"Trinity"

[redleghunter]

I will await the first convert away from Trinitarianism due to these threads.

Is there some DIFFERENT BIBLE that the non-trinnies have ? -- that they can show us something we haven't read?

Protestants - Roman Catholics - Orthodox -- the scope of Scripture increases some in these Trinitarian groups, but -- I've read all of it -- all scripture that orthodox with 'little o' Christians have

a Trinitarian baptismal formula is there in Matthew in all our bibles...

Chapter one of gospel of John clearly declares the "one with Godness" of the Logos

this battle against Arianism, Docetism, Monophysitism, Modalism -- it was won sixteen centuries ago

turn out the lights, the party's over

If you ever get a confirmed canon from the non Trinitarian posters let me know. I asked several times with no answer.

Some have quoted apocryphal works and even Enoch.

 

[redleghunter]

Another thread on the trinity! Why not keep it in the other one?

Indeed.

 

[redleghunter]

Whether one agrees or disagrees with the concept, isn't it OBVIOUS that if it were as IMPORTANT to God or His Son as the 'churches' insist, it would have stated OUTRIGHT instead of having to be created by MEN?

Just think of all the trivial information offered in the Bible. Now compare that to the importance placed upon 'trinity' by the churches that teach it. IF 'trinity' were TRUTH pertaining to God and His Son, how does one come to accept that it is not even MENTIONED in the Bible?

If it were TRUE, then it would have been revealed to God's CHOSEN people from the beginning.

But even if there were SOME reason it wasn't, it surely WOULD have been revealed by Christ, (God's OWN Son), when He was here in the flesh.

And then there are the apostles. What kind of God or how does one suppose that God's own SON would hide this information from those CHOSEN to deliver the GOOD NEWS: the apostles??????

Many saints and wise men of the past have come to the same conclusion: if one can be TAUGHT to believe that one plus one plus one equals ONE, that person can be taught to believe in ANYTHING.

Blessings,
MEC

Who is speaking in Isaiah 44:6?

 

[Colter]

I believe that the rebirth or born again had nothing to do with John the Baptist's.

I believe that the rebirth is a life long process called tribulation, that is initiated upon being baptised in the name of the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost

Think of it this way, the Fatheris the one that approves the application to be born again. To lodge our application we must have it signed by the Justice of Peace, Jesus Christ. Once he has signed it, then the application proceeds with the justification stamp of Chist, to the Holy Ghost whose job it is to rehabilitate us from sinners to saints and this process is a life long proces. As Paul said I we remain in Christ as his spiritual prisoners, we are complying with the parole conditions of our bail bond and walk as free men. The degree of sanctification is approved by the Father who apportions it to his liking.

So within this life long rebirth we are being processed for our heavenly destination by all three members of the trinity.

The Father said this....



The Father does this....



Whilst we walk as free men we do this....



Successful lodgement of our born again heavely application is approved by the Father.



Our born again applicaton which was initiated by our baptism involves all three members of the trinity, that is why the church follows Jesus's instruction laid out in Matthew.

Jesus taught that all men and women are sons and daughters of the living God, that by faith we may realize this ennobling truth. Obviously we don't achieve perfection in this life, much more lay ahead for us starting on the mansion worlds.

 

[MerriestHouse]

If we read John 14 in its entirety we can understand the context is the giving of the Holy Ghost on Pentecost. Jesus said that he and the Father will make their home with the believers within the context of the Holy Ghost. So within the chapter all three personas are mentioned together as dwelling within the believers spiritually.

To baptise in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins, requires the one who came by water and blood (Son-justification), the fire (Spirit-sanctification).

The Father waters and makes grow, the Son removed our sins with his blood and the Spirit purifies us to stay clean. In our baptism all three are required and work through us. The disciples made it a short hand writing of saying you baptise in the name of Jesus, but when they actually got around to baptising he believers they invoked the name of all three.

Notice from the story of Philip and the Ethiopian Eunuch to Peter and Cornelius all three members of the trinity worked and notified the disciples to do what was requires.

The people listening to Peter (Acts 2) were Jews from every nation. They were living under the Jewish Law of Moses and were in Jerusalem for the feast of Pentecost. The Jewish religion had no concept of a Trinity. Of the 3,000 thousand Jews that were baptized that day, they could not have had any concept that Jesus was God himself but they were saved.

I believe it destroys the historical Lord Jesus Christ by trying to make him an eternal, pre-existent, omnipotent co-equal with God. He was a man in whom God dwelt, and through whom God spoke and worked and manifested Himself. He was a man, and his Father was God. He submitted to God. "Not my will, but Thine, be done."

A claim to be Deity would actually be blasphemous by Jesus' own standards, (Jesus was a Jew) since he repeatedly affirmed that his Father was the Only True God.

 

[Colter]

The people listening to Peter (Acts 2) were Jews from every nation. They were living under the Jewish Law of Moses and were in Jerusalem for the feast of Pentecost. The Jewish religion had no concept of a Trinity. Of the 3,000 thousand Jews that were baptized that day, they could not have had any concept that Jesus was God himself but they were saved.

I believe it destroys the historical Lord Jesus Christ by trying to make him an eternal, pre-existent, omnipotent co-equal with God. He was a man in whom God dwelt, and through whom God spoke and worked and manifested Himself. He was a man, and his Father was God. He submitted to God. "Not my will, but Thine, be done."

A claim to be Deity would actually be blasphemous by Jesus' own standards, (Jesus was a Jew) since he repeatedly affirmed that his Father was the Only True God.

The problem with that is that Jesus is now sovereign Lord and God to us. The reasoning of the anti divinity crowd has Jesus as a 30 year old temporary man/God.

Even as creator of our world and on high, Christ still would refer to his Father as Father.

It's not blasphemy to speak the truth, in the case of Jesus it was revelation. There had been belief in plural deity by the ancestors of the Israelites.

 

[Berean777]

Jesus taught that all men and women are sons and daughters of the living God, that by faith we may realize this ennobling truth. Obviously we don't achieve perfection in this life, much more lay ahead for us starting on the mansion worlds.

Trials and tribulations of this life enables us to proceed to the afterlife. Jesus will come and take us to the place where we are perfected and no reminance of the sinless nature remains to tempt us, into breaking any of God's commandments. In hindsight if one is taken away to the mansion world, the sinful tools and influencing world of sin that a soul is bombarded with on earth is no longer at play, rather that person has only God's influence, his light. In this regard the prince of this world is found no more, in the Father's mansion world of the afterlife.

 

[Thursday]

Whether one agrees or disagrees with the concept, isn't it OBVIOUS that if it were as IMPORTANT to God or His Son as the 'churches' insist, it would have stated OUTRIGHT instead of having to be created by MEN?

I don't think it is something that we can understand.

 

[Berean777]

The people listening to Peter (Acts 2) were Jews from every nation. They were living under the Jewish Law of Moses and were in Jerusalem for the feast of Pentecost. The Jewish religion had no concept of a Trinity. Of the 3,000 thousand Jews that were baptized that day, they could not have had any concept that Jesus was God himself but they were saved.

I believe it destroys the historical Lord Jesus Christ by trying to make him an eternal, pre-existent, omnipotent co-equal with God. He was a man in whom God dwelt, and through whom God spoke and worked and manifested Himself. He was a man, and his Father was God. He submitted to God. "Not my will, but Thine, be done."

A claim to be Deity would actually be blasphemous by Jesus' own standards, (Jesus was a Jew) since he repeatedly affirmed that his Father was the Only True God.

I had posted as a reply to your reasoning previously, so please find the link and the post below....

<a href="http://www.christianforums.com/threads/was-abraham-a-unitarian.7736188/page-2#post-68683330">Was Abraham a Unitarian?</a>

If we use the word Elohim to translate it to Gods as a functional usage of the language, then what comes to mind?

and it came to pass, when God caused me to wander from my father's house

It would rendered "when my God onto my God caused me to wander"

In the same language structure that King David used of my Lord said onto my Lord.

Functionality points there being a hierarchy from one person down to another, where both personalities or persona's are the one God.

It follows that Abraham is receiving a message passed down to him from God to God that is person to person of that one infinite substance/being who is the one God. So Moses was receiving his message from the designated interpretor who is the Living Word. Moses writes it down the way Abraham portrays the functionality of two persons parsing down instruction.

This further John 5:30 states I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.

It follows that the Gods spoken in plural is from the top hierarchy of the trinity, the Father down to the Living Word, who then disseminates the message in understandable byte sizes down to Abraham. The second in command God, the Living Word even dined in Abraham's tent.[/USER]

 

[Berean777]

I don't think it is something that we can understand.

That is right. We may know why God has revealed himself in three persona's, which John in chapter 14 talks of Father, Son and Holy Spirit all coming to make their spiritual dwelling with the believers within the context of Pentecost. But we may never know the HOW God is three persona's. To know the answer to How God is God, is something that created beings cannot know, because that would allude that God had a beginning and that there is a process that makes God God. Since God is eternal, hence there is no process and there is no beginning and the question to the HOW of God, is immediately answered by No, No, because no created being can go there.

Why people persistently ask an invalid question begs belief, especially when Christian apologists have reiterated ad nauseum that no one can know HOW God is God and yet still the same irrelevant question seems to crop up over and over again. It seems that the people asking the question repeatedly really don't know what they are asking.

 

[Imagican]

I don't think it is something that we can understand.

Think about this:

Every concept that God has desired to be delivered has been clearly offered in the Bible. Yet not one word about 'trinity'.

I believe that it would have been offered distinctly and without controversy if God had desired for us to follow it.

Love, forgiveness, worship, these are offered clearly.

But from the beginning of the Bible till the end, it is clear that God is 'one' God. Christ openly states that His Father is God. That God is His Father. That He is the Son of the Living God.

And Christ openly speaks of the Father: God, being 'greater than the Son'. That the one that sends someone is greater than the one being sent.

He now sits at the right hand of God. That in an of itself ought to clearly show that the Father: God, is not Jesus Christ. That Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And they are 'not equal' in any manner. The Father: God, is greater than the Son. So they cannot be two persons that make up 'one' God. There is only 'one' God and He is uncompounded. Singular. The one and only in which there is no other 'like'.

Godhead isn't a 'mystery' to those who God reveals it's definition. God is the HEAD. He is the 'head' of Christ as Christ is the head of man. We are not given the exact details of exactly how Christ was 'begotten'. But we are instructed that He was: begotten. That means that Christ has a 'beginning' unlike God who has 'no beginning'. At some point in history, Christ was 'begotten'. He 'became' the Son of God.

And when here on this earth, He made it perfectly clear that the power He exhibited and the words He spoke were 'not His own', but given Him by the Father: God. That means that in order to be given, there had to be a time 'before' possession.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Imagican]

Jesus did say so. He said, "You call me 'teacher' and 'Lord' and rightly so." The word "Lord" here is YHWH.

That's like saying that if they called him the Son of Man that they didn't believe that he was Man.

Son of Man = Man
Son of God = God

This is patently false! Thomas said TO Jesus, "My Lord and my God."

Already been through the 'Thomas thing' more times than I care to count.

But if what you offer concerning 'the Son of God' making Christ God, that means that we too are God. Those of us that are 'sons of God'.

The Jews falsely accused Christ of making Himself equal to God in the very same manner you attempt. And we 'know' it is a 'false claim' for Christ Himself stated that the Father is greater than the Son. That means that God is greater than the Son.

Christ and God are 'not equal' according to the Bible. According to the very words of Christ Himself.

Who's voice do you suppose was heard to utter these words: "This is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased"?

Or how do you suppose it was possible for God, hanging on a cross to utter these words, "My God, my God, why hath thou forsaken me"?

Or, get this: The words of Christ Himself stating that He is the 'beginning of the creation of God'. What does that mean?

Or the 'firstborn of every creature'?

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Imagican]

That is right. We may know why God has revealed himself in three persona's, which John in chapter 14 talks of Father, Son and Holy Spirit all coming to make their spiritual dwelling with the believers within the context of Pentecost. But we may never know the HOW God is three persona's. To know the answer to How God is God, is something that created beings cannot know, because that would allude that God had a beginning and that there is a process that makes God God. Since God is eternal, hence there is no process and there is no beginning and the question to the HOW of God, is immediately answered by No, No, because no created being can go there.

Yet the Bible explains that Christ 'had' a beginning. So by your own words, Christ cannot be God.

Firstborn of every creature. The 'beginning of the creation of God'.

Why people persistently ask an invalid question begs belief, especially when Christian apologists have reiterated ad nauseum that no one can know HOW God is God and yet still the same irrelevant question seems to crop up over and over again. It seems that the people asking the question repeatedly really don't know what they are asking.

No one is questioning how God can be God. The question is how one comes up with the idea that 'begotten' means something different than what it actually means. How was God the Son 'begotten'?

You see, that clearly shows that the Son has a beginning and therefore cannot be God as defined by 'trinity'. The simple 'fact' that the word 'Son' is used clearly defined an entity coming 'from' a Father.

I and the Father are 'one'. Does 'trinity' teach that the Son is the Father? Of course not.

Is the Father 'greater' than the Son? According to the Bible He is.

If the Father is God and the Father is greater than the Son, then it's obvious that 'trinity' is in error. For if one is greater than the other then they are not 'equal' as 'trinity' insists.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[nomadictheist]

Think about this:

Every concept that God has desired to be delivered has been clearly offered in the Bible. Yet not one word about 'trinity'.

As many people have already noted, the trinitarian doctrine has nothing to do with a specific word in the Bible. It was a term/phrase adopted by the church to succinctly summarize the doctrines of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

I believe that it would have been offered distinctly and without controversy if God had desired for us to follow it.

The only controversy around the "trinity" is that which is created by man re-interpreting the texts that say Jesus is God. There are also "controversies" around doctrines as elementary as whether Jesus really suffered and died for our sins. That doesn't make them unbiblical.

Love, forgiveness, worship, these are offered clearly.

Anybody who denies whatever scripture doesn't fit with their desired interpretation could also deny each of these.

But from the beginning of the Bible till the end, it is clear that God is 'one' God. Christ openly states that His Father is God. That God is His Father. That He is the Son of the Living God.

If it is so clear from "beginning to end," why is the first word used for "God" (Elohim) in the Bible a plural word that is treated as singular?

And Christ openly speaks of the Father: God, being 'greater than the Son'. That the one that sends someone is greater than the one being sent.

As has been said already many times, same in essence, different in function. The Father is the authoritative/headship figure of the Godhead.

He now sits at the right hand of God. That in an of itself ought to clearly show that the Father: God, is not Jesus Christ. That Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And they are 'not equal' in any manner. The Father: God, is greater than the Son. So they cannot be two persons that make up 'one' God. There is only 'one' God and He is uncompounded. Singular. The one and only in which there is no other 'like'.

There is no scriptural support for the claim that Jesus cannot be equal with God in any manner.

God is uncompounded. No trinitarian would disagree with that, as has already been said. This supposed belief in compoundedness is a straw man that you continually shoot at.

Godhead isn't a 'mystery' to those who God reveals it's definition. God is the HEAD. He is the 'head' of Christ as Christ is the head of man. We are not given the exact details of exactly how Christ was 'begotten'. But we are instructed that He was: begotten. That means that Christ has a 'beginning' unlike God who has 'no beginning'. At some point in history, Christ was 'begotten'. He 'became' the Son of God.

We've been over this ad nauseam. But again, if this is the case, please explain Hebrews 1:1-10, John 1:1-14, John 17:5, John 8:58, 1 Corinthians 8:6, and Revelation 1, for starters, and without reinterpreting every word in there that you don't like.

And when here on this earth, He made it perfectly clear that the power He exhibited and the words He spoke were 'not His own', but given Him by the Father: God. That means that in order to be given, there had to be a time 'before' possession.

Blessings,

MEC

This is your interpretation of Jesus words, which you continually preach, contrary to the rest of scripture, to anyone who you think will listen. Jesus did not say "when" these words were given, but because we are humans to us the concept "given" implies a time before. Similarly, because we are humans, we find it difficult to conceive of a God who exists as one being and three persons. But our conceptions of time and being are limited by our finiteness of being and finiteness of understanding.

God Himself declared that He is beyond our comprehension in His dialect with Job. Yet, for some reason, today there are still those who fight this and believe we can comprehend all of God... And this always leads to heresy.

 

[Imagican]

Guys, I know this: God revealed Himself to me as God. It has never been revealed to me that Christ is God. What has been revealed is that Christ is God's Son. His 'only begotten Son'.

I know what changes God has brought about in my life. So imagine how it sounds to me for you to say I can't know God without knowing that Jesus is God. It sounds 'nuts' to me. For I know of no 'trinity'. Yet I know God and I know His Son.

So it's perfectly clear to me that I do not need to follow what men created in order to know God and His Son.

I could sit here and type for days detailing the relationship I possess with God through His Son.

Yet there are those that insist that I 'must' accept 'trinity', (a man made concept), or I cannot 'know' God or His Son. If someone insists that this is 'true', then they have no concept of the 'truth' concerning God or His Son. They have chosen to allow men to convince them of something that is not true.

All I know is what I know. I know of 'no trinity' except as a 'man made concept'. And I can assure you that a 'belief' in 'trinity' is not necessary for one to know God and His Son. I know this.

So you can try to tell me what I can or cannot 'know' all you like, it only goes to prove to me just how dangerous this doctrine truly is. For if I were to listen to many, I too would believe that I 'must' accept and believe in 'trinity'.

How can a 'doctrine' of such import be unnecessary to one's relationship with God through His Son? My relationship simply proves to 'me' that there is something very askew in it's very nature. And that so many would be so insistent makes it even more suspect. Why? Why would so many find it so important to 'teach trinity' if it is not necessary to one's salvation????

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Colter]

Think about this:

Every concept that God has desired to be delivered has been clearly offered in the Bible. Yet not one word about 'trinity'.

I believe that it would have been offered distinctly and without controversy if God had desired for us to follow it.

Love, forgiveness, worship, these are offered clearly.

But from the beginning of the Bible till the end, it is clear that God is 'one' God. Christ openly states that His Father is God. That God is His Father. That He is the Son of the Living God.

And Christ openly speaks of the Father: God, being 'greater than the Son'. That the one that sends someone is greater than the one being sent.

He now sits at the right hand of God. That in an of itself ought to clearly show that the Father: God, is not Jesus Christ. That Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And they are 'not equal' in any manner. The Father: God, is greater than the Son. So they cannot be two persons that make up 'one' God. There is only 'one' God and He is uncompounded. Singular. The one and only in which there is no other 'like'.

Godhead isn't a 'mystery' to those who God reveals it's definition. God is the HEAD. He is the 'head' of Christ as Christ is the head of man. We are not given the exact details of exactly how Christ was 'begotten'. But we are instructed that He was: begotten. That means that Christ has a 'beginning' unlike God who has 'no beginning'. At some point in history, Christ was 'begotten'. He 'became' the Son of God.

And when here on this earth, He made it perfectly clear that the power He exhibited and the words He spoke were 'not His own', but given Him by the Father: God. That means that in order to be given, there had to be a time 'before' possession.

Blessings,

MEC

The Bible is a collection of many diverse and seemingly conflicting concepts. The Hebrew priest who wrote and rewrote the Old Testament didn't understand that God delegated creative powers and authority in a divine Son.


God the Son is conscious of being ancestral to the Father, yet he is the divine, co-creator of our world. We are all children of God high and low in status.

Yes, he sits at the right hand of God, having achieved all power and authority in heaven and on earth.

But I do agree, it's not accurate to say the Son is co-equal, he is a personification of the Father, not the Father absolute.

 

[nomadictheist]

We've been over this ad nauseam. But again, if this is the case, please explain Hebrews 1:1-10, John 1:1-14, John 17:5, John 8:58, 1 Corinthians 8:6, and Revelation 1, for starters, and without reinterpreting every word in there that you don't like.

While we're at it, let's quickly add Jeremiah 23:5-6 and Isaiah 9:6 to that list.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Guys, I know this: God revealed Himself to me as God. It has never been revealed to me that Christ is God. What has been revealed is that Christ is God's Son. His 'only begotten Son'.

I know what changes God has brought about in my life. So imagine how it sounds to me for you to say I can't know God without knowing that Jesus is God. It sounds 'nuts' to me. For I know of no 'trinity'. Yet I know God and I know His Son.

So it's perfectly clear to me that I do not need to follow what men created in order to know God and His Son.

I could sit here and type for days detailing the relationship I possess with God through His Son.

Yet there are those that insist that I 'must' accept 'trinity', (a man made concept), or I cannot 'know' God or His Son. If someone insists that this is 'true', then they have no concept of the 'truth' concerning God or His Son. They have chosen to allow men to convince them of something that is not true.

All I know is what I know. I know of 'no trinity' except as a 'man made concept'. And I can assure you that a 'belief' in 'trinity' is not necessary for one to know God and His Son. I know this.

So you can try to tell me what I can or cannot 'know' all you like, it only goes to prove to me just how dangerous this doctrine truly is. For if I were to listen to many, I too would believe that I 'must' accept and believe in 'trinity'.

How can a 'doctrine' of such import be unnecessary to one's relationship with God through His Son? My relationship simply proves to 'me' that there is something very askew in it's very nature. And that so many would be so insistent makes it even more suspect. Why? Why would so many find it so important to 'teach trinity' if it is not necessary to one's salvation????

Blessings,

MEC

Did God reveal to you that He cannot know Himself?

 

[nomadictheist]

Guys, I know this: God revealed Himself to me as God. It has never been revealed to me that Christ is God. What has been revealed is that Christ is God's Son. His 'only begotten Son'.

I know what changes God has brought about in my life. So imagine how it sounds to me for you to say I can't know God without knowing that Jesus is God. It sounds 'nuts' to me. For I know of no 'trinity'. Yet I know God and I know His Son.

So it's perfectly clear to me that I do not need to follow what men created in order to know God and His Son.

I could sit here and type for days detailing the relationship I possess with God through His Son.

Yet there are those that insist that I 'must' accept 'trinity', (a man made concept), or I cannot 'know' God or His Son. If someone insists that this is 'true', then they have no concept of the 'truth' concerning God or His Son. They have chosen to allow men to convince them of something that is not true.

All I know is what I know. I know of 'no trinity' except as a 'man made concept'. And I can assure you that a 'belief' in 'trinity' is not necessary for one to know God and His Son. I know this.

So you can try to tell me what I can or cannot 'know' all you like, it only goes to prove to me just how dangerous this doctrine truly is. For if I were to listen to many, I too would believe that I 'must' accept and believe in 'trinity'.

How can a 'doctrine' of such import be unnecessary to one's relationship with God through His Son? My relationship simply proves to 'me' that there is something very askew in it's very nature. And that so many would be so insistent makes it even more suspect. Why? Why would so many find it so important to 'teach trinity' if it is not necessary to one's salvation????

Blessings,

MEC

So this is a special, personal revelation from God?

I think it's very important what Jesus we believe in. The Islamists believe in a Jesus. The Jehovah's witnesses believe in a Jesus. The Mormons believe in a Jesus. Even some branches of Wiccan believe in a Jesus. Does this mean they also will inherit eternal life?

 

[Chriliman]

Guys, I know this: God revealed Himself to me as God. It has never been revealed to me that Christ is God. What has been revealed is that Christ is God's Son. His 'only begotten Son'.

I know what changes God has brought about in my life. So imagine how it sounds to me for you to say I can't know God without knowing that Jesus is God. It sounds 'nuts' to me. For I know of no 'trinity'. Yet I know God and I know His Son.

So it's perfectly clear to me that I do not need to follow what men created in order to know God and His Son.

I could sit here and type for days detailing the relationship I possess with God through His Son.

Yet there are those that insist that I 'must' accept 'trinity', (a man made concept), or I cannot 'know' God or His Son. If someone insists that this is 'true', then they have no concept of the 'truth' concerning God or His Son. They have chosen to allow men to convince them of something that is not true.

All I know is what I know. I know of 'no trinity' except as a 'man made concept'. And I can assure you that a 'belief' in 'trinity' is not necessary for one to know God and His Son. I know this.

So you can try to tell me what I can or cannot 'know' all you like, it only goes to prove to me just how dangerous this doctrine truly is. For if I were to listen to many, I too would believe that I 'must' accept and believe in 'trinity'.

How can a 'doctrine' of such import be unnecessary to one's relationship with God through His Son? My relationship simply proves to 'me' that there is something very askew in it's very nature. And that so many would be so insistent makes it even more suspect. Why? Why would so many find it so important to 'teach trinity' if it is not necessary to one's salvation????

Blessings,

MEC

I do believe the scripture testifies that Jesus Christ is at the right hand of God. Not that Jesus Christ is the right hand of God. They are separate entities that have an unbreakable relationship as One. If we are indeed filled with the Holy Spirit then we should understand this relationship as Stephen understood it when He saw the glory of God.

Acts 7
"But he, full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. The heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God."

For me personally it has been that the Holy Spirit of Jesus Christ is leading me to the Father. The Holy Spirit will lead us into all truth, we must trust His Holy Spirit.