Trinitarianism: What Non-Trinitarians Believe

[jamie2014]

This is "Oneness" or Unitarianism. It's also a heresy. Please tell me if Jesus is the Father, did he pray to himself in the garden?

Here is what Paul said about unitarianism.

But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things and we in him, and one Lord Jesus Christ by whom are all things and we by him. (1 Corintians 8:6)

There is but one God, the Father. There is one Lord, the man Jesus.

God is not a man, Jesus is.

 

[THIS]

Empty JW assertion. One being of God. Three persons. Quite different.

JW's are false. They say Jesus is the angel Michael. Why do you say anything in your defense?

This is "Oneness" or Unitarianism. It's also a heresy.

Try to think for yourself instead of repeating what your false teachers say.

I am not a Oneness believer. The Oneness doctrine says that the three do NOT exist at the same time. I do NOT believe like that.

Please tell me if Jesus is the Father, did he pray to himself in the garden?

Jesus is God and he was speaking to God.

No. You forget the coequal and coeternal part, the one being of God part etc. You're attacking a straw man deviously.

Your claiming I am using a straw man is a straw man.

 

[THIS]

No it does not! It says that there's only one God but in His omnipotence and omnipresence He can communicate by different means at one time. He spoke to Moses from a burning bush, Barak through a donkey and Job from a tornado. The bush, donkey and tornado aren't three gods, right?

The trinity doctrine says Jesus is God but not the Father who is God.

That is a false doctrine.

 

[BelCantoBaptist]

Here is what Paul said about unitarianism.

But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things and we in him, and one Lord Jesus Christ by whom are all things and we by him. (1 Corintians 8:6)

There is but one God, the Father. There is one Lord, the man Jesus.

God is not a man, Jesus is.

You're forgetting the rest of the verses where Paul states that Jesus is God. Philippians 2:5-11 (Which is a piece of a hymn from before Paul was even an Apostle). Not to mention the verses by the other Apostles such as John 1:1, John 20:28, Matthew 1:23, etc.

 

[BelCantoBaptist]

The trinity doctrine says Jesus is God but not the Father who is God.

That is a false doctrine.

You're misrepresenting the doctrine. I suggest you read this: 4Jehovah » Yes, You Should Believe in the Trinity

 

[BelCantoBaptist]

Try to think for yourself instead of repeating what your false teachers say.

Ad hominem, you're saying that over 2,000+ years of Christians were flase teachers, not to mention those who were taught by the Apostles themselves and those who were martyrd.

I am not a Oneness believer. The Oneness doctrine says that the three do NOT exist at the same time. I do NOT believe like that.
Jesus is God and he was speaking to God.

Can you clarify then? You seem like you are epousing Partialism or Modalism.

 

[jamie2014]

You're forgetting the rest of the verses where Paul states that Jesus is God.

Are you claiming that God is a man born of woman who can bleed and die? That would be a very unusual God.

 

[Near]

Are you claiming that God is a man born of woman who can bleed and die? That would be a very unusual God.

Acts 20:28 NKJV

Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.

Why do you call God, unusual?

Furthermore, The One Lord is a man born of a woman, who I worship rightly so, and through him all things were made. The incarnate Logos is the Lord. Do you deny the Lord who bought you?

 

[jamie2014]

Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.

Jesus purchased the church of God from whom?

Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil. (Hebrews 2:14)
​

The term for this is redemption, the church is redeemed from eternal death and given eternal life by Jesus for those whom God gives him.

Jesus purchased the church on God's behalf and in due time Jesus will deliver the kingdom to God.

 

[BelCantoBaptist]

Jesus purchased the church of God from whom?

Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil. (Hebrews 2:14)
​

The term for this is redemption, the church is redeemed from eternal death and given eternal life by Jesus for those whom God gives him.

Jesus purchased the church on God's behalf and in due time Jesus will deliver the kingdom to God.

John 1:14 "And the Word (pre-incarnate logos) became flesh and dwelt among us."

I seriously suggest you read the work "On the Incarnation" by Athanasius.


Revelation 1:8. “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “Who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.”


Revelation 22:13.
“I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End”


Revelation 1:17-18.
When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: “Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last (stop here and ask again, ‘who is the First and the Last?’). I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever!”


So, when did God die?

 

[Near]

Jesus purchased the church of God from whom?

Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil. (Hebrews 2:14)
​

The term for this is redemption, the church is redeemed from eternal death and given eternal life by Jesus for those whom God gives him.

Jesus purchased the church on God's behalf and in due time Jesus will deliver the kingdom to God.

Acts 20:28 NKJV

Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.

God purchased us, with his own blood. It specifically says God, so when did God purchase us with his blood? On the Cross, the God who was crucified who bled and died and rose again.

Yes, the Alpha and the Omega, died and rose again.

 

[2ducklow]

Acts 20:28 NKJV

Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.

God purchased us, with his own blood. It specifically says God, so when did God purchase us with his blood? On the Cross, the God who was crucified who bled and died and rose again.

Yes, the Alpha and the Omega, died and rose again.

this verse has significant problems .2 basic problems, it's unclear if the verse originally said 'church of God' or 'church of the Lord" If it said church of the Lord, then acts 20.28 is no proof that Jesus is God, and the other big problem is how to translate 'the blood of his own".

1. Big Problems: Manuscript Variations of Various Kinds

Acts 20:28 is yet another passage ...................... It is a well known academic fact that very important early manuscripts do not read "Church of God" but instead have "Church of the Lord." These variant readings of this verse show us that one of them is certainly a corruption. And that is not the end of the manuscript problem either. There are further discrepancies between manuscripts concerning this verse which affect its intended meaning here. And that results in problem upon problem, building a house upon the sand. And there is yet an even further problem of translation. In short, there is no proof about what Luke actually wrote.

4. Trinitarian Translation Inconsistencies: A Cursory Look at the Problem

A review of various Trinitarian translations illlustrates the problem. Notice how Trinitarian scholars themselves have translated this passage:


the church of the Lord which he purchased with his own blood. (ASV).



the assembly of God, which he has purchased with the blood of his own. (Darby).

the church of God which he bought with the blood of his own Son. (JB).

the church of God which he obtained with the blood of his own Son. (RSV)
5. The Manuscripts
...........

Important early manuscript evidence, such as Codex Alexandrinus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, and Bezae Cantabrigensis, Sahidic Coptic, read "church of the Lord" and not "church of God."

6. Early Christian Testimony

We do not have the original manuscripts of the books written in the Bible. Our earliest manuscripts are copies prepared centuries after they were originally written. Some manuscripts read "church of God" while many others read "church of the Lord." Our first witness who can testify what the early manuscripts did say is the early Christian Irenaeus who wrote Against Heresies around 180-185 A.D. This is the earliest known version of this verse. He writes:

"Take heed, therefore, both to yourselves, and to all the flock over which the Holy Spirit has placed you as bishops, to rule the Church of the Lord, which He has acquired for Himself through His own blood." (Book III, 14).

Obviously, Irenaeus was quoting from a very early version of Acts which read "Church of the Lord" and not "Church of God." Irenaeus was also extremely adamant about teaching the true teachings passed down by the apostles, and in fact, that just happens to be the topic under discussion when he makes this quotation. While that fact in itself does not prove his reading is correct, it is interesting that we at least take it into consideration. The point here is that his quotation demonstrates that very early manuscripts did indeed indeed read as "Church of the Lord" at Acts 20:28
...........
It is not uncommon to find Trinitarian commentators and apologists jumping up and down vehemently protesting against other commentators and translators who would translate this passage as "blood of his own son" instead of "his own blood." Now let us be reminded that there are Trinitarian scholars who think it should indeed be translated as "blood of his own [Son]." But it seems that Trinitarian apologists are conveniently ignorant of the facts and claim that since the word "son" is not present in the original Greek, and it is not, then it is completely unfeasible, perhaps dishonest, to translate it as "blood of his own son. These Trinitarian apologists must either be very ignorant of the facts or they are being quite dishonest. The RSV, a major translation that was translated by Trinitarian scholars does indeed translate it as "blood of his own son" and there is a very good reason they do so. It was indeed very common in Koine Greek to use the word "own" as we find it here in Acts 20:28 without explicitly stating an accompanying noun where that noun is implied and there are several examples in the New Testament and even right here in Luke's very own words in the book of Acts.

Concerning this passage, Trinitarian Greek scholar J.H. Moulton tells us that it is quite normal to use the Greek word for "own" without explicitly stating the implied accompanying noun. He writes:


"Before leaving [idious] something should be said about the use of [ho idios] without a noun expressed. This occurs in Jn 1.11; 13.1; Ac 4.23; 24.23. In the papyri we find the singular used thus as a term of endearment to near relations: eg.[ho deina to idio khairein.] In Expositor... I ventured to cite this as a possible encouragement to those (including B.Weiss) who would translate Ac 20.28 'the blood of one who was his own.'" (Grammar of New Testament Greek, vol.1, Prologomena, 2nd edition, 1906, p.90).
pirit has placed you as bishops, to rule the Church of the Lord, which He has acquired for Himself through His own blood." (Book III, 14)

.

http://www.angelfire.com/space/thegospeltruth/trinity/verses/Ac20_28.html


his own could be a term of endearment, it is in john 1.11 and 13.1.

john 1.11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

(Darby) Acts 20:28 Take heed therefore to yourselves, and to all the flock, wherein the Holy Spirit has set you as overseers, to shepherd the assembly of God, which he has purchased with the blood of his own

mucho problem with this verse.

 

[jamie2014]

God purchased us, with his own blood.

Jesus said God is Spirit. Spirit does not have flesh and blood. God is invisible and immortal, he can't die.

Jesus is an image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature. Creature refers to a created being. God was not born and God was not created.

Jesus is the Son of God. (Luke 1:35)

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by PoliceOfficer

Acts 20:28 NKJV
Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.

this verse has significant problems .2 basic problems, it's unclear if the verse originally said 'church of God' or 'church of the Lord"

If it said church of the Lord, then acts 20.28 is no proof that Jesus is God, and the other big problem is how to translate 'the blood of his own".

The Trinity Delusion: Acts 20:28

(Darby) Acts 20:28 Take heed therefore to yourselves, and to all the flock, wherein the Holy Spirit has set you as overseers, to shepherd the assembly of God, which he has purchased with the blood of his own

mucho problem with this verse.

Not sure which Grk text the ASV used since the word for "Lord" is in only 1 of the grk text, the B/M, which has both "Lord" and "God" in it.

American Standard Version
20:28
Take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit hath made you bishops, to feed the church of the Lord which he purchased with his own blood.

Looks like some variances in the 4 MSS below......
especially with the B/M text...which adds "Lord and".

Other than that, the word oder is different in the last part of that verse in 2 of the texts.......

http://www.greeknewtestament.com/index.htm
Parallel Greek New Testament

Acts 20:28

Stephens 1550 Textus Receptus/Scivener 1894 TR
prosecete oun eautoiV kai panti tw poimniw en w umaV to pneuma to agion eqeto episkopouV poimainein thn ekklhsian
tou qeou hn periepoihsato dia tou idiou aimatoV


Byzantine Majority
prosecete oun eautoiV kai panti tw poimniw en w umaV to pneuma to agion eqeto episkopouV poimainein thn ekklhsian
tou [kuriou kai] qeou hn periepoihsato dia tou idiou aimatoV


Alexandrian
prosecete eautoiV kai panti tw poimniw en w umaV to pneuma to agion eqeto episkopouV poimainein thn ekklhsian
tou qeou hn periepoihsato dia tou aimatoV tou idiou


Hort and Westcott
prosecete eautoiV kai panti tw poimniw en w umaV to pneuma to agion eqeto episkopouV poimainein thn ekklhsian
tou qeou hn periepoihsato dia tou aimatoV tou idiou

.

 

[Near]

Jesus said God is Spirit. Spirit does not have flesh and blood. God is invisible and immortal, he can't die.

Jesus is an image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature. Creature refers to a created being. God was not born and God was not created.

Jesus is the Son of God. (Luke 1:35)

The flesh of Jesus, is not God.
The flesh of Jesus, is an outer coating.
If a temple of God is destroyed, is God destroyed? No it's just a temple.
Is the temple of God, God? No, it's a temple.
Is the flesh of God, God, not it's just a vessel.
Are you a spiritless vessel?
I am a spirit, with flesh and blood. I am an incarnate spirit.
I'm not an atheist, I don't believe I am body, nor do I believe Jesus is a body, but he wears a body.
The flesh of God was created, just as a temple is created.
The English word creature has the meaning of a created being, however, the English word creature was never used in reference to Jesus.

What you should say is that Jesus is the "Firstborn of creation", and thus imply that Jesus was born. However, even the term firstborn does not equate to a "created being". He was born through the Virgin Mary. God was born. He is "God with us"
Meth Amon Ho Theos, Emmanuel.

Matthew 1:22-23 NKJV

So all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying: “Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which is translated, “God with us.”

So, Jesus is "God with us".

The Word of God was not a created being, he existed before his incarnation.
Do you deny that he existed before his incarnation?

It seems that your claim would rely on that, because the issue you raise deals with birth.
"oh Birth implies being created", well in this case it doesn't. The Logos existed before his incarnation.

Jesus died, God died. By this I only mean his temple became dead, not that his spirit was somehow destroyed. So, the Word of God, his as spirit never was destroyed.

There's nothing in the bible that says God's flesh cannot cease to function.

 

[2ducklow]

Not sure which Grk text the ASV used since the word for "Lord" is in only 1 of the grk text, the B/M, which has both "Lord" and "God" in it.

The UBS (United Bible Society) gives 'God" a C rating, which means they are pretty unsure about it. they say the evidence is evenly split.

"The External evidence is singularly balanced between "church of God" and "Church of the Lord" (the reading "church of the Lord and God" is obviously conflate, and therefore secondary- as are also the other variant readings). Palaeographically the difference concerns only a single letter : Oy and ky. In deciding between the two readings one must take into account internal probabilities.

the expression ekklesia kuriou occurs seven times in the Septuagint but nowhere in the New Testament. On the other hand, ekklesia tou theou appears with moderate frequency (eleven times) in the Epistles traditionally ascribed to Paul, but nowhere else in the New Testament. (The phrase ai ekklesiai pnasai tou Christou occurs once in Rom 16.16) It is possible, therefore, that a scribe, finding theou in his exemplar, was influenced by Pauline usage, changed kuriou of his exemplar to theou.
......
Without committing itself concerning what some have thought to be a slight probability that tou idiou is used here as the equivalent of tou idiou uiou , the Committee judged that the reading theou was more likely to have been altered to kuriou than vice versa."
A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Bruce Metzger, UBS, 1975, page480-481

American Standard Version
20:28
Take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit hath made you bishops, to feed the church of the Lord which he purchased with his own blood.

Looks like some variances in the 4 MSS below......
especially with the B/M text...which adds "Lord and".

Other than that, the word oder is different in the last part of that verse in 2 of the texts.......

"aimatos tou idiou {B}
The reading idiou aimatos is supported by many of the Byszantine witnesses that read the conflation kuriou kai teou in the preceding variant. It may well be, as Lake and Cadbury point out, that after the special meaning of ho idious (discussed in the previous comment) had dropped out of Christian usage, the tou idiou of this passage was misunderstood as a qualification of aimatos (" his own blood"). "This misunderstanding led to two changes in the text: tou aimatos tou idiou was changed to tou idiou aimatos (indluenced by heb. ix.12?), which is neater but perverts the sense, and teou was changed to kuriou by the Western revisers, who doubtless shrank from the implied phrase "the blood of God."
\ibid, page 482

This makes sense to me in explaining the different variants you speak of. Metzger is saying that if 'his own" (tou idiou) lost it's original meaning amongst early Christians as a term of endearment, then it's likely that the conflation "God and Lord" was put in for that reason. and the blood of his own (tou aimatos tou idiou) was changed to "his own blood" (tou idiou aimatos) in order to make it neater, which I presume he means more grammatically correct. then he says God (theos) was changed to Lord (kurios) to make it says blood of the Lord instead of the more theologically difficult blood of God..

 

[jamie2014]

The Word of God was not a created being, he existed before his incarnation.
Do you deny that he existed before his incarnation?

Christ became flesh and was born like any other human and his mother nursed him and changed him like any other baby.

When Christ became flesh he was no longer Spirit, he surrendered that and became mortal, his life was in his blood.

When Jesus died his body was entombed and his spirit returned to God who gave it. James defined death as the separtion of body and spirit.

 

[Near]

Christ became flesh and was born like any other human and his mother nursed him and changed him like any other baby.

When Christ became flesh he was no longer Spirit, he surrendered that and became mortal, his life was in his blood.

When Jesus died his body was entombed and his spirit returned to God who gave it. James defined death as the separtion of body and spirit.

So, would you say that humans are flesh, as in my mind is the physical brain.... and their true self is not at all spirit?
Interesting, because I was under the impression that I am a spirit, with the vessel of a body.

Death as separation of body and spirit? Well that is exactly what I'm trying to point out. Christ was not flesh, he was spirit, wearing flesh.

I don't see how this goes against the notion that God cannot wear flesh, and later willingly separate his soul and body.

So, are you claiming that Christ was Spirit dwelling in flesh, or do you claim that he had no spirit, and was only flesh?

Also, are you trying to say, just because he was a baby once who was nursed, that must mean he can't be God, because that's too weird?

Secondly, is Jesus the Lord? Is the Father not Lord as well?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Looks like some variances in the 4 MSS below......
especially with the B/M text...which adds "Lord and".

Other than that, the word oder is different in the last part of that verse in 2 of the texts.......

Greek New Testament - Parallel Greek New Testament by John Hurt
Parallel Greek New Testament

Acts 20:28

Stephens 1550 Textus Receptus/Scivener 1894 TR
prosecete oun eautoiV kai panti tw poimniw en w umaV to pneuma to agion eqeto episkopouV poimainein thn ekklhsian
tou qeou hn periepoihsato dia tou idiou aimatoV


Byzantine Majority
prosecete oun eautoiV kai panti tw poimniw en w umaV to pneuma to agion eqeto episkopouV poimainein thn ekklhsian
tou [kuriou kai] qeou hn periepoihsato dia tou idiou aimatoV


Alexandrian
prosecete eautoiV kai panti tw poimniw en w umaV to pneuma to agion eqeto episkopouV poimainein thn ekklhsian
tou qeou hn periepoihsato dia tou aimatoV tou idiou


Hort and Westcott
prosecete eautoiV kai panti tw poimniw en w umaV to pneuma to agion eqeto episkopouV poimainein thn ekklhsian
tou qeou hn periepoihsato dia tou aimatoV tou idiou

.

.....................
"aimatos tou idiou {B}
The reading idiou aimatos is supported by many of the Byszantine witnesses that read the conflation kuriou kai teou in the preceding variant. It may well be, as Lake and Cadbury point out, that after the special meaning of ho idious (discussed in the previous comment) had dropped out of Christian usage, the tou idiou of this passage was misunderstood as a qualification of aimatos (" his own blood"). "This misunderstanding led to two changes in the text: tou aimatos tou idiou was changed to tou idiou aimatos (indluenced by heb. ix.12?), which is neater but perverts the sense, and teou was changed to kuriou by the Western revisers, who doubtless shrank from the implied phrase "the blood of God."
\ibid, page 482

This makes sense to me in explaining the different variants you speak of. Metzger is saying that if 'his own" (tou idiou) lost it's original meaning amongst early Christians as a term of endearment, then it's likely that the conflation "God and Lord" was put in for that reason. and the blood of his own (tou aimatos tou idiou) was changed to "his own blood" (tou idiou aimatos) in order to make it neater, which I presume he means more grammatically correct. then he says God (theos) was changed to Lord (kurios) to make it says blood of the Lord instead of the more theologically difficult blood of God..

Very interesting stuff!
Thanks for taking the time to post that.


.

 

[jamie2014]

So, would you say that humans are flesh, as in my mind...

That's the key, a person's mind.

Paul said, "And I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ."
(1 Thessalonians 5:23)

Where does a person's spirit come from?

Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it. (Ecclesiastes 12:7)
​

What is the purpose of the spirit?

For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? (1 Corinthians 2:11)
​

The word for soul is psyche from which we get mind. A person's mind is made up of two elements, a brain and a spirit from God to provide intellect.

The spirit is nonphysical and transcends death, it returns to God. It is imprinted with a person's persona so that at resurrection God can put a person's spirit into a new body and the person is the same as ever.

When a person dies the brain flatlines and all sensory inputs to the brain are nullifed. The person doesn't know they are dead.