Do Christians desire to replace God with Jesus?

gadar perets

Messianic Hebrew
May 11, 2016
4,252
1,042
70
NC
Visit site
✟130,996.00
Country
United States
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Of course you can question it, ask questions and doubt it.
I bring it up only to show that the Trinity is not something that I have decided upon from my own reading of Scripture or own ideas.
It is a doctrine of the Christian church; has been for many years.
Just as I suspected. You did not learn the trinity doctrine from Scripture or from the Holy Spirit as it guided you through them, but you learned it from “the Christian church” (fallible men).

One hallmark of cults is that they reject the Trinity. Take that up with all the churches, theologians and clergy if you like; that's how it is.
How convenient for Christians to label non-trinitarians as cults. What a great way to cause the lay people to avoid non-trinitarians so the lay people avoid studying the issue for themselves.

The rules of this forum state that if you reject this fundamental doctrine, you are considered, by this forum, to be a non Christian. Take it up with them if you like; that's how it is.
Will non-Christians be saved? If not, then salvation is contingent upon believing the trinity doctrine. Believing in Yeshua and being washed by his blood and made righteous through his faith is now irrelevant for those who reject the trinity. BTW, I do not profess to be a Christian. I am, however, a blood washed child of YHWH and disciple of the Master Yeshua the Messiah.

So you believe that the translators of Scripture had an agenda, and simply inserted their own beliefs into the passages they were translating?
I don't buy that.
1) I trust that they knew what they were doing, and I trust absolutely in the inspiration, and guidance, of the Holy Spirit.
2) If they deliberately mistranslated the Hebrew or Greek to make it suit their own beliefs, people would have realised that by now and branded their particular Scriptural translation as unreliable, or even false.
3) If you think some Scripture may be biased, unreliable or false, how can we trust any of it? And if the experts were wrong, why should I trust your interpretation of it? And why quote it to "prove" your point, if you think it's biased?
I said they did not intentionally try to deceive. That means they had no agenda. They believed with all their heart (albeit erroneously) that the trinity was true and that “Jesus” was God in the flesh. They translated accordingly, not realizing they were in error. How did “Easter” get into the KJV of Acts 12:4? Did the Holy Spirit guide them to translate the Greek “pascha” as “Easter” instead of “Passover”? Why did newer translations change it to “Passover” if it was inspired to be “Easter”? There is no doubt whatsoever that “Easter”, for example, is a false and wrong translation. It doesn’t belong in our English translation. Does that make the entire KJV unreliable and not to be trusted? No. We study the texts and correct the errors in translations that were committed by fallible men.

I would hate to think that Christians disfellowshipped, rejected or ignored people who didn't understand or believe the Trinity. As no one can understand it, we'd all be disfellowshipping ourselves and each other. I expect there are Christian doctrines that people don't understand, but we can still have fellowship with, and love, them.
Is labeling people as “non-Christian” a form of disfellowshiping? Can “non-Christians” be a part of the Body of Christ? It seems to me that to label a non-trinitarian as a “non-Christian” is to disfellowship them and cast them out of the Body of Christ.

The Father is God - if not, then Jesus, Thomas and the apostles were wrong to call him God.
The Father is indeed “the ONLY true God” (John 17:3).

The Son is God - if not, then Jesus was ONLY human, would not have been perfect and would have died for his own sins, not ours.
Yeshua was a 100% human male who lived a perfect, sinless life qualifying him to be an unblemished sacrifice for the sins of mankind.

The Spirit is God - if not, then the Scriptures that say that he is the Spirit of God, was present in the beginning and is eternal, are wrong.
The Holy Spirit is a part of the Father. Since the Father is Spirit, He can place a part of Himself inside a human being (the indwelling Holy Spirit) to lead that person into all truth. It is not a “third person” of a trinity.

You are at liberty to do so.
Just don't be surprised if Christianity, the church and orthodox faith all disagree with you.
Not a problem since YHWH and Yeshua agree with me.
 
Upvote 0

Strong in Him

Great is thy faithfulness
Supporter
Mar 4, 2005
27,771
7,916
NW England
✟1,041,403.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
If you believe that Jesus was only a man, that's up to you. Scripture, and the church, say otherwise; but I can't persuade you, or argue you into belief.

But I don't think we have anything more to talk about.
 
Upvote 0

radhead

Contributor
Feb 20, 2006
13,499
602
✟63,827.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Of course you can question it, ask questions and doubt it.
I bring it up only to show that the Trinity is not something that I have decided upon from my own reading of Scripture or own ideas.
It is a doctrine of the Christian church; has been for many years.
One hallmark of cults is that they reject the Trinity. Take that up with all the churches, theologians and clergy if you like; that's how it is.
The rules of this forum state that if you reject this fundamental doctrine, you are considered, by this forum, to be a non Christian. Take it up with them if you like; that's how it is.

So, what you are saying is that "might makes right". To me, the fact that something is "popular" doesn't automatically make it right. There are lots of really bad things in the world which are popular. Racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. These were once popular ideas.
 
Upvote 0

gadar perets

Messianic Hebrew
May 11, 2016
4,252
1,042
70
NC
Visit site
✟130,996.00
Country
United States
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
If you believe that Jesus was only a man, that's up to you. Scripture, and the church, say otherwise; but I can't persuade you, or argue you into belief.

But I don't think we have anything more to talk about.
I never said he was "only a man". He was born without an earthly father and he lived a sinless life. No man can possibly be his equal. If you choose to worship a God that can die and is not omniscient, so be it. My God, Almighty YHWH, cannot die and is omniscient. After death is destroyed, Yeshua will be in total subjection to his Father YHWH, the "ONLY TRUE GOD" (1 Corinthians 15:28; John 17:3).
 
Upvote 0

Strong in Him

Great is thy faithfulness
Supporter
Mar 4, 2005
27,771
7,916
NW England
✟1,041,403.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
So, what you are saying is that "might makes right". To me, the fact that something is "popular" doesn't automatically make it right.

I'm not talking about popularity. I'm talking about something that has always been accepted by Christianity and the church. It's long established - and is in Scripture too.
 
Upvote 0

Strong in Him

Great is thy faithfulness
Supporter
Mar 4, 2005
27,771
7,916
NW England
✟1,041,403.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I never said he was "only a man". He was born without an earthly father and he lived a sinless life.

According to Scripture, Jesus:
- was conceived by the Holy Spirit, Luke 1:35
- is the eternal Word, was with the Father in the beginning and is God, John 1:1-3. This Word became human and lived among us, John 1:14
- shared God's glory before the beginning of the world, John 17:5
- is the spotless Lamb, chosen from the foundation of the world, 1 Peter 1:19-20
- is the heir of all things and sustains the world, Hebrews 1:2
- was present at creation, as the world was made through him, John 1:3, Hebrews 1:2
- is one with the Father, John 10:30, and said that whoever had seen him had seen the Father, John 14:9-10
- is Life, John 14:6, John 10:10 and the giver of eternal life, John 5:24, John 6:40, 1 John 5:12
- is the Alpha and Omega, Revelation 1:8, the bright morning star and Root and offspring of David, Revelation 22:16

If he's not only a man, and, according to you, he's not God; who is he? An angel?
 
Upvote 0

radhead

Contributor
Feb 20, 2006
13,499
602
✟63,827.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
I'm not talking about popularity. I'm talking about something that has always been accepted by Christianity and the church. It's long established - and is in Scripture too.

No it isn't. I have read the Bible numerous times and there is nothing like it in there. You have to have a simplistic idea, based on the distortion of a very limited number of passages that I doubt most Christians ever look beyond. The fact that so many multitudes believe the same exact thing that you do, without once opening a Bible, is proof that the ideas you believe in are popular and appealing to itchy ears. But I don't believe it for a second. It's just not in there.
 
Upvote 0

gadar perets

Messianic Hebrew
May 11, 2016
4,252
1,042
70
NC
Visit site
✟130,996.00
Country
United States
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
According to Scripture, Jesus:
- was conceived by the Holy Spirit, Luke 1:35
- is the eternal Word, was with the Father in the beginning and is God, John 1:1-3. This Word became human and lived among us, John 1:14
- shared God's glory before the beginning of the world, John 17:5
- is the spotless Lamb, chosen from the foundation of the world, 1 Peter 1:19-20
- is the heir of all things and sustains the world, Hebrews 1:2
- was present at creation, as the world was made through him, John 1:3, Hebrews 1:2
- is one with the Father, John 10:30, and said that whoever had seen him had seen the Father, John 14:9-10
- is Life, John 14:6, John 10:10 and the giver of eternal life, John 5:24, John 6:40, 1 John 5:12
- is the Alpha and Omega, Revelation 1:8, the bright morning star and Root and offspring of David, Revelation 22:16

If he's not only a man, and, according to you, he's not God; who is he? An angel?
Here are your points that I disagree with:

- is the eternal Word, was with the Father in the beginning and is God, John 1:1-3. This Word became human and lived among us, John 1:14
- shared God's glory before the beginning of the world, John 17:5
- was present at creation, as the world was made through him, John 1:3, Hebrews 1:2
- is the Alpha and Omega, Revelation 1:8

I'll gladly expound on these points for anyone interested in learning what the Scriptures really mean.
 
Upvote 0

gadar perets

Messianic Hebrew
May 11, 2016
4,252
1,042
70
NC
Visit site
✟130,996.00
Country
United States
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
No it isn't. I have read the Bible numerous times and there is nothing like it in there. You have to have a simplistic idea, based on the distortion of a very limited number of passages that I doubt most Christians ever look beyond. The fact that so many multitudes believe the same exact thing that you do, without once opening a Bible, is proof that the ideas you believe in are popular and appealing to itchy ears. But I don't believe it for a second. It's just not in there.
What do you believe about Yeshua? Were you at one time a baptized believer in him?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

radhead

Contributor
Feb 20, 2006
13,499
602
✟63,827.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
What do you believe about Yeshua? Where you at one time a baptized believer in him?

I loved Jesus and believed as a child. But the idea of nonbelievers going to Hell always bothered me, which is what differentiated me from other believers. Because other believers seem to be fine with it.

Later I realized that the idea of "sin" as the church describes it makes no sense. And it was not found in the Bible either after I read it. The true sin is something that a society commits. When so many Christians can live in harmony and happiness, with no regard for the oppressed and the less fortunate, then I have a clear picture of what real "sin" is, as the Bible truly describes it.

True sin is an attribute of the Christian church. They recognize it in themselves, and they attempt to project it onto others.
 
Upvote 0

gadar perets

Messianic Hebrew
May 11, 2016
4,252
1,042
70
NC
Visit site
✟130,996.00
Country
United States
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I loved Jesus and believed as a child. But the idea of nonbelievers going to Hell always bothered me, which is what differentiated me from other believers. Because other believers seem to be fine with it.

Later I realized that the idea of "sin" as the church describes it makes no sense. And it was not found in the Bible either after I read it. The true sin is something that a society commits. When so many Christians can live in harmony and happiness, with no regard for the oppressed and the less fortunate, then I have a clear picture of what real "sin" is, as the Bible truly describes it.

True sin is an attribute of the Christian church. They recognize it in themselves, and they attempt to project it onto others.
Why are you looking at the behavior of Christians and using that to determine whether or not you should walk with Yeshua (Jesus)? There is no Hell where people are tormented in fire forever. You turned away from Yeshua because of a false teaching of Christianity? Sin is transgression of our Creator's laws (1 John 3:4). Failing to love our neighbors as ourselves transgresses the law and is sin. Therefore, any Christian who you saw that shuts their eyes to the oppressed or less fortunate and refuses to help them is, indeed, committing sin, but that was no reason for you to turn away from Yeshua. That's when you should have taken the lead and either prayed their hearts would be softened and more compassionate and/or set an example for them on how to help the oppressed and less fortunate. If they continued in their lack of love, that is between them and Yeshua. They will be judged by their works or lack of them. However, now you will be judged for your unbelief in turning away from the Savior of the world. It is not too late to turn to him again.
 
Upvote 0

Strong in Him

Great is thy faithfulness
Supporter
Mar 4, 2005
27,771
7,916
NW England
✟1,041,403.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
No it isn't. I have read the Bible numerous times and there is nothing like it in there. You have to have a simplistic idea, based on the distortion of a very limited number of passages that I doubt most Christians ever look beyond. The fact that so many multitudes believe the same exact thing that you do, without once opening a Bible, is proof that the ideas you believe in are popular and appealing to itchy ears. But I don't believe it for a second. It's just not in there.

The Bible teaches that there is one God. Yet the Father, the Son, or eternal Word who became flesh, and the Spirit are all divine.
In Genesis 1:26-26 God says, let us make man in our image. The word used for God here is plural.

It is rather insulting to say that "multitudes believe the same as you do, without even opening a Bible" - how do you know how much Scripture Trinity believers have read and studied?
And are you implying that theologians and clergy have invented, or plucked, a doctrine out of thin air and then claim that it is Scriptural?
 
Upvote 0

gadar perets

Messianic Hebrew
May 11, 2016
4,252
1,042
70
NC
Visit site
✟130,996.00
Country
United States
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
In Genesis 1:26-26 God says, let us make man in our image. The word used for God here is plural.
The word "Elohim" is indeed written in a plural form, but it has a singular meaning which is why singular pronouns, verbs and adjectives are used with it. Our Creator is a single entity. The word Elohim, when it refers to YHWH, is an majestic plural which is numerically singular. The majestic plural denotes greatness, not multiplicity.
 
Upvote 0

Strong in Him

Great is thy faithfulness
Supporter
Mar 4, 2005
27,771
7,916
NW England
✟1,041,403.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The word "Elohim" is indeed written in a plural form, but it has a singular meaning which is why singular pronouns, verbs and adjectives are used with it. Our Creator is a single entity. The word Elohim, when it refers to YHWH, is an majestic plural which is numerically singular. The majestic plural denotes greatness, not multiplicity.

There is one God certainly - who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: ToBeLoved
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

gadar perets

Messianic Hebrew
May 11, 2016
4,252
1,042
70
NC
Visit site
✟130,996.00
Country
United States
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
There is one God certainly - who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
One God - correct. That He is presented as Father, Son and Holy Spirit is written in a plethora of Christian books, forums, etc., but He is not presented as such in Scripture.
 
Upvote 0

Strong in Him

Great is thy faithfulness
Supporter
Mar 4, 2005
27,771
7,916
NW England
✟1,041,403.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
One God - correct. That He is presented as Father, Son and Holy Spirit is written in a plethora of Christian books, forums, etc., but He is not presented as such in Scripture.

You are entitled to your opinion.
But to suggest that teachers, theologians, clergy and millions of Christians would present/teach/believe something that is unscriptural; is insulting, illogical and unfounded.
 
Upvote 0

gadar perets

Messianic Hebrew
May 11, 2016
4,252
1,042
70
NC
Visit site
✟130,996.00
Country
United States
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
You are entitled to your opinion.
But to suggest that teachers, theologians, clergy and millions of Christians would present/teach/believe something that is unscriptural; is insulting, illogical and unfounded.
It is not my intention to insult. That is a natural consequence when one's deeply held beliefs are shown to be wrong. Your line of reasoning would have more merit if the trinity was Christianity's only unscriptural doctrine. Sadly, it is not. Here are a few more beliefs held by "millions of Christians" that are incorrect;

infant baptism
transubstantiation
indulgences
perpetual virginity of "Mary"
unsaved human beings burning forever in eternal torment
eating unclean animal flesh
Sunday Sabbath or no Sabbath at all
All Feast Days abolished
the names "Jehovah" and "Jesus"

The first four alone prove that "teachers, theologians, clergy and millions of Christians would present/teach/believe something that is unscriptural" is faulty reasoning, unless you want to believe Catholics are not Christians, but that would be another faulty belief.
 
Upvote 0

Strong in Him

Great is thy faithfulness
Supporter
Mar 4, 2005
27,771
7,916
NW England
✟1,041,403.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It is not my intention to insult. That is a natural consequence when one's deeply held beliefs are shown to be wrong.

You haven't shown them to be wrong.

Your line of reasoning would have more merit if the trinity was Christianity's only unscriptural doctrine. Sadly, it is not. Here are a few more beliefs held by "millions of Christians" that are incorrect;

infant baptism
transubstantiation
indulgences
perpetual virginity of "Mary"
unsaved human beings burning forever in eternal torment
eating unclean animal flesh
Sunday Sabbath or no Sabbath at all
All Feast Days abolished
the names "Jehovah" and "Jesus"

The first four alone prove that "teachers, theologians, clergy and millions of Christians would present/teach/believe something that is unscriptural" is faulty reasoning, unless you want to believe Catholics are not Christians, but that would be another faulty belief.

Your line of reasoning would have more merit if the trinity was Christianity's only unscriptural doctrine. Sadly, it is not. Here are a few more beliefs held by "millions of Christians" that are incorrect;

infant baptism

This is not incorrect.

transubstantiation
indulgences
perpetual virginity of "Mary"

These are catholic practices, with which, actually, I disagree. Unlike the deity of Christ, they are not Scriptural, though the first could be said to be Scriptural, depending on how you interpret Scripture. They are not the Gospel, not doctrine as such and not essential for salvation.
And the catholics no longer have indulgences.

unsaved human beings burning forever in eternal torment

It is certainly Scriptural that those who die in their sins having refused to accept Christ and receive eternal life, spend the whole of eternity apart from God in hell.
My own position is that this applies to those who have wilfully rejected, and continued to reject, Christ and his free gift of salvation. If someone hasn't heard the Gospel, and have actually rejected the church, rather than God's amazing love, I think it's different - you can't reject what you don't know and haven't experienced.

Whether or not hell means literal, eternal fire, depends on how literally a person interprets Scripture.

eating unclean animal flesh

That's not a Christian doctrine. That's a belief held by people who believe that Christians should be under the Jewish law, when it was never given to Gentiles anyway.

Sunday Sabbath or no Sabbath at all
All Feast Days abolished

Again, beliefs held by people who believe that Christians are under Jewish law.
Jesus came to fulfil Jewish law, which gentiles were not under to begin with. Jesus saves, not the law.

the names "Jehovah" and "Jesus"

I don't know what you mean by this.

The first four alone prove that "teachers, theologians, clergy and millions of Christians would present/teach/believe something that is unscriptural" is faulty reasoning,

None of those first four are actually doctrine, just church practice.
Baptism and communion are sacraments, practiced in different ways by each church, and not at all by the Salvation Army and, I think, Quakers.
All believe the Christian Gospel however - which says that Christ was both man and God, the Word became flesh.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

gadar perets

Messianic Hebrew
May 11, 2016
4,252
1,042
70
NC
Visit site
✟130,996.00
Country
United States
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
These are catholic practices, with which, actually, I disagree. Unlike the deity of Christ, they are not Scriptural, though the first could be said to be Scriptural, depending on how you interpret Scripture. They are not the Gospel, not doctrine as such and not essential for salvation.
The point is, "millions of Christians" and their teachers, theologians and clergy say they are Scriptural. They teach transubstantiation (erroneously) from the NT. Therefore, your statement in post #77 is false.

gadar perets said:
eating unclean animal flesh
That's not a Christian doctrine. That's a belief held by people who believe that Christians should be under the Jewish law, when it was never given to Gentiles anyway.
Christians believe they can eat unclean animal flesh (bacon, dogs, slugs, vultures, jelly fish, etc). I will be starting a thread on this soon. You can defend your views there.

Again, beliefs held by people who believe that Christians are under Jewish law.
Jesus came to fulfil Jewish law, which gentiles were not under to begin with. Jesus saves, not the law.
The Sabbath was made for man (Mark 2:28), not just for Jews. The law does not save us. It points out our sins. If you conveniently abolish the law, you abolish that which points out our sins. No Sabbath law, no sin. My, how convenient. The only problem is, Sabbath breakers are still breaking the Sabbath even though they don't acknowledge their sin.

gadar perets said:
the names "Jehovah" and "Jesus"
I don't know what you mean by this.
I mean "Jehovah" and "Jesus" are not the names of the Father and the Son, yet Christians accept both as true because their Bible has them in it.

None of those first four are actually doctrine, just church practice.
They are practiced because they are doctrines. The Catholic church teaches them as NT doctrine.

All believe the Christian Gospel however - which says that Christ was both man and God, the Word became flesh.
Yes, that is the Christian Gospel. The Scriptural Gospel is summed up in John 3:16;

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Not;

For God so loved the world, that he gave himself, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.​

Another summation is found in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4;

For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Messiah died for our sins according to the scriptures;
And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
Not;

For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that God died for our sins according to the scriptures;
And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:​
 
Upvote 0