Why The Trinity is a False Teaching - Summarized Doctrinal Reasons

[Berean777]

Not true, John 1:3 expressly refutes this argument of yours. Which perhaps explains why, contrary to all manuscript evidence, you want us to believe it to be a forgery.

Exactly, if NO-THING was ever created before the Living Word created THINGS, then THINGS were not there BEFORE and if THINGS were not there BEFORE, then the Living Word is not a THING.

 

[Wgw]

This is such a tired and worn out argument....There are many words not found in the bible but that does not mean they are not true or do not exist. You need to do a whole lot better than that.....

A fallacious argument which I have dealt with so many times with @Imagican and others. It is entirely illogical and contrary to reason.

 

[Strong in Him]

Jesus Christ died too. And he was also resurrected. Moses died, and he too, will be resurrected.

Moses was not made God by God. I don't know where you get this idea from, but it's not from Scripture.

Moses was chosen by God to lead the nation out of Egypt, he was faithful, committed to God and allowed to see his glory. He was just a man, however, in fact before he met with God, he was also a murderer.

Jesus was raised by God, thus proving that he was who he claimed he was, and ascended to heaven to sit at God's right hand, and has received the name that is above every name. Jesus is greater than Moses - and everyone else.

 

[cgaviria]

Moses was not made God by God. I don't know where you get this idea from, but it's not from Scripture.

Moses was chosen by God to lead the nation out of Egypt, he was faithful, committed to God and allowed to see his glory. He was just a man, however, in fact before he met with God, he was also a murderer.

Jesus was raised by God, thus proving that he was who he claimed he was, and ascended to heaven to sit at God's right hand, and has received the name that is above every name. Jesus is greater than Moses - and everyone else.

I just quoted the scripture! Are you people really that blind that you cannot see that the scripture states it?

And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet. (Exodus 7:1 [KJV])

This scripture demonstrates that God does gives authority, in this case to Moses, thus conveying the same type of authority he gave Jesus Christ to be God, and a much higher authority than Moses, yet the Father is the one true God who gives authority. Tada. Read and learn.

 

[Strong in Him]

I just quoted the scripture! Are you people really that blind that you cannot see that the scripture states it?

Moses probably did appear, to Pharaoh, to have divine power because he was performing miracles, and even greater miracles than his own court magicians were performing.

Scripture does not say, "then God said to Moses, I will make you divine',". It says that God would make Moses like a God to Pharaoh.
When Paul and Barnabas were in a city performing miracles, the people shouted " the gods have come to us," Acts 14:8. That doesn't mean that Paul and Barnabas suddenly turned into God, only that that's how they appeared to the people. Same with Moses, and as I said, Moses was prevented from going into the Promised land because he sinned - since when does God sin?

Will you please stop saying "you people" and telling us to read and learn, when it's clear that you have misunderstood a single Scripture and built a doctrine on it.

 

[cgaviria]

Moses probably did appear, to Pharaoh, to have divine power because he was performing miracles, and even greater miracles than his own court magicians were performing.

Scripture does not say, "then God said to Moses, I will make you divine',". It says that God would make Moses like a God to Pharaoh.
When Paul and Barnabas were in a city performing miracles, the people shouted " the gods have come to us," Acts 14:8. That doesn't mean that Paul and Barnabas suddenly turned into God, only that that's how they appeared to the people. Same with Moses, and as I said, Moses was prevented from going into the Promised land because he sinned - since when does God sin?

Will you please stop saying "you people" and telling us to read and learn, when it's clear that you have misunderstood a single Scripture and built a doctrine on it.

Making Moses like God has to do with giving him authority. And yes he was perceived to be as a god by Pharaoh, and this was intended by God, because God was represented by Moses. This same passage alludes to Jesus Christ being made as God by God.

 

[Wgw]

Jesus was not a Trinitarian.

He was a member of the Holy Trinity.

In the book of John, Jesus calls himself "the son of man" many times. He also calls himself a man.

He was a man. He was also God.

"As it is, you want to kill me, a man who has told you the truth as I have heard if from God." John 8:40

He does not claim to be God whom he calls "the one who alone is God," in John 5:44. "How can you believe when you accept glory from one another and do not seek the glory that comes from the one who alone is God?" If God is "the only true God," as Jesus prayed, then Jesus cannot be that only true God or 'true God of true God,' as the creed formulated in the 4th century CE puts it.

Not true; because our Lord is a person of the Holy Trinity. See John 1:1-14, Matthew 28:19, et al.

 

[Wgw]

From the gospel going forth from Jerusalem in the first century to the Nicene Council in the fifth century . . .almost 500 years later,

Nicea was in 325 AD, which is "almost" in the sense that at 6:35 PM it is almost 7:00.

However, if you find that date too far removed, Tertullian describes the Trinity in Adversus Praxean, and previously, St. Irenaeus outlines the concept in Against Heresies. So this was not a novel idea. Tertullian actually coined the word "Trinitas" as a theological term.

thousands of Christians lived and died that had never heard of the Trinity.

There can be no doubt that our Lord was regarded as God by the early Church.

They were Christians without it. The greatest of the Nicene fathers, Athanasius admitted that the Trinitarian formula of Nicea "was going beyond anything said explicitly in the New Testament."

Where did St. Athanasius say that?

Not all of those at Nicene debating over the issue agreed with the doctrine.

Not all, but nearly all.

Luke and Matthew declared in plain terms that the coming into existence, begetting, of the Son of God was by a miracle, some two thousand years ago, in the womb of the virgin Mary. There is no preexisting Son and no possibility of this doctrine in Luke.

Not true, furthermore, we cannot read Luke in opposition to John.

 

[Wgw]

He is an equal.
He is referred to as the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of God, the Spirit of the Lord, the comforter and the counsellor. In addition, in Acts 16, he is called the Spirit of Jesus.

What do you want people to say; the Father, the Son and George?

Indeed, the rejection of the equal honour, glory and personality of the Spirit is the heresy of Pneumatomachianism.

 

[MerriestHouse]

God is the only one who is worshipped and not created lords many. The Lord Jesus Christ who is worshipped has equality with the Father and if equality with the Father, then he is God almighty.

Look at the next two verses.

Philippians 2:9 "Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."

God doesn't exalt Himself, does He?

Jesus, the Messiah, was exalted to the supreme position assigned to him by God the Father. His equality with his Father does not make him God. He is still the Messiah. There is still One God but that One God, now has next to him one mediator, the man Messiah Jesus.

1 Timothy 2:5 "For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all, the testimony to which was borne at the proper time."

 

[MerriestHouse]

Where did St. Athanasius say that?

Select Treatises of St Athanasius.

 

[toLiJC]

Hello friend I just wanted to highlight below what you stated in your post....



If we say hands, then we can also say works and if we say works, then we need to associate a person behind those works, right?

The question then arises to who the person is behind those works, right?

You say it is God behind those works, so we need to find from scripture who the personhood of God is, since our God is not the unknowable god of Islam or the god of the many false religions of the world, our God is a personal God which scripture declares is knowable by his sheep.....





So who is the person of God the Spirit, is he the Father? Is he the Son? Or is he the Spirit?

Well in scripture John quotes Jesus, who highlights this point by using human sense of sight and the discernment of knowing and to accepting a person on a personal level.....



Is the personhood of the Spirit of truth the Son, because the Son said he must leave before the Father can send the Spirit of truth, right? (John 16:7)

So the personhood of the Spirit is distinct from the Son, right there and then. Additionally if the personhood of the Father is sending the Spirit, after he had sent and recalled the personhood of the Son, then the personhood of the Spirit is distinct from the personhood of the Father who sent him and the personhood of the Son who needed to leave before the Father could send the personhood of the Spirit in the first place.

Can you see that there are in fact three distinct personhoods at play, who are the one God.

The church fathers who were very versed in scripture knew that there was in fact three distinct persons within the one infinite Godbeing. How this is, has not been revealed and we probably will never know.

Now to recap your statement that I drew upon, in relation to the PERSONAL works of God, requiring a knowable person to be behind those works, as you said the hands of God.

Who is this person behind those works?

Fortunately within the same context of the giving of the Holy Ghost on Pentecost in John chapter 14, we can establish whose works are being manifested in the believers.



So Jesus is going to the Father, who will send another..............



The Father will give you, by sending you ANOTHER Comforter. Another to whom, one might say?

Another person, in place of the personhood of the Son. Obviously if the Father is sending ANOTHER, it also means ANOTHER to the Father himself, who is the sender of the Comforter.

So when we put one and one and one together we get three persona's or there distinct persons who are at play and the Comforter is the person working in us. His name is the I Am, the same name of the Father and the Son, because all three are the one Godbeing Yahweh.

if we have to explain this presenting it from the viewpoint that you state(d) here, it can be said Jesus Christ is (as it were) the Initiator, while the Holy Spirit is the direct interaction with the true God, or as He said: "At that day ye shall ask in my name: and I say not unto you, that I will pray the Father for you: For the Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have believed that I came out from God."(John 16:26-27)

so the Holy Spirit is another state of spirit i.e. the next stage of inspiration/enlightenment - this is the "other comforter"

Blessings

 

[MerriestHouse]

Nicea was in 325 AD, which is "almost" in the sense that at 6:35 PM it is almost 7:00.

The Athanasian Creed wasn't used by churches until the sixth century. This was the first creed that explicitly stated the equality of the three persons of the Trinity.

 

[nomadictheist]

Look at the next two verses.

Philippians 2:9 "Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."

God doesn't exalt Himself, does He?

Jesus, the Messiah, was exalted to the supreme position assigned to him by God the Father. His equality with his Father does not make him God. He is still the Messiah. There is still One God but that One God, now has next to him one mediator, the man Messiah Jesus.

1 Timothy 2:5 "For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all, the testimony to which was borne at the proper time."

So what is your position then? Do we have two Gods? Or do we have a God, and someone who's not a God but is somehow equal to God because God "promoted Him" to be?

If it's the former, wouldn't this be polytheism? And if its the latter, wouldn't God be teaching us to practice idolatry? He tells us many times that we are to worship and serve God only. Yet now we are to worship and serve Jesus Christ, the Messiah. If Jesus truly is not God, then the Jews were right to reject Him. They were instructed to worship, give their hearts to, and serve God alone. But Jesus called for them to serve (and later worship) Him.

So I'm sure you, 7xlightray, Imagican, and others will continue to explain away all the passages that point to Jesus' deity, but they are there. If Jesus isn't God, then why do we serve Him?

 

[Berean777]

Look at the next two verses.

Philippians 2:9 "Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."

God doesn't exalt Himself, does He?

You stated that we are to look at the next two versus, so in this regard I totally agree, only IF you seriously take the verse proceeding the versus that follow, within the context of the verse that makes the following claim.......

Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;

The claim within the verse above is not an observation made by others, neither is it suggestive of a status granted after recieving a promotion so to speak, rather it is an inherent personal characteristic of the Messiah, as the verse states WHO BEING IN VERY NATURE GOD. This indicates that regardless of what others think of the Messiah or what honour that he would recieve from the Father, is, by the usage of the personal pronoun CONSIDERS HIMSELF equal with God.
So that Jesus Christ the Nazerean considered himself not only equal with God, but he claimed to have the very nature of God himself. So either people will believe the claim that Jesus made about himself to his disciples or they will reject it, however by rejecting this claim, they also are rejecting him as the true God of the Holy Bible, that the scriptures testify of.

So which one is it, because you can't have it both? Hmmmmmmm...........

Your following statement also requires further scrutiny as it has two prong considerations.

God doesn't exalt Himself, does He?

God is honoured through the designated one to one representative of his image, the LOGOS. That is why Jesus makes another claim in relation to his relationship with the Father.

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

But let us not divert to other versus and stay within the context of Philippians 2, by further adding......

and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Philippians 2:11)

Notice the Father is the one who actually recieves glory through the Son. If the Father's glory is dependent on recieving glory through the Son, then the Son is co-equal and co-eternal with the invisible Father, that no one has seen.

No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known. (John 1:8)

So throughout scriptures the old and the new testaments, we see the Son of Man, who is the epiphany of the Christ manifesting as the Angel of Yahweh's presence, by revealing the invisible Father to humanity. So without the Son existing coeternally as the Father's co-equal, humanity would not know who this invisble Father is. Please consider how the Old Testament writers would look upon the epiphany of Christ as the very image of the Father and glorify the Father through this magnificent being, the Christ.

Isaiah 63:9-11
9In all their affliction he was afflicted, and the Angel of his (Yahweh's) presence 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?

So as the Old Testament prophet would say....

where is HE (epiphany of Christ as the Angel of Yahweh's presence) that put his Holy Spirit within Him (Angel of Yahweh's presence) ?

So the two prong consideration is that....

The Father is knowable only through the Son, the Christ.
The Father recieves his glory only through the Son, the Christ.

Now ask yourself these questions, with reference to your statement....

God doesn't exalt Himself, does He?

Is it possible for the Father to be exalted without the Son?
If the Son was created, then before his creation, how could God have been exalted?
Why would God use a created being to realise his exaltation, since you said that God doesn't exalt himself?
How could the eternal Father not have exaltation before the creation of the Son, if the Son was created, then the Father required the Son in order to be exalted.

I want to thank you for your post, that has revealed the trinity within the complex nature of God, who had exaltation before the world was created, through the Son. That is why Jesus would claim....

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

The church fathers are 100% correct and for those who can't handle the truth, read it and weap, read it and weap, because the truth will set you free. The truth is that the Christ is the eternal God of the Holy Bible who is coequal and coeternal with the Father.

 

[Wgw]

Select Treatises of St Athanasius.

Right, well, you appear to have misquoted the pillar of Orthodoxy, because he does not say that.

He does, however, say this:

"THE Ario-maniacs, as it appears, having once made up their minds to transgress and revolt from the Truth, are strenuous in appropriating the words of Scripture, When the impious cometh into a depth of evil, He contemneth [Prov. xviii. 3. Sept.]; for refutation does not stop them, nor perplexity abash them; but, as having a harlot's forehead, they refuse to be ashamed [Jer. iii. 3.] before all men in their irreligion. For whereas the passages which they alleged, The Lord created Me [Note 1], and Made better than the Angels[Note 2], and First-born [Note 3], and Faithful to Him that made Him [Note 4], have an orthodox meaning [Note 5], and inculcate religiousness towards Christ, so it is that these men still, as if bedewed with the serpent's poison, not seeing what they ought to see, nor understanding what they read, as if in vomit [Note 6] from the depth of their irreligious heart, have next proceeded to disparage our Lord's words, I in the Father and the Father in Me [John xiv. 10.]; saying, "How can the One be contained in the Other and the Other in the One?" or "How at all can the Father who is the greater be contained in the Son who is the less?" or "What wonder, if the Son is in the Father, considering it is written even of us, {399} In Him we live and move and have our being?" [Note A] And this state of mind is consistent with their perverseness [Note 7], who think God to be material [Note 8], and understand not what is "True Father" and "True Son," nor "Light Invisible" and "Eternal," and Its "Radiance Invisible," nor "Invisible Subsistence [Note 9]," and "Immaterial Expression" and "Immaterial Image." For had they known, they would not have dishonoured and ridiculed the Lord of glory, nor interpreting things immaterial after a material manner, perverted good words."

 

[Wgw]

The Athanasian Creed wasn't used by churches until the sixth century. This was the first creed that explicitly stated the equality of the three persons of the Trinity.

That is true, and the the Orthodox do not use it at all, liturgically, yet we believe in the equality of honour and glory of the Prosopa, as this doctrine is found in the Nicene Fathers.

However, in your earlier post you specifically mentioned the Nicene Council, and that did of course transpire in 325 AD.

 

[Berean777]

if we have to explain this presenting it from the viewpoint that you state(d) here, it can be said Jesus Christ is (as it were) the Initiator, while the Holy Spirit is the direct interaction with the true God, or as He said: "At that day ye shall ask in my name: and I say not unto you, that I will pray the Father for you: For the Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have believed that I came out from God."(John 16:26-27)

so the Holy Spirit is another state of spirit i.e. the next stage of inspiration/enlightenment - this is the "other comforter"

Blessings

Notice it says another Comforter and not another Holy Spirit. We know today that from John chapter 14 that the Comforter is the Holy Ghost, but within the same context before the giving for he Holy Ghost, the Christ was that Comforter for the disciples, when he walked as the man Jesus of Nazereth.

I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you. (John 14:18)

We know before the other, that is another Comforter, the Holy Ghost was to be given on the day of Pentecost, the present Comforter, who is the Christ needed to leave before the Holy Ghost could come.

Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. (John 16:7)

You are in error when you say...the Holy Spirit is another state of spirit

The first Comforter is the man Jesus of Nazareth. As Jesus would say....

Then Jesus told them, "This very night you will all fall away on account of me, for it is written: "'I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered.' (Matthew 26:31)

The shepherd is the sheeps Comforter (John 14:18)

 

[Imagican]

Exactly, if NO-THING was ever created before the Living Word created THINGS, then THINGS were not there BEFORE and if THINGS were not there BEFORE, then the Living Word is not a THING.

Yet this is not offered to us in the Bible. This is what you imagine to exist.

All that is offered is that 'in the beginning'. Certainly you are not implying that God has a 'beginning'?

So we 'know' that 'things' existed before 'in the beginning'. That means that 'in the beginning' is a reference to those things that pertain to 'use': who the Bible was written to. In essence, the words could be offered thus: "In the beginning of the things that pertain to man". For God has 'no beginning'. And we know that there were many 'things' before those 'things' that pertain to us. God wasn't floating in a void twiddling His fingers for eternity. Surely you offer no such concept.

So what you have offered is pretty much 'false understanding' so far as 'in the beginning' or 'things' that were created in that 'beginning'.

Christ refers to Himself as: "The beginning of the creation of God". Now how do you recommend we accept or deny these words? If we accept them, then show us how Christ 'as God' was the 'beginning of the creation of God'. If you can't, then it's obvious that you don't really understand what you so often 'act' like you do.

I believe that the words couldn't have been offered more simply. They are so simple a child can understand them. "The beginning of the creation of God" simply implies that Christ was created FIRST in the beginning of the 'creation of God'.

And we have other scripture that backs up His claim: The 'firstborn' of every creature'. A plain and simple piece of understanding offering that before any other 'creature' was formed, Christ was formed first.

And then there is the word 'made'. As in:

Acts 2:36
Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

Hmmm................. "God hath MADE Jesus both 'Lord' and "Christ". Wow. Pretty profound ain't it? God made Jesus both 'Lord' and "Christ". This plainly shows that Jesus Christ didn't 'make Himself' anything. It was accomplished by His Father: God.

Just like the place that He now sits: "At the right hand of God".

What your 'churches' have erred in teaching you is obvious to any that have actually read the Bible without such 'preconceived notions'.

If there is a 'Jesus' that is God, it is not the same God that the Hebrews/Jews followed and worshiped. For 'that God' is singular, uncompounded, without equal.

And God revealed Himself in such a manner to distinguish Himself from all the other 'multi part' Gods that the rest of the world was worshiping. Including the Greeks and Romans previous to their introduction to Christ.

The apostles never taught Jesus to be God. And Jesus never revealed Himself to the apostles as God. Jesus referred to God as His Father. To His Father as God. And He stated without confusion that the Father is greater than the Son. Even discussed that all He did was for the glory of His Father: God.

Once when called 'Good Master', he rebuked the man in offering that 'there is only one that is good and that is God'. So He wouldn't even allow men to call Him 'good' while dwelling in the flesh.

And when He offered 'how are we to pray', "Our Father who art in heaven.......................... thy will be done on Earth as it is in heaven.

And then there are the words that utterly destroy any possibility of 'trinity': "My God, my God, why hath thou forsaken me?" He is not praying to a 'third person of the trinity: the Father', He states clearly who He is praying to: God, who is His Father as well as ours.

And then Paul makes it perfectly clear in almost every letter he wrote:

Ephesians 1King James Version (KJV)
1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus:

2 Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:

4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.

How much clearer could it be offered?

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ

It's kind of hard to understand how these words are so difficult for some to accept.

But I understand this: If one is insistent upon worshiping Christ 'as God', then it is imperative that one 'make' Christ God.

I do not worship Christ 'as God'. I worship 'only God as God'. But I am sure that the Son is worthy of our worship as well. But not as the Father, but as the Son. The Son is certainly worthy of our worship.

But what if? What if Christ is 'not God'? Then that would mean that the 'Christ' that is being worshiped 'as God' is a 'false Christ'. For we are to worship nothing as God but God Himself. And the only way that we are capable of worshiping the Son is 'as The Son'. If we worship anything as God that is not God, then we are worshiping a 'false God'.

Not my words. These are about as clearly outlined in the Bible as they could be. Yet so many find the means to ignore all that doesn't 'fit' what they 'want' to believe.

There is no indication that the Word referred to in John was anything but the Word of God until the Word became flesh. It was only then that the Word could be considered to be Christ. And even then He plainly states that the words He offered were 'not His own' but given Him by the Father. So in essence, calling Christ the Word is figurative. He is not nor has He ever been the "literal" Word of God. If so, show it. You can't. But I 'can' show that while Christ was living in the flesh on this world a voice from Heaven was heard. By numerous different people. And that voice 'was' the Word of God. Not figurative or symbolic, but the 'literal Word of God'.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Wgw]

First of all, welcome back. I haven't seen you post in a few days, and I am genuinely glad to see you post again. Whereas we do disagree, you are one of the more respectful members, and I salute you for that.

Yet this is not offered to us in the Bible. This is what you imagine to exist.

All that is offered is that 'in the beginning'. Certainly you are not implying that God has a 'beginning'?

Herein I would direct your attention to John 1:3. Our Lord created all things, without qualification.

So we 'know' that 'things' existed before 'in the beginning'. That means that 'in the beginning' is a reference to those things that pertain to 'use': who the Bible was written to.

Only God is uncreated; thus before the beginning there was nothing, except to the extent God is a thing. And to the extent God is a thing, He is self-actualizing and thus uncreated.

In essence, the words could be offered thus: "In the beginning of the things that pertain to man". For God has 'no beginning'. And we know that there were many 'things' before those 'things' that pertain to us. God wasn't floating in a void twiddling His fingers for eternity. Surely you offer no such concept.

The way you use the word "Eternity" suggests a static temporal dimension in which God exists, but we know God created time, and the beginning obviously refers to the beginning of time, so there is no eternity. Nor would there be a void, for that matter, because for a void to exist God wouod have to create it.

Time and space are both creations of God ex nihilo.

So what you have offered is pretty much 'false understanding' so far as 'in the beginning' or 'things' that were created in that 'beginning'.

No, for the reasons cited above.

Christ refers to Himself as: "The beginning of the creation of God". Now how do you recommend we accept or deny these words?

He is the Beginning and the End. One might say He is the Cause and the Reason.

If we accept them, then show us how Christ 'as God' was the 'beginning of the creation of God'. If you can't, then it's obvious that you don't really understand what you so often 'act' like you do.

I believe that the words couldn't have been offered more simply. They are so simple a child can understand them. "The beginning of the creation of God" simply implies that Christ was created FIRST in the beginning of the 'creation of God'.

The problem with your argument is found in "I am the Alpha and the Omega." If He is both the beginning and the end, the argument that "beginning" refers to a temporal point of origination becomes untenable; one cannot say that He meant to say that He was the first creature, because where He declares Himself to be the Omega, that would by the same logic require us to regard Him as the last creature, and He cannot be both.

I just attended vespers, and present were many children who had no problems with the idea of Jesus Christ as God.

And we have other scripture that backs up His claim: The 'firstborn' of every creature'. A plain and simple piece of understanding offering that before any other 'creature' was formed, Christ was formed first.

The phrase "First born of all creation" implies Lordship over creation, but John 1:1-17 makes it clear our Lord is not a creature.

And then there is the word 'made'. As in:

Acts 2:36
Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

Hmmm................. "God hath MADE Jesus both 'Lord' and "Christ". Wow. Pretty profound ain't it? God made Jesus both 'Lord' and "Christ". This plainly shows that Jesus Christ didn't 'make Himself' anything. It was accomplished by His Father: God.

No, for these reasons:

John 1:1 says our Lord is God.
John 1:3 says our Lord made all things.
The assumed humanity of our Lord is itself derived from created matter, thus, the uncreated Word of God put on mortal created flesh in order to glorify it.

Thus, Acts 2:36 refers to the humanity assumed by our Lord. This human nature is our created human nature, hypostatically linked with the divine nature in the prosopon of Jesus Christ.

God became man that we might become god, said St. Athanasius.

Just like the place that He now sits: "At the right hand of God".

A metaphor, since God being an unbounded spirit has strictly speaking no right hand to sit at.

What your 'churches' have erred in teaching you is obvious to any that have actually read the Bible without such 'preconceived notions'.

Whereas I could argue with you on the basis of various verses, I actually to some extent feel inclined to suggest this represents a real problem with nuda scriptura. St. Hilary of Poitiers wrote "Scripture is not in the reading, but in the interpretation."

If there is a 'Jesus' that is God, it is not the same God that the Hebrews/Jews followed and worshiped. For 'that God' is singular, uncompounded, without equal.

The God worshipped by Trinitarians is singular. uncompounded and without equal. You once again accuse us of tritheism, baselessly.

And God revealed Himself in such a manner to distinguish Himself from all the other 'multi part' Gods that the rest of the world was worshiping. Including the Greeks and Romans previous to their introduction to Christ.

Trinitarians do not believe in a multi-part God; the prosopa do not represent partitions of the divine nature.

The apostles never taught Jesus to be God.

Not true.

And Jesus never revealed Himself to the apostles as God.

Also untrue.

Jesus referred to God as His Father. To His Father as God. And He stated without confusion that the Father is greater than the Son. Even discussed that all He did was for the glory of His Father: God.

The Father is God. But so too is the Logos.

Once when called 'Good Master', he rebuked the man in offering that 'there is only one that is good and that is God'. So He wouldn't even allow men to call Him 'good' while dwelling in the flesh.

Not true; after His resurrection he allowed St. Thomas to refer to Him as "my Lord and my God."

And when He offered 'how are we to pray', "Our Father who art in heaven.......................... thy will be done on Earth as it is in heaven.

Which has naught to do with the Trinity, as much as you might like to try to use it as a proof text.

And then there are the words that utterly destroy any possibility of 'trinity': "My God, my God, why hath thou forsaken me?" He is not praying to a 'third person of the trinity: the Father', He states clearly who He is praying to: God, who is His Father as well as ours.

The Father is the First Person, not the Third. Our Lord, as we have discussed before, cries out at the parting of the passable. corruptible human nature from the impassable divinity, a
though in saying this I feel obliged to add a Theopaschite qualification by stressing that God died for us in the flesh, as a man.

However this death in no sense violated divine immutability or impassability.

And then Paul makes it perfectly clear in almost every letter he wrote:

It's kind of hard to understand how these words are so difficult for some to accept.

"And." Not "and also the Lord Jesus Christ, who is not God."

But I understand this: If one is insistent upon worshiping Christ 'as God', then it is imperative that one 'make' Christ God.

I do not worship Christ 'as God'. I worship 'only God as God'. But I am sure that the Son is worthy of our worship as well. But not as the Father, but as the Son. The Son is certainly worthy of our worship.

If our Lord is not God, the second commandment prohibits worshipping Him. He also could not have effected our salvation, in that His incarnation would not have restored or glorified our fallen human nature.

But what if? What if Christ is 'not God'? Then that would mean that the 'Christ' that is being worshiped 'as God' is a 'false Christ'. For we are to worship nothing as God but God Himself. And the only way that we are capable of worshiping the Son is 'as The Son'. If we worship anything as God that is not God, then we are worshiping a 'false God'.

If, on the other hand, the 318 Holy Fathers at Nicea and the 150 Holy Fathers at Constantinople were correct, and sacred scripture clearly shows that they are, by the way, not to mention the writings of ante-Nicene fathers like Tertullian and St. Irenaeus of Lyons, then non-Trinitarians worship a false god.

Which makes sense, given that most monotheistic religions including Islam, Rabinnical Judaism, Unitarian Universalism, and Sikhism share a common notion of an unincarnate, unitary God.

Not my words. These are about as clearly outlined in the Bible as they could be. Yet so many find the means to ignore all that doesn't 'fit' what they 'want' to believe.

Oddly enough I could use the same argument against your viees, but I shan't, as there is enough ad hominem bickering in CT as it is.

There is no indication that the Word referred to in John was anything but the Word of God until the Word became flesh. It was only then that the Word could be considered to be Christ. And even then He plainly states that the words He offered were 'not His own' but given Him by the Father. So in essence, calling Christ the Word is figurative. He is not nor has He ever been the "literal" Word of God. If so, show it. You can't. But I 'can' show that while Christ was living in the flesh on this world a voice from Heaven was heard. By numerous different people. And that voice 'was' the Word of God. Not figurative or symbolic, but the 'literal Word of God'.

Alas, this argument collapses in light of John 1:1-14. Furthermore, it also directly contradicts your earlier arguments regarding John 1:3. Thus far, you have failed to provide an exegesis that applies to the entirety of John 1:1-17, and I propose you can't: plug one hole, and another opens.