Non-Trinitarian What basis do people support for Non Trinitarianism?

[George95]

I’m curious.

 

[tampasteve]

ADMIN HAT ON

This thread has had a thorough clean. The only people that can debate in this thread are non-Trinitarian Christians and orthodox Christians, not LDS, not Skeptics, not Buddhists, etc. Further, Christians are not to debate other Christians in this thread or forum.

ADMIN HAT OFF ​

 

[indopanda]

I’m curious.

I think the simplest basis would be that it is not an explicit teaching of the bible. Now someone can point to specific verses that perhaps suggest that Jesus is God/Divine and less than a handful of verses that suggest that the Holy Spirit is a separate individual that is also God/Divine. However, no one in the bible teaches the doctrine of the Trinity as it is articulated in the Catholic creeds post Nicaea. Furthermore, since no one explicitly teaches the Trinity in the bible, you will also not find anyone in the bible teaching that belief in the doctrine Trinity is necessary to follow Jesus.

In fact, Paul tells us "if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." and John tells us “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life." In both instances, we see what it means to a follower of Jesus and in neither case is the doctrine of the Trinity mentioned.

Now, if you want to be part of most mainstream Christian denominations, you will have to at least pay lip service to the doctrine of the Trinity to be a member, but according to John and Paul, no such belief is necessary to be saved from sin.

Now, there are many other reasons to not believe in the Trinity, but I find that this reason is the most compelling. I am not swayed by the doctrines of men, especially not 4th century Catholic Bishops.

 

[Andrewn]

Do you believe Jesus is God? Who do you believe Jesus to be?

 

[indopanda]

Do you believe Jesus is God? Who do you believe Jesus to be?

I assume this question is addressed to me. I believe Jesus to be the Messiah, the anointed one of God, the king from the line of David who God promised would have an everlasting reign, the prophet who God promised to raise up from among the Israelites who would speaks God's words so that we might understand who God is.

I do not believe Jesus is Yahweh, the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob. I think John 10 explains how the term "God" could be applied to him, but I don't think he believed himself to be Yahweh. Nor do I think anyone in the New Testament believed him to be Yahweh.

 

[Andrewn]

I do not believe Jesus is Yahweh, the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob. I think John 10 explains how the term "God" could be applied to him, but I don't think he believed himself to be Yahweh. Nor do I think anyone in the New Testament believed him to be Yahweh.

All Christians throughout 2000 years believed in Jesus' diety. Even heretics believed that he was the archangel or that he became God after his baptism. We actually see Jesus' Jewish disciples prostrate themselves and worship Him several times. How do you deal with articles like this:

The Deity of Jesus | Moody Bible Institute

I suggest you watch this first. It's very nice scholarly work by a great leader

 

[indopanda]

All Christians throughout 2000 years believed in Jesus' diety. Even heretics believed that he was the archangel or that he became God after his baptism. We actually see Jesus' Jewish disciples prostrate themselves and worship Him several times. How do you deal with articles like this:

The Deity of Jesus | Moody Bible Institute

I suggest you watch this first. It's very nice scholarly work by a great leader

Now you need to clarify what it is you mean when you speak of Jesus' diety. Are you saying that all Christians for 2000 years believed Jesus is Yahweh? The only way to make such a claim is to define a Christian as someone who believes Jesus is Yahweh (and by doing so you include Modalists/Oneness Pentecostals who I'm guessing you don't agree with). In which case you don't have much a point. I am confident that you will find people throughout history who believed themselves to be Christians yet did not believe that Jesus was Yahweh. Issac Newton for instance.

Jesus' Jewish disciples prostrating themselves before Jesus does not make him Yahweh. Unless of course you think Sarah believed Abraham to be Yahweh when she prostrated herself before Abraham or that people thought David was Yahweh when they prostrated themselves before him. Prostration in the Old and New Testament is simply a sign that the individual you are prostrating yourself before is in a position of authority over you and worthy of honor.

I have investigated this topic fairly extensively and have heard all the standard arguments. Very few of them hold up to close scrutiny. That article from Moody is simply another superficial rehash of the same arguments I have heard countless times. If you are truly interested in rebuttals to all those arguments and bible verse interpretation, then there are detailed resources that explain why those arguments don't hold up. For example.

The Trinity Delusion: The False Doctrine of the Trinity

So, what do you mean when you speak of Jesus' diety?

 

[Andrewn]

Now you need to clarify what it is you mean when you speak of Jesus' diety. Are you saying that all Christians for 2000 years believed Jesus is Yahweh?

In the 1st century there were Ebionite Jews who didn't believe in Jesus' deity. Currently, there are groups that do not believe in his deity such as a faction of Messianic Jews and people like yourself. I would not be surprised if you name other groups over the centuries who did not believe in Jesus' deity. But the point is that most people who believe Bible teaching cannot escape the reality of Jesus' deity.

The only way to make such a claim is to define a Christian as someone who believes Jesus is Yahweh (and by doing so you include Modalists/Oneness Pentecostals who I'm guessing you don't agree with). In which case you don't have much a point.

I believe in Trinitarianism. Modalists have wrong beliefs but they still believe in Christ's deity. Even Tritheists and Adoptionists believe in Christ's deity. So, the issue here is not that you're against Trinitarianism but that you're against Christ's deity in any shape or form.

Jesus' Jewish disciples prostrating themselves before Jesus does not make him Yahweh. Unless of course you think Sarah believed Abraham to be Yahweh when she prostrated herself before Abraham or that people thought David was Yahweh when they prostrated themselves before him. Prostration in the Old and New Testament is simply a sign that the individual you are prostrating yourself before is in a position of authority over you and worthy of honor.

Can you provide biblical references?

I have investigated this topic fairly extensively and have heard all the standard arguments. Very few of them hold up to close scrutiny. That article from Moody is simply another superficial rehash of the same arguments I have heard countless times. If you are truly interested in rebuttals to all those arguments and bible verse interpretation, then there are detailed resources that explain why those arguments don't hold up. For example.

The Trinity Delusion: The False Doctrine of the Trinity

This is a whole book, which I cannot read in a short period of time. Any particular titles / chapters you want me to read?

So, what do you mean when you speak of Jesus' diety?

Belief in the pre-existence of Christ.

 

[indopanda]

In the 1st century there were Ebionite Jews who didn't believe in Jesus' deity. Currently, there are groups that do not believe in his deity such as a faction of Messianic Jews and people like yourself. I would not be surprised if you name other groups over the centuries who did not believe in Jesus' deity. But the point is that most people who believe Bible teaching cannot escape the reality of Jesus' deity.

First of all, thank you for discussing with me.

Most who simply read the bible will not reach the conclusion that Jesus is God/Yahweh, because there already is a God portrayed in the bible. God is the individual who Jesus calls his Father and the individual Paul and the other disciples call Jesus' Father/God. It is only people who are taught the bible from religious leaders that cannot escape the reality of Jesus being God/Yahweh. They cannot escape it because these religious leaders teachers say that if you don't believe Jesus is God, then you cannot be a Christian. Then they show a handful of verses and use bad logic to convince people that somehow Jesus and the one Jesus calls God are both somehow Yahweh.

I believe in Trinitarianism. Modalists have wrong beliefs but they still believe in Christ's deity. Even Tritheists and Adoptionists believe in Christ's deity. So, the issue here is not that you're against Trinitarianism but that you're against Christ's deity in any shape or form.

Well, adoptionists probably don't believe Jesus is Yahweh. They believe he is a now a divine being who is separate/lesser entity from Yahweh. Jehovah's Witnesses also believe this. Now you define "deity" as pre-existance. Adoptionists don't believe in pre-existance, so they don't believe in Jesus's deity based on your definition. I however would define "diety" as being God/Yahweh.

Can you provide biblical references?

Genesis 23:7 Abraham bows down (worship/prostrates) before the Hittites.
Genesis 33:3 Jacob bows down (worships/prostrates) before Esau.
Genesis 42:6 Joseph's brothers bow down (worship/prostrate) themselves before Joseph.
Matthew 18:26 A servant bows down (worships/prostrates) before a King
1 Kings 1:23 Nathan the prophet of God bows down (worships prostrates) before King David

For a more detailed discussion of "worship/bowing down/prostration) in the bible.
The Trinity Delusion: Proskyneō Worship

This is a whole book, which I cannot read in a short period of time. Any particular titles / chapters you want me to read?

The site answers most of the biblical arguments used to support the Trinity, so it is a good reference for why people don't believe in the Trinity. I think these articles sum up the gist of the website.
The Trinity Delusion: How to Know that the Trinity is Obviously False
The Trinity Delusion: The Trinity vs. Facts

Again, I find these arguments compelling. You however may not. Obviously your understanding of Christianity requires Jesus to be Yahweh/God so you probably can't read these arguments in an unbiased way. But, maybe they will make sense to you.

Belief in the pre-existence of Christ.

This seems like an odd definition of what Jesus' deity means. So you believe in Jesus' pre-existence but you don't believe he is God/Yahweh? Or do you believe Jesus is God/Yahweh.

 

[Andrewn]

Most who simply read the bible will not reach the conclusion that Jesus is God/Yahweh, because there already is a God portrayed in the bible.

Actually, no. The OT repeatedly says "no one can see God and live." And the NT repeatedly says that "God is invisible" and no one can see Him. But then one can easily find numerous occasions in which God met with people face to face. There is clearly a Second Power in Heaven, and this belief was not uncommon among 1st century Jews. It's easy to see where this belief comes from. And a simple reading of the NT shows that Christ is more, much more, than a human being.

Well, adoptionists probably don't believe Jesus is Yahweh. They believe he is a now a divine being who is separate/lesser entity from Yahweh.

OK, adoptionists don't believe Jesus is Yahweh. But you're not even an adoptionist!

Genesis 23:7 Abraham bows down (worship/prostrates) before the Hittites.
Genesis 33:3 Jacob bows down (worships/prostrates) before Esau.
Genesis 42:6 Joseph's brothers bow down (worship/prostrate) themselves before Joseph.
Matthew 18:26 A servant bows down (worships/prostrates) before a King
1 Kings 1:23 Nathan the prophet of God bows down (worships prostrates) before King David

For a more detailed discussion of "worship/bowing down/prostration) in the bible.
The Trinity Delusion: Proskyneō Worship

The Lord Jesus said, "Go away, Satan! For it is written: Proskyneo the Lord your God, and serve only him.” (Mat 4:10; Luk 4:8). So, if people worshipped each other, they were not following Jesus' command.

The site answers most of the biblical arguments used to support the Trinity, so it is a good reference for why people don't believe in the Trinity. I think these articles sum up the gist of the website.
The Trinity Delusion: How to Know that the Trinity is Obviously False
The Trinity Delusion: The Trinity vs. Facts

I find only rhetoric in these articles. None addresses Trinitarian arguments e.g. John 1:1-5; etc.

Again, I find these arguments compelling. You however may not. Obviously your understanding of Christianity requires Jesus to be Yahweh/God so you probably can't read these arguments in an unbiased way. But, maybe they will make sense to you.

I cannot deny being biased.

This seems like an odd definition of what Jesus' deity means. So you believe in Jesus' pre-existence but you don't believe he is God/Yahweh? Or do you believe Jesus is God/Yahweh.

I'm certainly a Trinitarian believer. I chose this definition to show that I consider Modalists, Mormons, and JW's closer to the truth than Unitarians who believe that Lord Jesus is a mere human being.

BTW, you may find the following thread interesting:

Jesus is God?

 

[indopanda]

Actually, no. The OT repeatedly says "no one can see God and live." And the NT repeatedly says that "God is invisible" and no one can see Him. But then one can easily find numerous occasions in which God met with people face to face. There is clearly a Second Power in Heaven, and this belief was not uncommon among 1st century Jews. It's easy to see where this belief comes from. And a simple reading of the NT shows that Christ is more, much more, than a human being.

No one has physically seen God (presumed to be true)
People saw Jesus (true)
Therefore: Jesus is not God

No one has physically seen God (presumed to be true)
People physically saw God in the Old Testament (presumed to be true)
Therefore: One of the premises must be false. I think we both agree that premise 2 is false. I believe it's false because I think people were seeing angels who represented God. I assume you believe premise 2 is false because people were seeing Jesus. But, then that means that Jesus is not God based on the first set of premises above.

Even if 1st century Jews believed there was a second power in heaven, did they believe that second power was a second Yahweh? Probably not based on the Shema. The archangel Michael is described as the prince over Israel in the book of Daniel. Perhaps he was the second power since he commands an army of angels Revalation 12:7.

Here is an experiment. Give a copy of the New Testament to a non Christian and ask them to read it. Then ask them who Jesus is. They will probably tell you that he is the Son of God or the Messiah, just like Peter did Matthew 16:16. Ask them if Jesus is God. They would say no because there is another individual in the New Testament who is repeated called God by everyone. That individual is the God and Father of Jesus. That is the straightforward message of the New Testament. Anything beyond that, in my opinion, is the imagination of men.

Now before you claim that Jesus being the Son of God someone makes him God, remember that Adam is also called the Son of God (Luke 3:38) and so are angels. Furthermore, all believers will also become Sons of God at the resurrection.

OK, adoptionists don't believe Jesus is Yahweh. But you're not even an adoptionist!

I think we got off topic with this.

The Lord Jesus said, "Go away, Satan! For it is written: Proskyneo the Lord your God, and serve only him.” (Mat 4:10; Luk 4:8). So, if people worshipped each other, they were not following Jesus' command.

So, if Jesus is God/Yahweh according to you, then Jesus is referring to himself in the third person here and he is telling Satan that the only person he proskyneo and serves is himself, since he is God/Yahweh.

Also, Jesus instructs his disciples to serve one another and tells them that anyone who seeks to be great among you must be your servant (Matthew 20:26). So is Jesus contradicting himself here because he says to only serve God then turns around and tells his disciples to serve one another? Obviously, when we serve one another and proskyneo before those who God has appointed to rule over us we are in effect serving and proskyneo before God.

The point Jesus is arguing against Satan is that we are not to serve/proskyneo a person/idol/false god as God/Yahweh. That's what Satan wanted Jesus to do, proskyneo/serve him instead of God.

So you believe that Nathan, the prophet of God, was not following Scripture when he proskyneo before David, even though David was anointed by God and appointed as ruler over Isreal. If Nathan had not proskyneo before David, then he would have in affect been disrespecting God, since God had placed David as ruler over him.

Similarly, God has placed Jesus as ruler over the Kingdom of Heaven/God. If a subject of the Kingdom did not proskyneo before Jesus then it would be disrespect to God, since God had appointed Jesus as ruler. Which makes sense since Jesus is the promised Davidic king... you know... the Messiah.

I find only rhetoric in these articles. None addresses Trinitarian arguments e.g. John 1:1-5; etc.

These articles employ logic and reason to demonstrate why the Trinity is incorrect. If you have a problem with logical arguments and view them as simply rhetoric, then he has specific articles addressing specific verses on his website.

With regards to the prologue of John and Philippians 2:6-11 (if you were thinking of bringing that one up), those verses use extensive figurative language and have difficult Greek grammar/syntax/word usage. I am not inclined to build an understanding of who Jesus is based up a few verses that use figurative language when the rest of New Testament speaks in a straightforward way about who Jesus is (Son of God/Messiah).

I cannot deny being biased.

At the end of the day, I understand most Christians are just too deeply committed to Jesus being God/Yahweh to examine the evidence objectively. But, I'm happy to discuss with whoever is interested. I don't expect to convince anyone, and since I have investigated this extensively, I doubt I will hear some new compelling argument that I have not heard before.

I'm certainly a Trinitarian believer. I chose this definition to show that I consider Modalists, Mormons, and JW's closer to the truth than Unitarians who believe that Lord Jesus is a mere human being.

BTW, you may find the following thread interesting:

Jesus is God?

I think the New Testament bares witness to Jesus being a human. Acts 2:22-23. We are God's children and we are brothers and sisters of Christ Hebrews 2:11.

You believe in a Jesus who is God/Yahweh, so we could never be like him, since we as men cannot become God. However, I believe in a Jesus who was an exemplary man that lived a life of obedience to God. Because of that obedience, God raised Jesus from the dead, gave him a imperishable spiritual body, and appointed him to sit at the right hand of God ruling the Kingdom of God as the final and ultimate Davidic king. We can be like that Jesus. We can be men and women who live lives in obedience to God and receive resurrection from death and imperishable spiritual bodies. We can rule with Jesus just as the promised his disciples they would rule with him. As this brothers, sisters, and friends.

That thread you linked to is a painful read. I feel bad for the Buddhist. No one was giving him a meaningful answer. But, I honestly don't think there is a meaningful answer to his question. Just hand waving and wishful thinking. But then again, I'm biased .

 

[Barney2.0]

No one has physically seen God (presumed to be true)
People saw Jesus (true)
Therefore: Jesus is not God

False, no one can see God apart from the Only begotten God in the blossom of the Father, the Bible never says we can’t see God, countless people in the Old Testament physically saw God, so you have the dilemma of John 1:18 which flies in the face of your Socinian Unitarianism, if people could see God in the Old Testament, then they had to be seeing him through Christ which means Christ has always existed alongside God and the pre-existence of Christ is affirmed, otherwise John 1:18 becomes meaningless. Your whole argument is based on a false premise. When the Bible says no one can see God it means no one can see God’s full glory and live, which is why when Moses asks to see God, God only shows him his “back“ as his “face“ would be too much for him, so that is what the Bible means when it says no one may see God and live, it never says you cannot see God point blank.

I think the New Testament bares witness to Jesus being a human. Acts 2:22-23. We are God's children and we are brothers and sisters of Christ Hebrews 2:11.

Quoting any passages that say Christ is a human being or a man are straw man arguments, all Christians believe in the humanity of Christ. Show us where the Bible calls Christ a mere man or only a man, Hebrews 2:11 doesn’t hell your case. I am so happy you quoted Acts 2:22-23, Acts 2 it is one of the strongest proof chapters for both the divinity and humanity of Christ, let us read what the chapter earlier says:

“But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I WILL POUR OUT OF MY SPIRIT upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: And on my servants and on my handmaidens I WILL POUR OUT IN THOSE DAYS OF MY SPIRIT; and they shall prophesy: And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke: The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and notable day of the Lord come: And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call ON THE NAME OF THE LORD shall be saved.”

Acts 2:16-21

This is a quotation of Joeb 2:28-32, let’s see who this refers too:

“And it shall come to pass afterward That I will pour out My Spirit on all flesh; Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, Your old men shall dream dreams,Your young men shall see visions. And also on My menservants and on My maidservants I will pour out My Spirit in those days. “And I will show wonders in the heavens and in the earth: Blood and fire and pillars of smoke. The sun shall be turned into darkness, And the moon into blood, Before the coming of the great and awesome day of the Lord. And it shall come to pass That whoever calls on the name of the Lord Shall be saved. For in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be deliverance, As the Lord has said, Among the remnant whom the Lord calls.

Now watch what Peter says right after saying “Christ was a man accredited to you by God:”

“But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I WILL POUR OUT OF MY SPIRIT upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: And on my servants and on my handmaidens I WILL POUR OUT IN THOSE DAYS OF MY SPIRIT; and they shall prophesy: And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke: The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and notable day of the Lord come: And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call ON THE NAME OF THE LORD shall be saved.”

Acts 2:16-21


“And HIS NAME through faith IN HIS NAME hath made this man strong, whom ye see and know: yea, the faith which is by him hath given him this perfect soundness in the presence of you all.” Acts 3:16

“And it came to pass on the morrow, that their rulers, and elders, and scribes, And Annas the high priest, and Caiaphas, and John, and Alexander, and as many as were of the kindred of the high priest, were gathered together at Jerusalem. And when they had set them in the midst, they asked, By what power, or by what name, have ye done this? Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said unto them, Ye rulers of the people, and elders of Israel, If we this day be examined of the good deed done to the impotent man, by what means he is made whole; Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST OF NAZARETH, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole. This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. Neither is there salvation in any other: FOR THERE IS NONE OTHER NAME UNDER HEAVEN given among men, whereby we must be saved.” Acts 4:5-12

Funny how Peter applies an Old Testament prophecy spoken about God to Christ Christ and this happens right after he says Christ is a man, perhaps maybe he’s trying to tell you that Christ is not just a man, but also God incarnate.

 

[Barney2.0]

I think the simplest basis would be that it is not an explicit teaching of the bible. Now someone can point to specific verses that perhaps suggest that Jesus is God/Divine and less than a handful of verses that suggest that the Holy Spirit is a separate individual that is also God/Divine. However, no one in the bible teaches the doctrine of the Trinity as it is articulated in the Catholic creeds post Nicaea. Furthermore, since no one explicitly teaches the Trinity in the bible, you will also not find anyone in the bible teaching that belief in the doctrine Trinity is necessary to follow Jesus.

The Trinity is explicitly taught in the Bible whether your Socinianism allows you to see it or not is another question entirely. Christ says honor me as you honor the Father, he who does not honor the Son, does not honor the Father who sent him, John 5:23, you deny that Christ is due the same honor as God due to being a creature, by the way since Christ is a man and not God in your believe, then your committing idolatry as your belief has devolved into the worshipping of creatures just as the pagans did.

In fact, Paul tells us "if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." and John tells us “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life." In both instances, we see what it means to a follower of Jesus and in neither case is the doctrine of the Trinity mentioned.

We know from Acts 2 and 3 what kind of Lord Christ is and you reject that he is Lord in the sense of deity, thus you are not saved as you are in heresy.

Now, if you want to be part of most mainstream Christian denominations, you will have to at least pay lip service to the doctrine of the Trinity to be a member, but according to John and Paul, no such belief is necessary to be saved from sin.

Now, there are many other reasons to not believe in the Trinity, but I find that this reason is the most compelling. I am not swayed by the doctrines of men, especially not 4th century Catholic Bishops.

If you reject the Trinity you are not a Christian, according to Paul all things were created by Christ which logically excludes him from creation:

"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent." Colossians 1:15-18

Also I don’t think you believe that, quoting snippets from Paul doesn’t help your case considering he would rebuke your heretical position. The same bishops and Church Councils that decided the canonicity of your scriptures that you derive your beliefs and faith from?

 

[indopanda]

False, no one can see God apart from the Only begotten God in the blossom of the Father, the Bible never says we can’t see God, countless people in the Old Testament physically saw God, so you have the dilemma of John 1:18 which flies in the face of your Socinian Unitarianism, if people could see God in the Old Testament, then they had to be seeing him through Christ which means Christ has always existed alongside God and the pre-existence of Christ is affirmed, otherwise John 1:18 becomes meaningless. Your whole argument is based on a false premise. When the Bible says no one can see God it means no one can see God’s full glory and live, which is why when Moses asks to see God, God only shows him his “back“ as his “face“ would be too much for him, so that is what the Bible means when it says no one may see God and live, it never says you cannot see God point blank.

If you read John 1:18 closely, you can see that it does not actually say that the Son has seen the Father either. It merely says that the Son has made him (the Father/God) known.

It sounds like you are contradicting yourself here. Either we can see God physically or we can't. If we can see God physically, as you say towards the end, there is no issue with God's appearances in the Old Testament. We just need to accept that John is not talking about physical sight in John 1:18 but simply seeing his full glory. If that is the case, why would people in the OT need to see God through Christ? Why can't God dim his glory when he appears to men in the Old Testament so people can see him? How does this prove or necessitate Christ's pre-existance?

I will concede though that if you are sure people can see God physically, then my argument doesn't work. But I don't know if that is a consensus opinion.

 

[indopanda]

Quoting any passages that say Christ is a human being or a man are straw man arguments, all Christians believe in the humanity of Christ. Show us where the Bible calls Christ a mere man or only a man, Hebrews 2:11 doesn’t hell your case. I am so happy you quoted Acts 2:22-23, Acts 2 it is one of the strongest proof chapters for both the divinity and humanity of Christ, let us read what the chapter earlier says:

“But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I WILL POUR OUT OF MY SPIRIT upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: And on my servants and on my handmaidens I WILL POUR OUT IN THOSE DAYS OF MY SPIRIT; and they shall prophesy: And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke: The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and notable day of the Lord come: And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call ON THE NAME OF THE LORD shall be saved.”

Acts 2:16-21

This is a quotation of Joeb 2:28-32, let’s see who this refers too:

“And it shall come to pass afterward That I will pour out My Spirit on all flesh; Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, Your old men shall dream dreams,Your young men shall see visions. And also on My menservants and on My maidservants I will pour out My Spirit in those days. “And I will show wonders in the heavens and in the earth: Blood and fire and pillars of smoke. The sun shall be turned into darkness, And the moon into blood, Before the coming of the great and awesome day of the Lord. And it shall come to pass That whoever calls on the name of the Lord Shall be saved. For in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be deliverance, As the Lord has said, Among the remnant whom the Lord calls.

Now watch what Peter says right after saying “Christ was a man accredited to you by God:”

“But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I WILL POUR OUT OF MY SPIRIT upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: And on my servants and on my handmaidens I WILL POUR OUT IN THOSE DAYS OF MY SPIRIT; and they shall prophesy: And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke: The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and notable day of the Lord come: And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call ON THE NAME OF THE LORD shall be saved.”

Acts 2:16-21


“And HIS NAME through faith IN HIS NAME hath made this man strong, whom ye see and know: yea, the faith which is by him hath given him this perfect soundness in the presence of you all.” Acts 3:16

“And it came to pass on the morrow, that their rulers, and elders, and scribes, And Annas the high priest, and Caiaphas, and John, and Alexander, and as many as were of the kindred of the high priest, were gathered together at Jerusalem. And when they had set them in the midst, they asked, By what power, or by what name, have ye done this? Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said unto them, Ye rulers of the people, and elders of Israel, If we this day be examined of the good deed done to the impotent man, by what means he is made whole; Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST OF NAZARETH, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole. This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. Neither is there salvation in any other: FOR THERE IS NONE OTHER NAME UNDER HEAVEN given among men, whereby we must be saved.” Acts 4:5-12

Funny how Peter applies an Old Testament prophecy spoken about God to Christ Christ and this happens right after he says Christ is a man, perhaps maybe he’s trying to tell you that Christ is not just a man, but also God incarnate.

What exactly does a mere man or only a man even mean? I quoted Hebrews because it demonstrates that Jesus was a man like us. Perhaps after his resurrection he became something else, but we shall also be like him when we are resurrected, hence we shall be his brothers and sisters.

In answer to your long quotation of Acts, I will say this. God almost always works through intermediaries in the bible. He works through prophets, kings, and angels. When the Old Testament says God will do something, the fulfillment of that promise is almost always carried out by someone commissioned and empowered by God. Doesn't it strike you as interesting that Jesus repeated explains that he is not doing things on his own initiative but that he does what God/the Father instructs him to do. Also he says he does not do things by his own power but by the power God/the Father has granted to him. So it comes as no surprise to me that God/the Father fulfills his promises through his human son. I think you are confusing the agent (Jesus) with the one who empowers/sends the agent (God/the Father).

 

[indopanda]

The Trinity is explicitly taught in the Bible whether your Socinianism allows you to see it or not is another question entirely. Christ says honor me as you honor the Father, he who does not honor the Son, does not honor the Father who sent him, John 5:23, you deny that Christ is due the same honor as God due to being a creature, by the way since Christ is a man and not God in your believe, then your committing idolatry as your belief has devolved into the worshipping of creatures just as the pagans did.

Please show me where the doctrine of the Trinity, as articulated by the post Nicene church creeds, is explicitly taught in the Bible.

Jesus explains why we should honor him... because the Father sent him. If a king sends an emissary and you dishonor the emissary, then you dishonor the king who sent the emissary. If you show honor to an emissary, then you show honor to the king who sent the emissary. But it is easy to understand that the emissary is not the king, especially when the emissary makes that clear. Jesus says God/the Father sent him, so obviously Jesus is not God/the Father.

I don't deny that Jesus is due honor since his is God's emissary/Messiah/Son. Also, I don't worship Jesus as God/Yahweh, so I think I'm okay. I do however worship Jesus as the Messiah and the king God has appointed over his future Kingdom. Even if I am not able to be part of that Kingdom, I can still worship as a foreigner.

We know from Acts 2 and 3 what kind of Lord Christ is and you reject that he is Lord in the sense of deity, thus you are not saved as you are in heresy.

If you reject the Trinity you are not a Christian, according to Paul all things were created by Christ which logically excludes him from creation:

"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent." Colossians 1:15-18

Also I don’t think you believe that, quoting snippets from Paul doesn’t help your case considering he would rebuke your heretical position. The same bishops and Church Councils that decided the canonicity of your scriptures that you derive your beliefs and faith from?

I will leave it up to God, and those he has appointed to judge me, to determine whether or not I am a follower of the Christ. Who knows, maybe you will be appointed to judge me and you can cast me into the lake of fire if that's what you want to do.

I don't think Paul is saying what you think he is saying there and I would be interested to know Paul's position on the matter because he seems to have no difficultly distinguishing Jesus from God. As to the supposed role of the Church Councils and canonicity, my stance is that God sought to preserve the Scriptures so he made sure the inspired writings were retained over time. But as with the OT Israelites, he lets people fall into false teachings and doctrines if that is what their hearts lead them to. That is why I trust the inspired Scripture and not the doctrines of man. The latter is ensured to be true by the promises of God while the former are largely the imaginations of men. God often uses ungodly men to achieve good. So even if those church councils created a false doctrine of God, God can still use them to preserve his Scripture.

 

[Barney2.0]

If you read John 1:18 closely, you can see that it does not actually say that the Son has seen the Father either. It merely says that the Son has made him (the Father/God) known.

If you read John 1 in context then it is very clear that the Son knows the father known, also your interpretation does not make any sense, how can he make the Father known if he has not seen the Father himself, John 1:18 literally says the Logos exists in the bosom of the Father, obviously he sees the Father.

It sounds like you are contradicting yourself here. Either we can see God physically or we can't. If we can see God physically, as you say towards the end, there is no issue with God's appearances in the Old Testament. We just need to accept that John is not talking about physical sight in John 1:18 but simply seeing his full glory. If that is the case, why would people in the OT need to see God through Christ? Why can't God dim his glory when he appears to men in the Old Testament so people can see him? How does this prove or necessitate Christ's pre-existance?

We can see God physically just as people in the Old Testament can see him, but we can cannot see him apart from the Son and even the Son cannot be seen with his full glory physically, but we can have a glimpse of the Son just as Moses caught a glimpse of his glory. The New Testament says no one can see God apart from the begotten divine Logos that is Christ. If people saw God, then they saw him through Christ, hence Christ Pre-existed his physical birth from Mary eternally with the Father.

What exactly does a mere man or only a man even mean? I quoted Hebrews because it demonstrates that Jesus was a man like us. Perhaps after his resurrection he became something else, but we shall also be like him when we are resurrected, hence we shall be his brothers and sisters.

No one here denies that he is a man, I deny the false doctrine of him being a mere man.

In answer to your long quotation of Acts, I will say this. God almost always works through intermediaries in the bible. He works through prophets, kings, and angels. When the Old Testament says God will do something, the fulfillment of that promise is almost always carried out by someone commissioned and empowered by God. Doesn't it strike you as interesting that Jesus repeated explains that he is not doing things on his own initiative but that he does what God/the Father instructs him to do. Also he says he does not do things by his own power but by the power God/the Father has granted to him. So it comes as no surprise to me that God/the Father fulfills his promises through his human son. I think you are confusing the agent (Jesus) with the one who empowers/sends the agent (God/the Father).

Prophets, kings, and angels cannot do what God does, when God says I will pour out my spirit, it means he will pour out his spirit, case closed, any attempt to say otherwise is to read into the text. An agent does not have the same authority or power as the one sending him, Joel does not speak of an Agent or intermediary doing these works, but God himself, Peter applies this to Christ, therefore he didn’t think he was a mere human agent, of course Christ does not work of his own initiative that is the Trinity, the Son only does what he sees the Father doing, but that same Son claims to do all things the Father can do. A human cannot do all things God does, and all means all here in case you try to spin it. An agent does not have access to the exact same authority as the one sending him otherwise there is no more distinction between the agent and the sender, so this isn’t agency, Christ shares the divinity of the Father and it’s eternally subordinate to his authority and will and lives to glorify the Father and the Father glorifies his Son likewise.

Please show me where the doctrine of the Trinity, as articulated by the post Nicene church creeds, is explicitly taught in the Bible.

Jesus explains why we should honor him... because the Father sent him. If a king sends an emissary and you dishonor the emissary, then you dishonor the king who sent the emissary. If you show honor to an emissary, then you show honor to the king who sent the emissary. But it is easy to understand that the emissary is not the king, especially when the emissary makes that clear. Jesus says God/the Father sent him, so obviously Jesus is not God/the Father.

I don't deny that Jesus is due honor since his is God's emissary/Messiah/Son. Also, I don't worship Jesus as God/Yahweh, so I think I'm okay. I do however worship Jesus as the Messiah and the king God has appointed over his future Kingdom. Even if I am not able to be part of that Kingdom, I can still worship as a foreigner.

I have already showing Nicene Creed from scripture, you had no response to the verses I quoted for you. The problem with your analogy is that Christ says honor the Son just as they honor the Father, an emissary is not honored just as the king is honored, otherwise there is no more distinction between the king and emissary himself, your correct the emissary is not the king which exactly why the emissary is not honored just as the king is honored rather is he honored to a certain degree an agent, yet not as the king himself, when Christ says honor me just as you honor the Father he shows he shares that deity and heavenly Kingship with the Father, because the True King of Heaven and Earth is a multi-personal being, a Holy Trinity. So do why do you reject Christ’s words and call him mere man while you call the Father, do what Christ says and honor him just as you honor the Father, for the if you were a true Christian which your are not you would honor him just as he asked to be honored like the Father is, the Father is honored as God and so to the Son is, True God from God, sounds familiar doesn’t it, and you asked for the Nicene Creed from scripture, I am basing my conclusions by taking Christ’s words as what he said while you are trying to reinterpret them in a nonsensical to teach the heresy of Socinianism. If you do. It worship Christ as who he is that is Yahweh incarnate and true God just like how you worship God the Father, then you do not honor Christ just like how you honor the Father, you treat the Son as less deserving of honor and you take his glory away as all heretics do.

I will leave it up to God, and those he has appointed to judge me, to determine whether or not I am a follower of the Christ. Who knows, maybe you will be appointed to judge me and you can cast me into the lake of fire if that's what you want to do.

I don't think Paul is saying what you think he is saying there and I would be interested to know Paul's position on the matter because he seems to have no difficultly distinguishing Jesus from God. As to the supposed role of the Church Councils and canonicity, my stance is that God sought to preserve the Scriptures so he made sure the inspired writings were retained over time. But as with the OT Israelites, he lets people fall into false teachings and doctrines if that is what their hearts lead them to. That is why I trust the inspired Scripture and not the doctrines of man. The latter is ensured to be true by the promises of God while the former are largely the imaginations of men. God often uses ungodly men to achieve good. So even if those church councils created a false doctrine of God, God can still use them to preserve his Scripture.

And God has thrown it at your door step, I will not judge you, only Christ the one who has all the Father’s glory as his Son will judge you, because all judgement has been assigned to him as the only begotten God in the bosom of the Father and most beloved by him. Distinguishing Christ from the Father, yer still making sure he is of the same essence of the Father is Trinitarianism point blank, that is exactly what Paul is doing, he distinguishes him from the Father, yet still makes it clear he is not a creature, that which is not a creature is uncreated, and only God is uncreated, thus the Christ is God incarnate. If all things came into being through him, then he is logically not in the category as all things, Paul is aging exactly what I am saying. Christ has told the Church that he will never let the gates of hell prevail against it, even in the Old Testament there was always a remnant that tried to be righteous and eventually prevailed, the scriptures didn’t fall out of heaven with God’s hand writing on it, it was written by Holy and pious Saints that belonged to Christ as his body and bride, the Church with the inspiration of God at her back. What your doing is literally divorcing the Bible from its history to make sense of your Socinianism that didn’t even exist until the enlightenment era based on surprise surprise doctrines of men, not Scripture or that which brought scripture into existence that which is Apostolic tradition. Without these men you don’t even know what is scripture, who was deciding the canon, all these so called “doctrines of man“ as you call them were based in the same thing scripture is based on, the Apostolic Tradition of the Church. You cannot divorce the memoirs of an author from the person behind the memoirs himself and say that the writings are good yet the person behind them bad even though the writings reflect the thoughts of the person and the person is reflected by his memoirs and writings, you cannot divorce one from the other, you cannot divorce the Bible from its history or the Church that wrote it.

 

[Barney2.0]

Deleted

 

[Andrewn]

No one has physically seen God (presumed to be true) People physically saw God in the Old Testament (presumed to be true) Therefore: One of the premises must be false. I think we both agree that premise 2 is false. I believe it's false because I think people were seeing angels who represented God.

I will concede though that if you are sure people can see God physically, then my argument doesn't work. But I don't know if that is a consensus opinion.

Dr Michael Heiser in his doctoral dissertation and subsequent books and videos provides convincing evidence from the OT that easily refutes Jewish, Modalistic, and Unitarian beliefs:

 

[indopanda]

If you read John 1 in context then it is very clear that the Son knows the father known, also your interpretation does not make any sense, how can he make the Father known if he has not seen the Father himself, John 1:18 literally says the Logos exists in the bosom of the Father, obviously he sees the Father.

It seems to me that John is speaking figuratively. I do not think Jesus was literally in God's bosom. I think what John is trying to convey is that Jesus had a close and special relationship with God, which is why he was able to convey the true nature of God to his followers. Also, Jesus could have made the Father known without having physically seen God. I'm guessing you have not seen Jesus or God physically, but you can make them known to others by talking about them, describing them, etc. Also presumably you have a close relationship with Jesus and God even though you have never physically seen them. I don't know why we need to think John is speaking literally here and not figuratively. But you are free to read it how you want to.

We can see God physically just as people in the Old Testament can see him, but we can cannot see him apart from the Son and even the Son cannot be seen with his full glory physically, but we can have a glimpse of the Son just as Moses caught a glimpse of his glory. The New Testament says no one can see God apart from the begotten divine Logos that is Christ. If people saw God, then they saw him through Christ, hence Christ Pre-existed his physical birth from Mary eternally with the Father.

This is speculation on your part. You might be able to infer this from the Bible based on how you interpret figurative teachings/language, but it is not explicitly taught. Also, the Logos is only mentioned once at the very beginning of John. Paul does not talk about a "divine Logos that is Christ" and John only mentions the Logos in a highly figurative introduction to his gospel. But I guess that is lost on those you desperately want Jesus to be the incarnation of some divine essence.

No one here denies that he is a man, I deny the false doctrine of him being a mere man.

Again, not sure what it means to be a "mere" man. Didn't realize you could be something "more" than a man and still be a man.

Prophets, kings, and angels cannot do what God does, when God says I will pour out my spirit, it means he will pour out his spirit, case closed, any attempt to say otherwise is to read into the text. An agent does not have the same authority or power as the one sending him, Joel does not speak of an Agent or intermediary doing these works, but God himself, Peter applies this to Christ, therefore he didn’t think he was a mere human agent, of course Christ does not work of his own initiative that is the Trinity, the Son only does what he sees the Father doing, but that same Son claims to do all things the Father can do. A human cannot do all things God does, and all means all here in case you try to spin it. An agent does not have access to the exact same authority as the one sending him otherwise there is no more distinction between the agent and the sender, so this isn’t agency, Christ shares the divinity of the Father and it’s eternally subordinate to his authority and will and lives to glorify the Father and the Father glorifies his Son likewise.

God is doing the work. He is just doing it through Jesus. Peter says as much in the passage from acts that you so casually brushed off “Fellow Israelites, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know" Acts 2:22. So tell me, who did the miracles, wonders and signs? Who poured out his Spirit at Pentecost just as Joel fortold? God did... through his agent Jesus. If you want to believe otherwise, go ahead. I don't need to convince you of anything.

I have already showing Nicene Creed from scripture, you had no response to the verses I quoted for you. The problem with your analogy is that Christ says honor the Son just as they honor the Father, an emissary is not honored just as the king is honored, otherwise there is no more distinction between the king and emissary himself, your correct the emissary is not the king which exactly why the emissary is not honored just as the king is honored rather is he honored to a certain degree an agent, yet not as the king himself, when Christ says honor me just as you honor the Father he shows he shares that deity and heavenly Kingship with the Father, because the True King of Heaven and Earth is a multi-personal being, a Holy Trinity. So do why do you reject Christ’s words and call him mere man while you call the Father, do what Christ says and honor him just as you honor the Father, for the if you were a true Christian which your are not you would honor him just as he asked to be honored like the Father is, the Father is honored as God and so to the Son is, True God from God, sounds familiar doesn’t it, and you asked for the Nicene Creed from scripture, I am basing my conclusions by taking Christ’s words as what he said while you are trying to reinterpret them in a nonsensical to teach the heresy of Socinianism. If you do. It worship Christ as who he is that is Yahweh incarnate and true God just like how you worship God the Father, then you do not honor Christ just like how you honor the Father, you treat the Son as less deserving of honor and you take his glory away as all heretics do.

That verse you quoted says Jesus and God both receive honor. I explained what I thought that meant. While you might disagree with my interpretation, that verse does not say that Jesus, the Father and the Holy Spirit are all co-equal and co-eternal persons who share a divine essence and together constitute a triune God who is the one called Yahweh in the Old Testament. NO ONE in the bible explicitly makes such a claim and I doubt you could even implicitly make that claim using just scripture. I believe what the bible teaches. I am under no obligation to believe church Creeds nor am I concerned whether or not someone on the internet, or the "Catholic" church, or some random "pastor/religious leader" thinks I'm a heretic.

And God has thrown it at your door step, I will not judge you, only Christ the one who has all the Father’s glory as his Son will judge you, because all judgement has been assigned to him as the only begotten God in the bosom of the Father and most beloved by him. Distinguishing Christ from the Father, yer still making sure he is of the same essence of the Father is Trinitarianism point blank, that is exactly what Paul is doing, he distinguishes him from the Father, yet still makes it clear he is not a creature, that which is not a creature is uncreated, and only God is uncreated, thus the Christ is God incarnate. If all things came into being through him, then he is logically not in the category as all things, Paul is aging exactly what I am saying. Christ has told the Church that he will never let the gates of hell prevail against it, even in the Old Testament there was always a remnant that tried to be righteous and eventually prevailed, the scriptures didn’t fall out of heaven with God’s hand writing on it, it was written by Holy and pious Saints that belonged to Christ as his body and bride, the Church with the inspiration of God at her back. What your doing is literally divorcing the Bible from its history to make sense of your Socinianism that didn’t even exist until the enlightenment era based on surprise surprise doctrines of men, not Scripture or that which brought scripture into existence that which is Apostolic tradition. Without these men you don’t even know what is scripture, who was deciding the canon, all these so called “doctrines of man“ as you call them were based in the same thing scripture is based on, the Apostolic Tradition of the Church. You cannot divorce the memoirs of an author from the person behind the memoirs himself and say that the writings are good yet the person behind them bad even though the writings reflect the thoughts of the person and the person is reflected by his memoirs and writings, you cannot divorce one from the other, you cannot divorce the Bible from its history or the Church that wrote it.

Interesting you say that, since Jesus tells his disciples that they will sit on thrones and judge Israel with him Matthew 19:28. So obviously Jesus does gives the right to judge to those who follow him. It's not something he keeps just for himself. You are spouting dogma instead of understanding what scripture says.

Again, I think you are misinterpreting Pauls words in Colossians. "All things" is not referring to all created things. If Paul had wanted to say God created the world through Jesus, he could have said so. He did not. "All things" probably refers to all things in the Age to come... the Kingdom Age. Again, you are free to disagree, but don't think I have not investigated this verse to get to the position I now take. On it's face it seems to support Pre-existance, but if you dig deeper you find that is just an assumption from reading a text 2000 years after it was written and not understanding the nuances of the language it was written in.

I think you are conflating the Jews (and Luke) who wrote the New Testaments with the gentile Greek philosophers who were the leaders of the church in the 100s-400s when the doctrine of the Trinity came into being. I certainly can divorce the thinking of pagan Greek philosophers from the writings of Jesus' disciples. As far as I am concerned, wolves entered the church shortly after Paul and the other disciples were martyred. Those wolves have been erecting a mountain of false teachings within the Church for hundreds of years. The Protestant reformation swept away some of those false teachings, but it was unwilling to sweep away others such as the Trinity, eternal torment in Hell, Christian war. If it's not explicitly taught in the Bible and it doesn't make sense, then I'm fine discarding it as a pagan tradition. But, you keep thinking how you want to think if it suits your world view.