' and has of yet been ignored. John 1: doesn't speak ONE WORD of 'trinity'.

Which is irrelevant, as we have shown.

Doesn't even MENTION the Holy Spirit.

Indeed, but we can derive the dicinity of the Spirit from other passages in John and elsewhere, and then regard them as one God on the basis of Matthew 28:19, et cetera.

All it indicates is that the word of God, God's WORD became 'flesh'. And if we take the rest of the body of scripture into consideration, we KNOW that the Son was sent to DELIVER God's WORD. And openly admitted Himself that the words He spoke were not HIS, but GIVEN Him to deliver to us. If He WERE the Word as proposed, He could not say this. For if He WERE the Word of God, then the words He spoke WOULD HAVE BELONGED to HIM.

Ah, but here, you once again miss the point. John 1:1 says "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Word, singular, not words. And indeed, that which our Lord spoke did belong to Him by virtue of His Godhood, but not to Him according solely to His person or incarnation. The Word was with God, and the Word was God. And the Word became flesh. Not, the deliverer of the words, but The Word, by whom all things were made.

So your exegesis, which you have regaled us with before, is simply wrong, since the text does not begin to say what you suggest it does.

So I'll ask again for those that profess 'trinity', how about some scripture to back it up. Show us WHERE in scripture 'trinity' is DEFINED. Otherwise ADMIT IT: there is NO scripture that defines 'trinity'. It is a man made concept whether TRUE or FALSE. But a concept NEVER delivered or taught by the apostles or Christ Himself.

To be frank, I think all we really need is John 1:1. Of course, Matthew 28:19 also helps, and of course, numerous other verses across the whole of Scripture support this doctrine. However thus far you haven't gotten past John 1:1, which seems to be an insurmountable obstacle for non-Trinitarians.

Which is doubtless why we are instead alleged to have poisoned Arius in a city he never visited.

 

[Wgw]

Already pointed out over and over that John 1 makes not a SINGLE allusion to 'trinity'. You keep saying it does, but in TRUTH, not a single word of John 1 mentions anything of the sort. It can be interpreted to mean MANY things, but the LEAST of which is 'trinity'.

Actually, you have simply shown a disregard for John 1:1. "The Word was God." Not, "The words were God's words." Et cetera.

And you continually indicate that 'scripture' DEFINES 'trinity' when the creators of 'trinity' themselves openly admit that it MUST be divinely revealed and even THEN remains a mystery. So your attempt to SAY that John 1 defines 'trinity' is contrary to the explanation offered by the Catholic Church itself.

Once again, the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia, which was in its day a commercial publication, does not speak for the Roman Catholic Church in any official capacity. Although if it did, it still would not matter, given that the Arian schism primarily affected the Orthodox churches of the near East and Africa. And I am a member of one of those churches.

 

[YHWH's Lion]

That is because the Father is not a physical entity, He is Spirit and that is why scripture states that at no time has anyone seen the Father. (John 1:18, John 6:46)

The Father is a spirit, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a shape/image (in which we were made) that he takes in a spiritual form. As to the comment "no one has ever seen the Father", the word is G3708 and it can also mean "to discern clearly, to experience" if we look at these verses this way instead, than there is now reason why Daniel or John or Moses couldn't have actually seen the Father.

Did not Abraham who dined with the Angel of the Lord call him Lord. Who wrestled with Jacob the Father or the Angel of Yahweh's presence?

No the bible does NOT say Abraham dined with the Angel of LORD(YHWH), Abraham dined with 3 men, one of which he called LORD(YHWH) never Angel of LORD(YHWH)
As for Jacob, the bible says Jacob wrestled with a man (at best an Angel), the bible does not say he wrestled with Angel of LORD(YHWH).

The Jewish talk of someone taking something from someone's right hand is highlighting authority in his stead.

Thats great, and maybe it can mean that SOMETIMES, but you have no authority to say that means that ALWAYS.

Take for example the description of the Father (Ancient of Days) in Daniel 7:9-10 and ask yourself whether the author Daniel is actually seeing the Father (Ancient of Days) in a vision or that he is pictorially portraying the Father's character/personality through pictorial queues.
If I were to draw your conclusions exegetically then I can also make the following assertion with the verse below......
Is he a bird! Hmmmm..........

If you take the scripture of Daniel seeing the Father(ancient of days) the way it reads (without interpreting it to mean something else (because you have no authority or reason to do so) than it is pretty clear that he is describing what he sees. As for the Father being a bird, thats just silly. You can clearly see when the bible is being symbolic ( beasts in revelation, beasts in daniel, covering you with his feathers etc.) other times it is clear the bible is not being symbolic, and perhaps other times it is not clear whether it is being symbolic or not. Choosing to interpret the verses that speak about Daniel describing the Ancient of Days AND the Son of Man, or John describing the one that sits on the throne AND the Lamb taking the book from his hand, in a symbolic way is claiming to have the authority to take any verse that is clear and say it is symbolic.

Because the Father doesn't need a literal throne to sit on, to coordinate and run his creation, neither does he need a literal book to take down notes in case he forgets. Hmmmmm........
Do you realise what you are saying?
I am not imposing anything upon The Father. In fact I don't impose that he is required to be a material being of some sort, nor do I impose that he requires a literal throne to sit on in order to run the show, neither do I impose that he needs a literal book so that he can remember what he has written in it.
You see the only imposition upon God that is being made, is by you!

Excuse me? YOU are saying that:
"Father doesn't need a literal throne to sit on, to coordinate and run his creation, neither does he need a literal book to take down notes in case he forgets"

I am not saying anything, i am showing what the Scriptures are saying. You dont like what they are saying and are choosing to twist them in order to line them up with some idea you have. One again you are claiming to have the authority and knowledge to know that the Father does not have a throne and a book, when scriptures says otherwise.
Just because you THINK that he doesn't need either, that doesn't mean that he doesn't have both.

 

[Der Alte]

I find it absolutely amazing how LITTLE most KNOW about 'trinity'. They insist that it's ALL important in understanding but don't have the FIRST clue as to what it IS. Ask a HUNDRED different people to explain 'trinity' and you'll get a HUNDRED DIFFERENT replies. As if there are a HUNDRED DIFFERENT 'trinities'. Are there REALLY a HUNDRED DIFFERENT 'three part gods' out there? or a thousand. or a MILLION?

I've asked over and over to be SHOWN the scriptures that define 'trinity' and has of yet been ignored. John 1: doesn't speak ONE WORD of 'trinity'. Doesn't even MENTION the Holy Spirit. All it indicates is that the word of God, God's WORD became 'flesh'. And if we take the rest of the body of scripture into consideration, we KNOW that the Son was sent to DELIVER God's WORD. And openly admitted Himself that the words He spoke were not HIS, but GIVEN Him to deliver to us. If He WERE the Word as proposed, He could not say this. For if He WERE the Word of God, then the words He spoke WOULD HAVE BELONGED to HIM.

So I'll ask again for those that profess 'trinity', how about some scripture to back it up. Show us WHERE in scripture 'trinity' is DEFINED. Otherwise ADMIT IT: there is NO scripture that defines 'trinity'. It is a man made concept whether TRUE or FALSE. But a concept NEVER delivered or taught by the apostles or Christ Himself.
Blessings,
MEC

This line of argument is not unlike the argument "Homosexuality is not prohibited in scripture. Show me the word 'homosexual' in the Bible." Eleven passages, from the list of 86, below, which reveal the Triunity of God. Each passage shows Father, Son, and Holy Spirit having a different relationship, effect, role, purpose, etc., with respect to believers.

For example, #1, Titus 3:4, believers are SAVED BY Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, all three. not just one. We are SAVED BY,
1. the kindness and love of God our Savior,
2., by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost, shed on us abundantly
3. through Jesus Christ our Saviour, all three..

(1.) Tit 3:4 But after that the kindness and love of [1] God our Saviour toward man appeared,
5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of [2]the Holy Ghost;
6 Which he [3] shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;

(2.) 2 Co 13:14 [1] The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and [2]the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, [3]be with you all. Amen.

(3.) Jud 1:20 But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, [1] praying in the Holy Ghost,
21 Keep yourselves [2]in the love of God, looking for [3] the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.

(4.) 1 Pet 1:2 Elect according to [1] the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of [2] the Spirit, [Repeated three times, cf. 2 Th 2.13, Ro 15:16] unto obedience and [3] sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: [Repeated twice, cf. Heb 9.14] Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

(5.) Luk 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, [1] The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and [2] the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing, which shall be born of thee shall be called [3] the Son of God,.

(6.) Act 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be [1] baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive [2] the gift of the Holy Ghost,.
39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as [3] the Lord our God shall call,.

(7.) Rom 15:16 That I should be [1] the minister of Jesus Christ, to the Gentiles, ministering [2]the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being [3] sanctified by the Holy Ghost,.

(8.) Rom 15:12 And again, Esaias saith, There shall be [1] a root of Jesse,, and he, that shall rise to reign over the Gentiles; in him, shall the Gentiles trust.
13 Now [2] the God of hope, fill you with all joy and peace in believing, that ye may abound in hope, through [3] the power of the Holy Ghost,.

(9.) Heb 9.14 How much more, then, will [1] the blood of Christ, who [2] through the eternal Spirit, offered himself unblemished [3] to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!,

(10.) 2 Thess 2.13 But we ought always to [1] thank God, for you, brothers loved by the Lord, because from the beginning God, chose you to be saved through [2] the sanctifying work of the Spirit, and through belief in the truth.
14 He called you to this through our gospel, that you might [3] share in the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ,.

(11.) I Cor 12.3 Therefore I tell you that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus be cursed," and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit.
4 There are [1] different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit.,
5 There are [2] different kinds of service, but the same Lord.,
6 There are [3] different kinds of working, but the same God, works all of them in all men.

The Gospels and Acts
Mat 1:18-22, Mat 3:9-11, Mat 3:16-17, Mat 4:1-4, Mat 10:19-23, Mat 12:28, Mat 28:19, Mark 12:35-37, Lk 1:15-17, Lk 1:30-35 *, Lk 1:67-69, Lk 2:25-32, Lk 4:12-13, Lk 10:21, Lk 12:8-10, Jn 1:32-34, Jn 3:31-35, Jn 14:15-17, Jn 14:25, Jn 15:26, Jn 16:7-10, Jn 16:13-15, Jn 20:16-22, Acts 1:4-5, Acts 1:7-8, Acts 2:32-33, Acts 2:38-39*, Acts 4:8-10, Acts 4:24-26, Act 4:29-31, Acts 5:30-32, Acts 7:51-56, Acts 8:14-17, Acts 9:15-20 Acts 10:38, Acts 11:15-17, Acts 11:23-24, Acts 15:7-11, Acts 16:6-10, Acts 20:22-24, Acts 28:23-25.

The Pauline writings
Rom 1:1-4, Rom 5:1-5, Rom 8:9-11, Rom 8:13-16, Rom 8:26-29, Rom 15:12-13*, Rom 15:16*, , Rom 14:15-17, Rom 15:16, Rom 15:18-19, Rom 15:30, I Cor 2:8-10, I Cor 2:14-16, I Cor 6:9-11, I Cor 6:14-19, I Cor 12:3-5*, 2 Cor 1:20-22, 2 Cor 3:3-4, 2 Cor 13:14*, Gal 3:1-5, Gal 4:4-6, Gal 5:21-25, Eph 2:17-18, Eph 3:14-17, Eph 4:4-6, Eph 4:30-32, Eph 5:18-20, Phil 3:3, I Thess 1:4-6, 2 Thess 2:13-14*, I Tim 3:15-16, Titus 3:4-6.*

The General Epistles
Heb 2:3-4; Heb 6:3-6; Heb 9:14*; Heb 10:29-31; I Pet 1:2; * I Pet 3:18; I Pet 4:14; I Jn 3:21-24; I Jn 4:13-14; I Jn 5:6-9; Jud 1:20-21*.

Revelation
Rev 14:12-13, Rev 22:17-18,​

 

[Wgw]

No the bible does NOT say Abraham dined with the Angel of LORD(YHWH), Abraham dined with 3 men, one of which he called LORD(YHWH) never Angel of LORD(YHWH)
As for Jacob, the bible says Jacob wrestled with a man (at best an Angel), the bible does not say he wrestled with Angel of LORD(YHWH).


Thats great, and maybe it can mean that SOMETIMES, but you have no authority to say that means that ALWAYS.

If you take the scripture of Daniel seeing the Father(ancient of days) the way it reads (without interpreting it to mean something else (because you have no authority or reason to do so) than it is pretty clear that he is describing what he sees. As for the Father being a bird, thats just silly. You can clearly see when the bible is being symbolic ( beasts in revelation, beasts in daniel, covering you with his feathers etc.) other times it is clear the bible is not being symbolic, and perhaps other times it is not clear whether it is being symbolic or not. Choosing to interpret the verses that speak about Daniel describing the Ancient of Days AND the Son of Man, or John describing the one that sits on the throne AND the Lamb taking the book from his hand, in a symbolic way is claiming to have the authority to take any verse that is clear and say it is symbolic.


Excuse me? YOU are saying that:
"Father doesn't need a literal throne to sit on, to coordinate and run his creation, neither does he need a literal book to take down notes in case he forgets"

I am not saying anything, i am showing what the Scriptures are saying. You dont like what they are saying and are choosing to twist them in order to line them up with some idea you have. One again you are claiming to have the authority and knowledge to know that the Father does not have a throne and a book, when scriptures says otherwise.
Just because you THINK that he doesn't need either, that doesn't mean that he doesn't have both.

Note that on the Scriptural Nt basis that the Father is invisible except through our Lord, I have seen it well argued in Orthodox circles that The Ancient of Days is a Christophany.

 

[YHWH's Lion]

Note that on the Scriptural Nt basis that the Father is invisible except through our Lord, I have seen it well argued in Orthodox circles that The Ancient of Days is a Christophany.

Are you saying that you believe that that Ancient of Days is "an appearance, or non-physical manifestation, of Christ" ?
Then the scripture would be saying in the book of Daniel that the Son of Man (Christ right?) in given dominion and glory and kingdom, from Ancient of Days (Christ?)

 

[Berean777]

Since God does not contradict Himself, I wonder who revealed this to you? There are many lying spirits giving deceptive revelations to those who will not accept Bible truth.

It really comes down to the testing of time and that goes with any doctrine or religious sects. No one can refute that the Trinitarian doctrine has stood the test of time. The church fathers who defined the trinity doctrine in the Nicene Creed are therefore vindicated.

 

[Berean777]

Are you saying that you believe that that Ancient of Days is "an appearance, or non-physical manifestation, of Christ" ?
Then the scripture would be saying in the book of Daniel that the Son of Man (Christ right?) in given dominion and glory and kingdom, from Ancient of Days (Christ?)

Daniel doesn't see the Ancient of Days, he symbolically is inferring that Christ who is the Son of Man ascended up to sit on the right hand of the Father, that is power. So Daniel's statement is the same of that in the new testament where Jesus went up to the Father to sitvon his right side', meaning the Son is now the ultimate authority in the Father's stead. That is why when Paul writes that when Christ delivers all to the Father then he becomes subject to the Father, which therefore indicates that the Christ is at the helm while the Father has taken a backseat role so to speak and all things are made subject to the Son.

 

[Berean777]

The question that I asked is if those opposed to the trinity are shown that the trinity doctrine is in fact erroneous.

I see that one person bit on, so to speak and said it has been revealed to him, but did not explain how it was revealed to him, which poses a credibility issue with that claim.

I would have expected that the Lord himself would have manifested himself to that person in a vision to identify the Lord as not being the Creator. So that would be a strong revelation or a weaker one would be to see a vision of the identity of the Lord and words spoken that he is not the God of the Bible. The third would be a vision of a power structure of God with a voice narrating it, to explain that the Lord is subordinate to another being called the Father.

As I see no evidence from this individual that he has seen nor heard, then I can only conclude that it is a private interpretation of the reading of text albeit a comprehension of the text, rather than revelation.

There is a huge difference between revelation through visions and comprehension through reading of text.

Notice experiences in the body is by no stretch of the imagination a revelation, rather it falls under the category of an individual's experiences in the absence of revelations.

How we interpret text must therefore be given to us through revelation.

 

[Berean777]

For example I saw a vision of heavenly New Jerusalem as John saw it arrayed in the colours of a rainbow. I saw it in the night sky where one half of the city covered across the northern Hemisphere and the mirror image covered the southern Hemisphere.

I saw this city appear after a blinding brilliant flash of light Big Bang that transformed the world we know.

After seeing the two equal parts heavenly city that housed the former sea (old covenant Israel) and the latter sea (new covenant Israel), then looking up from the East I saw a powerful bearded man carrying a parabolic trumpet in his right hand whikst standing on a horseless Roman fighting chariot, blow it. Once it was blown it was the loudest Bass sound I ever heard and I woke up from the vision in terror and fear.

In this regard the revelation given to me by the Lord identified him as blowing the seventh trumpet with the shout and trumpet call of God, as the head/Arch of all the angelic hosts of that city and to signal time no longer.

If I am to interpret the revelation of John I don't need to perform a comprehension of the text, rather to confirm what he saw in......Revelation 10:6 or Zechariah 14:4.

 

[YHWH's Lion]

Daniel doesn't see the Ancient of Days, he symbolically is inferring that Christ who is the Son of Man ascended up to sit on the right hand of the Father, that is power. So Daniel's statement is the same of that in the new testament where Jesus went up to the Father to sitvon his right side', meaning the Son is now the ultimate authority in the Father's stead. That is why when Paul writes that when Christ delivers all to the Father then he becomes subject to the Father, which therefore indicates that the Christ is at the helm while the Father has taken a backseat role so to speak and all things are made subject to the Son.

Ok, if you think :
"I saw in the night vision and behold one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven and came to the Ancient of days and they brought him near before him"
is Daniel not seeing the Ancient of Days, there isn't much else to discuss here.

 

[Nikti]

Note that on the Scriptural Nt basis that the Father is invisible except through our Lord, I have seen it well argued in Orthodox circles that The Ancient of Days is a Christophany.

I would love to hear the general argument of this. Any links you could share ? Or would it be possible to post a little about it?

By the way, thankyou brothers for your thorough and edifying posts on the Holy Trinity. They have been most helpful and instructive, truly appreciate being in the company of those who can help me understand more. God bless.

 

[farout]

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.

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.


John 5:16-23 clearly contradicts what you just stated. Verse 18 Jesus says He is equal with the Father. verse 19 the Son and the Father do the same things. verse 20 the Son does greater things than the Father. verse 23 that anyone who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father.

No human can explain the Trinity. You can make all kinds of examples, and they do not work. We accept the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit by Faith. We walk by faith not sight. Each personhood of the Trinity is equally God and all are one, yet all are separate. Who can truly understand? I am so limited in my understanding of the Trinity. I do know to reject one is to reject the other two. I believe a person who rejects the Trinity, has to answer to the LORD and it is there wher that person stands or falls. I can only read and trust the WORD of the LORD.
Blessings,

MEC

 

[Berean777]

Ok, if you think :
"I saw in the night vision and behold one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven and came to the Ancient of days and they brought him near before him"
is Daniel not seeing the Ancient of Days, there isn't much else to discuss here.

You see people this is the problem, that is, when individuals start to delve in private interpretations of the text, it becomes a hit and miss affair. These private interpretations become more or less a comprehension exercising of the text.

The difference between being revealed something by revelation as opposed to guesstimating something by one's own private comprehension of the text is what is in discussion here.

The question that I poised previously is, if there are people out there that can through revelatory visions disprove the trinity passed down by the fathers of faith and as written in the Nicene Creed?

Let me be the first to prove by revelatory vision that the trinity is factual and correct as part of the Christian Faith to knowing the God of the Bible.

In a vision I was brought before the Lord Christ Jesus and his appearance was that as explained by the disciples on the mount of transfiguration. I was kneeling at his feet, with no words being exchanged, all I felt was blissful love coming from him and being projected to me. I was broken like I have never been, at his feet both my eyes were continuously tearing like two rivers and as I kneeled before his feet, I knew in my whole being, that he is the glorious being, my Creator and thereby I experienced through him the invisible Father and I could not tell the difference between him as the visible Son nor the invisible Father. I saw the Father in him and I realised that I was before the God of creation, the Almighty God Yahweh. As I was kneeling at his feet, I saw that he wore laced sandels and was wearing a brilliantly white robe from his feet, all the way to his neck. As I looked up to try and get a glimpse of his face, fighting back the rivers of tears unrelentingly flowing, I saw a brilliance like the sun that did not hurt my eyes, as he was described by the disciples on the mount of transfiguration. Upon awakening from the vision to a beautiful sunny morning, I immediately felt a sense of emptiness that I never felt in my whole life and all I wanted is to be in his presence forever.

Those that deny that the risen Lord Christ Jesus is the God of the Bible are relying solely on their own private interpretations in the absence of revelation and also are rejecting the church fathers who should be used as guides to the faith once given to the saints. Those that rely on the self to interpret scripture are swimming in the middle of an ocean with no land in site. I can only feel for those individuals who continually argue and contend and at the end of the day, all they are doing is arguing with God and this is something that they will give an answer to after they die and are presented before the Lord for judgment.

 

[Berean777]

The Father is a spirit, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a shape/image (in which we were made) that he takes in a spiritual form. As to the comment "no one has ever seen the Father", the word is G3708 and it can also mean "to discern clearly, to experience" if we look at these verses this way instead, than there is now reason why Daniel or John or Moses couldn't have actually seen the Father.

The request that Phillip asked of Jesus was to see the invisible Father and the response was to not look beyond the visible Son, for in him dwells all the Godhead bodily (Colossians 2:9), that includes the Father and in this respect when you see the visible Son, you are also seeing the invisible Father being projected one to one through him. (Hebrews 1:3)

Here is the witness of scripture and my own testimony of seeing the invisible Father in post #616, through the visible Son. The visible Yahweh and the invisible Yahweh are the same one infinite being/substance who is Spirit. No one has ever seen the invisible Yahweh, not even the Angels in heaven.

No the bible does NOT say Abraham dined with the Angel of LORD(YHWH), Abraham dined with 3 men, one of which he called LORD(YHWH) never Angel of LORD(YHWH)
As for Jacob, the bible says Jacob wrestled with a man (at best an Angel), the bible does not say he wrestled with Angel of LORD(YHWH).

If you read the whole story, you will come to the knowledge that the Angel that Abraham called Lord and whom he worshipped, sent the two angels ahead of him to the two cities. After this Angel who is called Lord comes and then calls down fire from Yahweh. In scripture many scholars agree that the rendering of the words are as follows : "Yahweh called down fire from Yahweh".

As for Jacob he also wrestled with the same Angel called Lord and that this Angel names him Israel, where by all of Jacobs seed and the entire biblical concept of inheritance grew from the WORDS (LOGOS Word that is) that the Angel of the Lord (visible Yahweh) imparted onto Jacob by not only changing his name but also making his seed the children of the promise.

Therefore the Angel of the Lord is called the Angel of Yahweh's presence who is the visible image of the invisible Yahweh, the Christ/Son. (Hebrews 1:3, Colossians 2:9)

Thats great, and maybe it can mean that SOMETIMES, but you have no authority to say that means that ALWAYS.

Scriptural context has! if we aspire to consistently stay in context and not to deflect to something else that has no Jewish etymology in ancient Hebrew language context.

If you take the scripture of Daniel seeing the Father(ancient of days) the way it reads (without interpreting it to mean something else (because you have no authority or reason to do so) than it is pretty clear that he is describing what he sees. As for the Father being a bird, thats just silly. You can clearly see when the bible is being symbolic ( beasts in revelation, beasts in daniel, covering you with his feathers etc.) other times it is clear the bible is not being symbolic, and perhaps other times it is not clear whether it is being symbolic or not. Choosing to interpret the verses that speak about Daniel describing the Ancient of Days AND the Son of Man, or John describing the one that sits on the throne AND the Lamb taking the book from his hand, in a symbolic way is claiming to have the authority to take any verse that is clear and say it is symbolic.

If you were to consider the Invisible Father having a physical image for a human like Daniel to see and comprehend, then you should not see another witness saying the following......

John 5:37
And the Father who sent me has himself testified concerning me. You have never heard his voice nor seen his form,

John not only declares before th Pharisees who searched the scriptures that no one has seen the Father, but that they never heard his voice.

Scripture declares only two persons hearing from the Father.

John 6:46
No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father.

And

John 1:18
No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

As the Nicene Creed states that the Father and the Son are the one in the same substance which is why the Son can see and hear the Father. Just like humans who are the same substance can see and hear each other, whereas an ant for example being a different substance can't see nor hear humans. Since there is only one Godbeing then God is only one in the singular substance and not many like humans or other created substances having the same nature. God's nature is outside of his material creation and therefore is immaterial and timeless as the first and last of his kind, the alpha and omega, the I Am. He just is. Jesus is the same today, yesterday and tomorrow, where the author is implying he just is, the I Am, who is declared as the one being, who is three in persona's.

Finally..... The other person who hears from the Father is.........

John 16:13
Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

In conclusion there is no way that Daniel saw or heard from the Ancient of Days, rather he is looking at the image of the Son of Man and he is projecting that same image to the Father to support the trinity doctrine that there are in fact an interaction between two personalities, that is, the Father (Ancient of Days) and the Son.

Daniel projects th characteristics of the visible Yahweh (The Son) to the invisible Yahweh (Father).

This is the same statement as the New Testament one found in...........

John 20:17
Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'"

If Daniel was living in our modern times, then he would have put it verbatim according to the language Jesus used.

Excuse me? YOU are saying that:
"Father doesn't need a literal throne to sit on, to coordinate and run his creation, neither does he need a literal book to take down notes in case he forgets"

I am not saying anything, i am showing what the Scriptures are saying. You dont like what they are saying and are choosing to twist them in order to line them up with some idea you have. One again you are claiming to have the authority and knowledge to know that the Father does not have a throne and a book, when scriptures says otherwise.
Just because you THINK that he doesn't need either, that doesn't mean that he doesn't have both.

If we try and impose our human ways on God by picturing an earthly King sitting on a throne because we desire to see a physical being, who is paraded before our eyes delight, then it's not going to happen with God. God reigns supreme without needing to have a throne on display to his creation, for people to say look his throne, or a book in his hand to say look the book.

God is the Creator and so as the Creator the purpose is him. I repeat the purpose is him, so he doesn't need the tools of the trade like a literal throne or a literal book. In effect as creatd beings we need a chair and we need a book to write on as material beings. We need created tools to function. The word is to function, that is to be seated, we need a chair or some type of flat flooring or something flat to sit on. We need a book to write on as a function of keeping notes. For God the Creator to use materials outside of his being, in order to function is a no no. In fact God would be lowering himself if he created a throne for him to sit and a literal book to write on. It would even be an idol if it was placed on display as such.

In short God doesn't need tools to function, he just is, the I Am. He makes tools for us to function and it would be incorrect of thinking that God needs a literal throne to sit on or a literal book to write on.

 

[Job8]

Has God revealed 'trinity' to YOU?

Sure He has, through the words of Christ (Matthew 28:19, and the authenticity of this Scripture has never been doubted or questioned): Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: This is a solemn pronouncement over each person who is baptized.

You will notice that "name" is singular, since that is the name of God (YAHWEH or YHWH).

The Father is God, and there are numerous Scriptures that speak of "God the Father".

The Son is God, and there are numerous Scriptures that reveal this truth.

The Holy Spirit is God, and there are also numerous Scriptures that confirm this.

So when the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are all brought together under "the Name", it is evident that the Godhead consists of three Divine Persons, who are co-equal, and co-eternal, yet one God.

 

[Berean777]

I would love to hear the general argument of this. Any links you could share ? Or would it be possible to post a little about it?

By the way, thankyou brothers for your thorough and edifying posts on the Holy Trinity. They have been most helpful and instructive, truly appreciate being in the company of those who can help me understand more. God bless.

Colossians 2:9 and Hebrews 1:3 has the Father being projected through the Son.

In Daniel the image of the Ancient of Days is the pictorial projection of the discerning characteristics of the Son through the Father. So Daniel is projecting the Son through the Ancient of Days.

In an coequal and coeternal Union of Father and Son, the projection can be bidirectional.

New Testament authors project the Father through the Son and the Old Testament authors projected the Son through the Father.

Here is an example.........

Isaiah 63:9-11
9In all their affliction he was afflicted, and the Angel of his presence (Yahweh) saved them: in his love and in his pity he redeemed them; and he bare them, and carried them all the days of old.

10But they rebelled, and vexed his holy Spirit: therefore he was turned to be their enemy, and he fought against them.

11Then he remembered the days of old, Moses, and his people, saying, Where is he that brought them up out of the sea with the shepherd of his flock? where is he that put his holy Spirit within him?

Isaiah is showing that the Angel of Yahweh's presence is a Christophany of the Son being projected to the Father, by the statement....

where is he that put his holy Spirit within him?

The He in the above statement is inferring to the Ancient of Days, the Father. So Isaiah is projecting the Son's characteristics in establishing the image of the invisible Father, that no one has seen, nor heard from at anytime.

 

[Berean777]

All sincerely need to embrace the trinity and come as one flock under one visible God Yahweh who is the one and only shepherd Christ Jesus.