Biblical Truth: Christ Jesus is not God.

[A New Dawn]

*excerpt* Hope you don't mind. This addresses perfectly those passages that you have presented. There are even further explanations at the link if you are interested.

------------------

BiblicalUnitarian.com - Content

"Trinitarians argue that this verse states that Jesus said he was the “I am” (i.e., the Yahweh of the Old Testament), so he must be God. This is just not the case. Saying “I am” does not make a person God. The man born blind that Jesus healed was not claiming to be God, and he said “I am the man,” and the Greek reads exactly like Jesus’ statement, i.e., “I am.” The fact that the exact same phrase is translated two different ways, one as “I am” and the other as “I am the man,” is one reason it is so hard for the average Christian to get the truth from just reading the Bible as it has been translated into English. Most Bible translators are Trinitarian, and their bias appears in various places in their translation, this being a common one. Paul also used the same phrase of himself when he said that he wished all men were as “I am” (Acts 26:29). Thus, we conclude that saying “I am” did not make Paul, the man born blind or Christ into God."

---------------

So someone just saying "that's not true" is an adequate argument? If it was so blatantly untrue, then why did the Jewish leaders accuse Jesus of blasphemy? Does your unnamed source above know more than the Jewish leaders standing there listening to Jesus as he identified himself as I Am? And furthermore, someone saying "Before Abraham was, I am" carries the same connotation as someone saying "I am blind"? Really?

 

[ToxicReboMan]

Along with this stated motive, I have been taught that John was written as an argument that Jesus was physically a flesh and blood human being. At the time this Gospel was written, the heresy of Docetism argued that the physical flesh was irreconcilably evil, so Jesus could not have been holy and flesh at the same time, so he only appeared to be flesh. John presented this text as an argument against Docetism, and it was embraced as a Gospel. This is why distinctly physical stuff like the scene with Thomas only happens in John.

I don't know what your intentions are with posting about Jesus not being God. Are you trying to say that we should not believe He is God? Or, knowing what you've presented, are Christians still free to appropriately believe Jesus is God without consequence?

I personally already knew what you've presented, but I think it is inconsequential whether Jesus is actually God or not, and I would never tell anyone they shouldn't believe one way or another. So, I am comfortable with the Trinity as a functional belief.

What do you think? What do you want your audience to do with the info you're presenting?

I am just presenting what I believe to be the genuine teachings of Scripture. I had a trinitarian view of God previously. That was because I took people's word for it instead of actually reading it for myself in the Bible. I accepted the Trinity when I accepted Christ. Then I read the Trinity into the Bible because that is what I was taught to do.


My intention? To share the truth of the Scriptures. Nothing more. My hope is that there will be those who will see my thread and reconsider what they have been always told the Bible teaches about the nature of God and Christ.


Christians are free to believe whatever they want. They certainly won't be punished by God for believing in the Trinity, if that is what you are alluding to.

However, using extra-biblical tradition to interpret the Scripture is not the best way for exegesis. It just opens the door to more error.

 

[ToxicReboMan]

Jesus himself said he was the son of God so how can he be God-I believe there is only one God and Jesus his beloved son-Be blessed!

That is what I call being reasonable with Scripture.

"Come now, and let us reason together, "Says the LORD,"... Isa 1:18​

 

[ToxicReboMan]

A little tactical advice Toxic, everyone that believes Jesus is god totally ignores every scripture you've posted to prove that Jesus is not God. They want you to play their game without playing your game. Ignore their scriptures just as they ignore yours.

Hey 2ducklow,

Perhaps, most of those who respond will not directly address the Scripture passages I have quoted. But some who read this thread without responding may very well be interested in what I'm trying to say. Then they will probably look further into this issue and hopefully re-examine the Scriptures to see if what I'm saying is true.

Now there are some difficult passages that will no doubt be discussed and there are explanations for all of them. I don't think it would be wise to ignore them lest it is perceived that there is no answer for them. It could be a corrupt addition to the Scriptures, a misconstrued passage out of context, or even biased translations from the Greek.

I still plan to post more Scripture passages that give powerful evidence that Christ Jesus is not God. Sure some who respond will probably not be in agreement with me. However, that won't stop me from presenting Scriptural truth for all to see.

 

[2ducklow]

Hey 2ducklow,

Perhaps, most of those who respond will not directly address the Scripture passages I have quoted. But some who read this thread without responding may very well be interested in what I'm trying to say. Then they will probably look further into this issue and hopefully re-examine the Scriptures to see if what I'm saying is true.

Now there are some difficult passages that will no doubt be discussed and there are explanations for all of them. I don't think it would be wise to ignore them lest it is perceived that there is no answer for them.

my opinion is that those who want to believe the trinity or Jesus is god are unpersuadable and have already firmly made up their minds on the matter, and it doesn't matter what you say. Those who are in the decision process will often times be persuaded by argumentum ad hominums because they don't have a good enough grip on the subject yet to know the facts. In my opinion playing their game as I call it only serves to reinforce their modus operindi. Because some people , maybe even most people, are persuaded by ridicule, character assaults, or similar argumentum ad hominums when they don't have sufficent facts to make an intelligent decision on the matter. In short, i'm saying you need to know what you're really dealing with here to be effective.

It could be a corrupt addition to the Scriptures, a misconstrued passage out of context, or even biased translations from the Greek.

I still plan to post more Scripture passages that give powerful evidence that Christ Jesus is not God. Sure some who respond will probably not be in agreement with me. However, that won't stop me from presenting Scriptural truth for all to see.

Just look at the response you got for responding to their scripture, you got ridiculed. And that ridicule was much more effective because your very convincing proof texts were ignored. See, how it works with most people is a good argument beats a bad arguement, and since there is no good argument for trinity or for Jesus is god, they have to reinforce it with argumentum ad hominums to make it persuasive, it's their only option, other than the one most trinitarians take, which is to not discuss the doctrine with anyone outside their church. Trinity or Jesus is god, cannot be defended without argumentum ad hominums. impossible.

Another way of looking at it is argumentum ad hominums in whatever form are like an armour coated shell of protection for bad arguements that prevent bad arguments from being exposed to the light of truth. Argumentum ad hominums overshadow everything else, making it easy to slip in many false things, under that armour coated shell of protection. IN some form of fashion one must deal with the major proof in that situation which is their armour coated shell of protection aka argumentum ad hominums in whatever form.

Plus, debating with those who throw out insults right and left is only going to tend to draw you into a similar exchange.



But i see you're of a different opinion. , c'est la vie. D'accord (ok)?

 

[cubinity]

Hey 2ducklow,

Perhaps, most of those who respond will not directly address the Scripture passages I have quoted. But some who read this thread without responding may very well be interested in what I'm trying to say. Then they will probably look further into this issue and hopefully re-examine the Scriptures to see if what I'm saying is true.

Now there are some difficult passages that will no doubt be discussed and there are explanations for all of them. I don't think it would be wise to ignore them lest it is perceived that there is no answer for them. It could be a corrupt addition to the Scriptures, a misconstrued passage out of context, or even biased translations from the Greek.

I still plan to post more Scripture passages that give powerful evidence that Christ Jesus is not God. Sure some who respond will probably not be in agreement with me. However, that won't stop me from presenting Scriptural truth for all to see.

I'm glad to hear you are a reasonable person, Toxic.

It is unfortunate when we cannot see that we are the very thing we think we are adamantly opposed to.

You obviously do not fall into this category, and I look forward to future discussion with you.

Keep up the awesome posts and threads! I get a lot out of them.

 

[cubinity]

<snip>you're making the conversation personal rather than dealing with the topic.<snip>

Jesus made it personal. God made it personal. Salvation makes it personal.

If your theology is not personal, then what good is it?

If you want cold hard facts, then religion probably isn't the right specialty. Perhaps you could try something in the sciences, or perhaps engineering.

Religion is entirely personal.

Toxic is obviously a reasonable person who thinks reasonably and compassionately about theology, and therefore his statements remain influential.

You, on the other hand, spew a cold, lifeless, impersonal theology that stings at the touch.

I wasn't challenging him, but inviting him to share what made this important to him. I heard the love and compassion for others in his response to you, and I praised him for it.

Now that I know he is reasonable and compassionate, I will pursue his arguments with joyful fervor and long to speak openly in discussion with him.

As for you: I will follow your advice about those who refuse to truly listen to others. Consider yourself ignored.

Goodbye.

 

[2ducklow]

Jesus made it personal. God made it personal. Salvation makes it personal.

If your theology is not personal, then what good is it?

If you want cold hard facts, then religion probably isn't the right specialty. Perhaps you could try something in the sciences, or perhaps engineering.

Religion is entirely personal.

Toxic is obviously a reasonable person who thinks reasonably and compassionately about theology, and therefore his statements remain influential.

You, on the other hand, spew a cold, lifeless, impersonal theology that stings at the touch.

I wasn't challenging him, but inviting him to share what made this important to him. I heard the love and compassion for others in his response to you, and I praised him for it.

Now that I know he is reasonable and compassionate, I will pursue his arguments with joyful fervor and long to speak openly in discussion with him.

As for you: I will follow your advice about those who refuse to truly listen to others. Consider yourself ignored.

Goodbye.

very vicious,, no beating around the bush here. and all I had to do to deserve this vicious personal attack is to expose your veiled criticisms for what they were. I really hit a raw nerve apparently.

 

[cubinity]

"What business do we have with each other, Jesus of Nazareth? Have You come to destroy us? I know who You are--the Holy One of God!" Mk 1:24 NASB

This is an interesting verse to choose to start an argument about a Biblical truth about what Jesus really is, particularly because it is a quote from a demon.

As far as credibility goes, demons are not exactly the top of the list in terms of sources of truth. However, let’s say this demon is being honest in his assessment of Jesus’ role, this identification does not necessarily exclude with absolution the possibility that some aspect of Him is divine.

"Jesus answered, "The most important is, 'Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one." Mk 12:29 ESV

This is a partial quote regarding teaching the most important commandment. In order to address the issue of what Jesus is, you have left off the actual commandment part of the statement.

There are two ways to appreciate this verse on loving God. First, the original author of this command (Moses, to Jesus’ audience) was distinguishing Israel’s monotheistic God from amongst those of their polytheistic neighbors. Second, Jesus identifies Himself as one with God in John 17, and is praised indistinguishably with the Father in Revelation 5:13.

Whether Jesus is the same entity as the Father or not, this verse does not necessarily exclude with absolution the possibility that some aspect of Him is divine.

"God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent." Num 23:19 NASB

In this OT story, Balak is trying to get God to curse His own people, Israel. Balaam, an oracle, has returned to an insistent Balak a second time, insisting that God is not going to take back His blessing over His people.

These statements, in their context, written in an age before Messiah, even before King David’s throne, are clearly about the personality of God. They were not meant to be read as a commentary on his physical or metaphysical form or nature.

In this verse, God does not change. The same is said of Jesus in Hebrews 13:8. Therefore, this description of God does not necessarily exclude with absolution the possibility that some aspect of Him is divine.

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

This is a proclamation by John that the Father has declared Jesus as His Son. I am actually very impressed with the statement that just precedes this verse, which reads, “For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.”

John’s interest in making this statement is to validate Jesus as a kind of new Moses. He treats them as two different entities because, I believe, he understood them to be two different entities. The Trinity does not refute that Jesus and God are two different metaphysical entities. So, this statement is not problematic for a Trinitarian to embrace.

Jesus is God because of several characteristics described in the Bible, but being one and the same entity is not one of those characteristics. I’ll go more into this another time, but for now, I’ll just say that John description does not necessarily exclude with absolution the possibility that some aspect of Him is divine.

"No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us." 1 Jn 4:12 KJV

Yes, I agree with this statement. I don’t really get how it fits into the argument, though. Perhaps you were going after, “People saw Jesus, but nobody ever saw God, so Jesus can’t be God.”

That’s a solid argument if you are fixated on Jesus being the exact same entity as the Father, but Trinitarians are not, so it isn’t a problem. What is a problem, however, is if nobody has ever seen God, who did Moses see on Mount Sinai? Trippy, huh?


Pressed for time, I’ll discuss the next three another time. Thanks again, Toxic, for this great opportunity to discuss this debate.

FYI, I am not singling out non-Trinitarians. Last month, I had it out with fellow Trinitarians about this very topic. I think your arguments are very reasonable, and important to be aware of, particularly because the authors of the Bible were not Trinitarians. The theology didn’t sprout up until later, and I would never argue that a non-Trinitarian is not a true Christian. I agree with you that the Trinity and the actual writings in the Bible do not perfectly align. However, a strict non-Trinitarian stance also does not perfectly align with the Gospel, hence the reason I was inquiring about your motives for this thread. Sorry that particular line of questioning ended up going haywire.

I'll be back.

 

[2ducklow]

This is an interesting verse to choose to start an argument about a Biblical truth about what Jesus really is, particularly because it is a quote from a demon.

As far as credibility goes, demons are not exactly the top of the list in terms of sources of truth. However, let&#8217;s say this demon is being honest in his assessment of Jesus&#8217; role, this identification does not necessarily exclude with absolution the possibility that some aspect of Him is divine.

since cubinity has me on ignore, i offer some of my opinons Toxic in analysing what cubinity has said here. Hope it helps.
1. the question is is Jesus the holy one of God? it hasnt been answered.
2. the assertion that Jesus is divine here is a different ball game than the assertion that Jesus is god.
it is an evasion of the topic.

This is a partial quote regarding teaching the most important commandment. In order to address the issue of what Jesus is, you have left off the actual commandment part of the statement
There are two ways to appreciate this verse on loving God. First, the original author of this command (Moses, to Jesus&#8217; audience) was distinguishing Israel&#8217;s monotheistic God from amongst those of their polytheistic neighbors. Second, Jesus identifies Himself as one with God in John 17, and is praised indistinguishably with the Father in Revelation 5:13.

Whether Jesus is the same entity as the Father or not, this verse does not necessarily exclude with absolution the possibility that some aspect of Him is divine.

Why not say that some aspect of Jesus is God? Isn't that what hte topic is ? Is Jesus God or not. Saying Jesus is divine evades the topic. For cubinity to conclude here that some aspect of Jesus is god would be absurd. God is not an aspect of someone he is someone.

In this OT story, Balak is trying to get God to curse His own people, Israel. Balaam, an oracle, has returned to an insistent Balak a second time, insisting that God is not going to take back His blessing over His people.

These statements, in their context, written in an age before Messiah, even before King David&#8217;s throne, are clearly about the personality of God. They were not meant to be read as a commentary on his physical or metaphysical form or nature.

God is not a man means god isn't a human personality is what he is saying. It's changing the text.
well I don't wanna steal your thunder, hope this helps. AS a side, I believe this is a good example of the effect I had of dealing with cubinity's main initial proof which was veild criticism. It caused him to do a good job here of not resorting to argumentum ad hominums because I dealt with that major proof and in effect eliminated it from the equation. It doesn't always work but sometimes it does. You gotta deal with it in some shape form or fashion when debators offer argumentums as proof, otherwise it stands out as convincing proof.

 

[cubinity]

I am just presenting what I believe to be the genuine teachings of Scripture. I had a trinitarian view of God previously. That was because I took people's word for it instead of actually reading it for myself in the Bible. I accepted the Trinity when I accepted Christ. Then I read the Trinity into the Bible because that is what I was taught to do.


My intention? To share the truth of the Scriptures. Nothing more. My hope is that there will be those who will see my thread and reconsider what they have been always told the Bible teaches about the nature of God and Christ.


Christians are free to believe whatever they want. They certainly won't be punished by God for believing in the Trinity, if that is what you are alluding to.

However, using extra-biblical tradition to interpret the Scripture is not the best way for exegesis. It just opens the door to more error.

I extend to you my apologies. In all the hoopla, I missed this response.

It sounds as though we entirely agree on this issue, although you take the non-Trinitarian stance, and I take the Trinitarian.

I agree with you that the Biblical authors were not Trinitarians, and reading the Trinity into their writing is bad exegesis. (I am a Trinitarian for extra-Biblical reasons).

Also, I agree with your motives in wanting people to discover and appreciate what the Bible actually says, and not just what they want it to say.

Thank you again for clarifying your motives in posting this thread. I have and will continue to truly enjoy your ideas and discussing them with you.

 

[ToxicReboMan]

I guess you missed my point...I'm wanting you to tell me who Jesus is because you say Jesus is not God and therefore must be a created being like the angels or whatever. Problem is, there are no scriptures that would allude to Jesus being a creation and if someone is not a creation, then would not such a one be God?

In light of John 1.1, how would you reconcile Jesus not being God when John says otherwise?

Jhn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation."
Col 1:15 NASB​

Since Christ Jesus was the first to be born of all creation then there was a time when he was not yet born. Thus, he cannot be God. He is God's messenger, prophet, messiah, son.



This verse is used by Trinitarians as proof that Christ is God Almighty. If this is true then God was the first to be born in creation. In other words, before all creation God begotten an equal God. Thus, the 3ists (new abv i just invented) fully negate the words of Jesus when he said, "the Father is greater than I." (Jn 14:28)


This verse is actually saying that Jesus Christ is the representative of the invisible God. That is the meaning of the word "image" used in this text. It is a figure of speech; a simile. Our Lord and Savior Christ Jesus (being Lord and/or Savior does not make one God; plenty of Scriptural examples to back this up too) is the chief representative of humanity to God Almighty. He is our mediator (high priest) who makes intercession on our behalf to his God and our God (Jn 20:17, Heb 7:25). On the other hand, Jesus, the son of God, represents the authority and interests of God to mankind. Much like how Switzerland mediates for and represents the interests of the U.S. in North Korea. Switzerland is Jesus lol. USA would be God I guess and North Korea would be mankind. (Only an example, don't take the associations seriously )

Now where in the world am I going with this? Glad you ask. Switzerland (Jesus) cannot also be USA (God) at the same time otherwise there is no real 3rd party mediation taking place. God would then be a mediator for Himself. That is nonsensical theology.


----------------------------------------

Now about John 1:1..

Without a doubt this verse can always be expected to be brought to the forefront of any debate concerning the nature of God and Christ.

Some might find it hard to believe that our English Bibles may contain the following...Biased translations. That is exactly what it is. The Greek word word used for God in the phrase, "the Word was God" is 'theos'. This word can be translated many different ways depending on the context around it. It can be translated as God, god and gods and even divine. The Greek word 'theos' is also used to refer to the devil in the Greek NT.

The proper translation should be "a god". Again the Greek allows for this translation and it is better supported by the immediate context and the context as a whole. In light of these often misunderstood Scriptures that say that Jesus is a god and the devil is a god we can hopefully gain a better understanding of the shocking/strange (and never accepted at face value) teaching of Jesus when he repeated the words of God in Scripture, "I said, ye are gods." (Jn 10:34)

So technically and truthfully, the Bible teaches there are other gods besides God Almighty. But only God our Father is supreme over all.


By translating Jn 1:1 as they have 3ists have introduced an explicit text that says the Logos is God. The problem though is that this translation does not harmonize with the context and stated theme of John's gospel. You would think that such an important detail would have at least been clearly repeated again a second time or at the very least repeated in John's stated reason for writing his gospel. Instead there are numerous amounts of passages in the gospel of John that clearly indicate that Jesus and God are separate and distinct individuals each with their own mind.

"Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God."
John 20:17 KJV​

 

[ToxicReboMan]

So someone just saying "that's not true" is an adequate argument? If it was so blatantly untrue, then why did the Jewish leaders accuse Jesus of blasphemy? Does your unnamed source above know more than the Jewish leaders standing there listening to Jesus as he identified himself as I Am? And furthermore, someone saying "Before Abraham was, I am" carries the same connotation as someone saying "I am blind"? Really?

They accused him of blasphemy for many reasons. Please cite the specific passage(s) you are referring to.

Okay, about Jn 8:58. "Truly, truly, before Abraham was born, I am." Jesus is merely saying that he already existed before Abraham was even born. This is in harmony with the Scriptures that state that Jesus was the firstborn of all creation. Yes indeed, Jesus saw Abraham. If the Jews at that moment thought Jesus was claiming to be YHWH then they would have mentioned that instead of simply scoffing at the notion that Jesus is older than Abraham.

 

[ToxicReboMan]

my opinion is that those who want to believe the trinity or Jesus is god are unpersuadable and have already firmly made up their minds on the matter, and it doesn't matter what you say. Those who are in the decision process will often times be persuaded by argumentum ad hominums because they don't have a good enough grip on the subject yet to know the facts. In my opinion playing their game as I call it only serves to reinforce their modus operindi. Because some people , maybe even most people, are persuaded by ridicule, character assaults, or similar argumentum ad hominums when they don't have sufficent facts to make an intelligent decision on the matter. In short, i'm saying you need to know what you're really dealing with here to be effective. Just look at the response you got for responding to their scripture, you got ridiculed. And that ridicule was much more effective because your very convincing proof texts were ignored. See, how it works with most people is a good argument beats a bad arguement, and since there is no good argument for trinity or for Jesus is god, they have to reinforce it with argumentum ad hominums to make it persuasive, it's their only option, other than the one most trinitarians take, which is to not discuss the doctrine with anyone outside their church. Trinity or Jesus is god, cannot be defended without argumentum ad hominums. impossible.

Another way of looking at it is argumentum ad hominums in whatever form are like an armour coated shell of protection for bad arguements that prevent bad arguments from being exposed to the light of truth. Argumentum ad hominums overshadow everything else, making it easy to slip in many false things, under that armour coated shell of protection. IN some form of fashion one must deal with the major proof in that situation which is their armour coated shell of protection aka argumentum ad hominums in whatever form.

Plus, debating with those who throw out insults right and left is only going to tend to draw you into a similar exchange.



But i see you're of a different opinion. , c'est la vie. D'accord (ok)?

That's why you have to try to rise above the occasion. But in all honestly, I don't feel like I have been insulted. Sure there are those who would speak up and oppose my unitarian view of God, but that is to expected when the majority of Christians believe Christ is God. We still have the opportunity to show the truth of the Scriptures. We should should do this while seasoning our words with salt. There are many who read and do not post but still may have gained something from this thread.



Unitarianism (not to be confused with Unitarian Universalist) also has a unique advantage over theologies that make Jesus out to be God. With unitarianism it would be easier to convert Jews and other non-believers of Christ Jesus to Christianity. Any doctrine that teaches that Christ Jesus is God is an assured stumbling block to potential converts. (Thought I would mention this since it was fresh on my mind.)

 

[laconicstudent]

Unitarianism (not to be confused with Unitarian Universalist) also has a unique advantage over theologies that make Jesus out to be God. With unitarianism it would be easier to convert Jews and other non-believers of Christ Jesus to Christianity. Any doctrine that teaches that Christ Jesus is God is an assured stumbling block to potential converts.

Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat. How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life: and few there are that find it! (Matthew 7:13-14)

 

[r035198x]

Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat. How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life: and few there are that find it! (Matthew 7:13-14)

The post a random scripture and hope to appear wise game is now so common that even I can do it.
See here

Philippians 2

10.That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; 11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

 

[A New Dawn]

They accused him of blasphemy for many reasons. Please cite the specific passage(s) you are referring to.

Okay, about Jn 8:58. "Truly, truly, before Abraham was born, I am." Jesus is merely saying that he already existed before Abraham was even born. This is in harmony with the Scriptures that state that Jesus was the firstborn of all creation. Yes indeed, Jesus saw Abraham. If the Jews at that moment thought Jesus was claiming to be YHWH then they would have mentioned that instead of simply scoffing at the notion that Jesus is older than Abraham.

Jesus identified himself as God in that verse by calling himself "I Am". Had he done what you suggested, He would have said "I was". I posted 3 verses where Jesus identified himself as 'I Am', as the person in the burning bush with Moses, and there are others. Please address the others I posted.

 

[2ducklow]

That's why you have to try to rise above the occasion. But in all honestly, I don't feel like I have been insulted. Sure there are those who would speak up and oppose my unitarian view of God, but that is to expected when the majority of Christians believe Christ is God. We still have the opportunity to show the truth of the Scriptures. We should should do this while seasoning our words with salt. There are many who read and do not post but still may have gained something from this thread.

I don't think you got my drift. Of course we should rise above insults (although I think everyone has thier breaking point with regard to being insulted, returning insult for insult). the point I was making is that anytime a person resorts to insults as proof, that is his major proof. My point is that to ignore that major proof results in novices being persuaded by that insult proof. My point is that my ignoring thier insults you are playing into thier hands. My point was that you have to at least get them to play your game, respond to your scriptures to lessen the impact of their insult proofs. they want to ignore scriptures that strongly condemn trinity as false, like the ones you quoted, and go to ones that seem on the surface to imply that Jesus is god or trinity, and ridicule and insult you for not believeing as they do, that is persuasive to novices, and wouldn't be as persuasive if you got them to deal with those scriptures that clearly condemn trinity and jesus is god as a doctrine. See?

I don't think you saw that in what I said.
I'm not saying how you have to deal with their insult proofs, I gave several ways one can do that, that part is up to you. But in all honesty, you are rarely going to find a trinitarian defending trinity without insults. Most trinitarians don't debate trinity cause it is indefensable from a purely scriptural ,and logical standpoint which necessitates an insult proof as their only option. I believe your opponent was in the beginning stages of full blown insult proof with what I considered ridicule. you didn't. but press on with him and you will see how quickly it turns to insults.

[quote



Unitarianism (not to be confused with Unitarian Universalist) also has a unique advantage over theologies that make Jesus out to be God. With unitarianism it would be easier to convert Jews and other non-believers of Christ Jesus to Christianity. Any doctrine that teaches that Christ Jesus is God is an assured stumbling block to potential converts. (Thought I would mention this since it was fresh on my mind.)

I agree with that, muslims teach their followers very strongly that there is only one god and christianity cannot possibly be true because it is polythiesm. It makes them not even consider anything Christians say. Same with Jews. They can say all they want that 3 persons are one god is not polythiesm, but no jew and no muslim is going to believe them.

I read what you said to someone else about 'firstborn of all creation' and our belief is different. we beleive that Jesus is the firstborn of all new creations of God, and everyone who is in Christ Jesus is a new creation. Jesus obviously was born after Abraham, and Jesus was the firstborn and only one born of god (begotten of God ), Just because the verse doesn't say new creation but only says creation doesn't mean it isn't refering to the new creation for in another place the new creation is refered to as simply creation.

Romans 8:19 For the earnest expectation of the creation waiteth for the revealing of the sons of God.

it is the earnest expection of the new creation, born again christians, that are waiting for the revealing of the sons of god, that is those who are expecting to be like Jesus one day. yet this verse only refers to the new creation as creation.

Romans 8:20-21 For the creation was subjected to vanity, not of its own will, but by reason of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the liberty of the glory of the children of God.

It is the new creation of God that is hoping to be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the liberty of the glory of the children of God, not the old creation, yet the new creation is here only called creation.



Romans 8:22-24 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body. For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?

Rocks, and sheep, and goats, and pigs and air and non christians are not groaning within themselves waiting for the adoption and redemption of thier bodies, only born again christians are only the new creations of God are groaing for that hope. yet they are only called creation and not new creations here.

 

[ToxicReboMan]

This is an interesting verse to choose to start an argument about a Biblical truth about what Jesus really is, particularly because it is a quote from a demon.

As far as credibility goes, demons are not exactly the top of the list in terms of sources of truth. However, let&#8217;s say this demon is being honest in his assessment of Jesus&#8217; role, this identification does not necessarily exclude with absolution the possibility that some aspect of Him is divine.

The demons knew who Jesus was. It's in the Bible. If Jesus is God then we could say because of this verse that Jesus is the Holy God of God which does not make any sense. Clearly, being denoted the "Holy One of God" makes Jesus distinct from God and at the most is "of" God.

This is a partial quote regarding teaching the most important commandment. In order to address the issue of what Jesus is, you have left off the actual commandment part of the statement.

There are two ways to appreciate this verse on loving God. First, the original author of this command (Moses, to Jesus&#8217; audience) was distinguishing Israel&#8217;s monotheistic God from amongst those of their polytheistic neighbors. Second, Jesus identifies Himself as one with God in John 17, and is praised indistinguishably with the Father in Revelation 5:13.

Whether Jesus is the same entity as the Father or not, this verse does not necessarily exclude with absolution the possibility that some aspect of Him is divine.

If the Trinity were true then this verse would say that the Lord is three. I don't think I need to say much else on this verse. Clearly the Lord our God is one and not three.

In this OT story, Balak is trying to get God to curse His own people, Israel. Balaam, an oracle, has returned to an insistent Balak a second time, insisting that God is not going to take back His blessing over His people.

These statements, in their context, written in an age before Messiah, even before King David&#8217;s throne, are clearly about the personality of God. They were not meant to be read as a commentary on his physical or metaphysical form or nature.

In this verse, God does not change. The same is said of Jesus in Hebrews 13:8. Therefore, this description of God does not necessarily exclude with absolution the possibility that some aspect of Him is divine.

This passage clearly says that God is not a man. You however believe that God is a man and do not take this passage at face value. These passages speak for themselves.

This is a proclamation by John that the Father has declared Jesus as His Son. I am actually very impressed with the statement that just precedes this verse, which reads, &#8220;For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.&#8221;

John&#8217;s interest in making this statement is to validate Jesus as a kind of new Moses. He treats them as two different entities because, I believe, he understood them to be two different entities. The Trinity does not refute that Jesus and God are two different metaphysical entities. So, this statement is not problematic for a Trinitarian to embrace.

Jesus is God because of several characteristics described in the Bible, but being one and the same entity is not one of those characteristics. I&#8217;ll go more into this another time, but for now, I&#8217;ll just say that John description does not necessarily exclude with absolution the possibility that some aspect of Him is divine.

This clear verse says that, "No man hath seen God" yet people have seen Jesus. This is in the gospel of John too. What gives?

Yes, I agree with this statement. I don&#8217;t really get how it fits into the argument, though. Perhaps you were going after, &#8220;People saw Jesus, but nobody ever saw God, so Jesus can&#8217;t be God.&#8221;

That&#8217;s a solid argument if you are fixated on Jesus being the exact same entity as the Father, but Trinitarians are not, so it isn&#8217;t a problem. What is a problem, however, is if nobody has ever seen God, who did Moses see on Mount Sinai? Trippy, huh?


Pressed for time, I&#8217;ll discuss the next three another time. Thanks again, Toxic, for this great opportunity to discuss this debate.

FYI, I am not singling out non-Trinitarians. Last month, I had it out with fellow Trinitarians about this very topic. I think your arguments are very reasonable, and important to be aware of, particularly because the authors of the Bible were not Trinitarians. The theology didn&#8217;t sprout up until later, and I would never argue that a non-Trinitarian is not a true Christian. I agree with you that the Trinity and the actual writings in the Bible do not perfectly align. However, a strict non-Trinitarian stance also does not perfectly align with the Gospel, hence the reason I was inquiring about your motives for this thread. Sorry that particular line of questioning ended up going haywire.

I'll be back.

Same thing as the previous passages. God is Spirit and cannot be seen. I'm of the position that Moses did not actually see God, because God is an incorporeal being. What Moses saw on that mountain was a manifestation that God provided for him to see, but Moses wasn't able to see God in his truest form because God is an invisible Spirit.

I'm glad that you don't automatically view non-trinitarians as non-christians. Anyone who believes that Jesus is the Messiah of God and died on the cross and resurrected is a Christian in my book.


Edit: Oh I forgot to say something I was meaning to say. Jesus' mission is divine. His office is divine. The Spirit of God which is within him in all fullness is divine. God gave Christ divine authority to carry out His will. Christ himself though is not divine in the same sense that God our Father is uniquely divine.

 

[ToxicReboMan]

I extend to you my apologies. In all the hoopla, I missed this response.

It sounds as though we entirely agree on this issue, although you take the non-Trinitarian stance, and I take the Trinitarian.

I agree with you that the Biblical authors were not Trinitarians, and reading the Trinity into their writing is bad exegesis. (I am a Trinitarian for extra-Biblical reasons).

Also, I agree with your motives in wanting people to discover and appreciate what the Bible actually says, and not just what they want it to say.

Thank you again for clarifying your motives in posting this thread. I have and will continue to truly enjoy your ideas and discussing them with you.

Thanks for this nice post. I'm glad that you see that I'm just trying to be honest with the Scriptures.

Question. You say that you are a Trinitarian for extra-biblical reasons...Does this mean you admit that the Trinity is not actually taught in the Bible? (You may have already mentioned this, but I just wanted to clarify.) For a protestant I find that quite honest and admirable if that is the case. Most protestants will say that it is taught in Scripture because they won't want to be seen as having to defer to extra-biblical tradition to support their view. Very interesting...