Statement is Trinitarian or Anti-Trinitarian?

[Keath]

Let me know your opinion.

Is this statement #1 below (in response to quoting John 17), Trinitarian or Anti-Trinitarian:

1. “Jesus had symbolic oneness with his Father” - [my opinion is that it is Anti-Trinitarian]

Is this statement #2 below (in response to statement #1), an Anti-Trinitarian statement:

2. “The Son's oneness with the Father is more than symbolic; they both are aspects of YHWH who is the only God, only One, only Savior - Isaiah 45:21-23” – [my opinion is that this is not Anti-Trinitarism]

For reference – Isaiah 45:21-23 (NKJV) –

"And there is no other God besides Me,
A just God and a Savior;
There is none besides Me.
“Look to Me, and be saved,
All you ends of the earth!
For I am God, and there is no other.
I have sworn by Myself;
The word has gone out of My mouth in righteousness,
And shall not return,
That to Me every knee shall bow,
Every tongue shall take an oath."

For Reference excerpt from Nicene Creed -

“ONE God, (Deuteronomy 6:4, Ephesians 4:6)
…And in ONE Lord Jesus Christ, (Acts 11:17)
the Son of God, (Mathew 14:33; 16:16)
…True God of True God; (John 17:1-5)
…of one essence with the Father (John 10:30)

 

[faroukfarouk]

The Lord Jesus said the 'Father is greater than I' and 'I and my Father are one'. The end of Matthew 28 shows the Trinitarian formula. Romans 8 shows all Three Persons.

 

[Keath]

The Lord Jesus said the 'Father is greater than I' and 'I and my Father are one'. The end of Matthew 28 shows the Trinitarian formula. Romans 8 shows all Three Persons.

Yes and yes. So applying that, how would you respond to the two statements above - Trinitarian or Non-Trinitarian? that's question.

 

[faroukfarouk]

Yes and yes. So applying that, how would you respond to the two statements above - Trinitarian or Non-Trinitarian? that's question.

I would check out the Scriptures, and then weigh other statements by them.

 

[Keath]

I would check out the Scriptures, and then weigh other statements by them.

I gave my Scriptural opinion; I was trying to get others to weigh in with their opinion regarding the statements.

 

[Silmarien]

Neither seems particularly Trinitarian to me. The first is too vague to know exactly what they mean, but the second seems to be veering straight into Sabellianism.

 

[Keath]

Neither seems particularly Trinitarian to me. The first is too vague to know exactly what they mean, but the second seems to be veering straight into Sabellianism.

Thank you for your feedback, I appreciate it.
Regarding statement #2, if it were changed to "The Son's oneness with the Father is more than symbolic; they both are [persons] of YHWH who is the only God” Would this put the statement back on course in your opinion?

 

[Silmarien]

Thank you for your feedback, I appreciate it.
Regarding statement #2, if it were changed to "The Son's oneness with the Father is more than symbolic; they both are [persons] of YHWH who is the only God” Would this put the statement back on course in your opinion?

"Persons" would be the traditional language, definitely. "Persons who are jointly YHWH [...]" might work best, though you may want to toss in the Holy Spirit to be properly Trinitarian.