Why The Trinity is a False Teaching - Summarized Doctrinal Reasons

7xlightray said:

No, what I said was...

Did any of these, Saint Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Saint Irenæus, Origen, believe in the trinity as it is taught today, or as the Nicene Creed states? How did it go from what they taught, to what is in the Nicene Creed?

Click to expand...

I do not think someone can teach something that has not been clearly articulated yet. Nor we would there be an urgent need to more clearly articulate something unless someone was seriously challenging a teaching point within the Church. The elements present in the Creeds can be found centuries before there was the Creed asked about. Before that Creed there were others. Did they believe Jesus is God, and specifically God the Son? Yes.

How did they go from vague concepts like Jesus is God to a more detailed Trinity Doctrine (that is right we don't know everything about God)?

People started teaching things in the Church that missed the mark in one way or another and leading people away/dividing the flock. Usually in one or many ways the new teaching challenged one or more of the revelations from God already held to be true teachings. The Holy Spirit was sent among other things to help protect what would be taught to His Church, and so moved leaders to stand up against new teachings or even just traditions which conflicted. Over time this forces more and more refined teaching of many concepts as men challenged/attacked various portions and the Church is forced to defend a concept. Until the matter is settled or determined to be a non-issue, conflicting teachings/concepts could be around for centuries with people writing about it from both sides.

DrBubbaLove said:

I do not think someone can teach something that has not been clearly articulated yet. Nor we would there be an urgent need to more clearly articulate something unless someone was seriously challenging a teaching point within the Church. The elements present in the Creeds can be found centuries before there was the Creed asked about. Before that Creed there were others. Did they believe Jesus is God, and specifically God the Son? Yes.

How did they go from vague concepts like Jesus is God to a more detailed Trinity Doctrine (that is right we don't know everything about God)?

People started teaching things in the Church that missed the mark in one way or another and leading people away/dividing the flock. Usually in one or many ways the new teaching challenged one or more of the revelations from God already held to be true teachings. The Holy Spirit was sent among other things to help protect what would be taught to His Church, and so moved leaders to stand up against new teachings or even just traditions which conflicted. Over time this forces more and more refined teaching of many concepts as men challenged/attacked various portions and the Church is forced to defend a concept. Until the matter is settled or determined to be a non-issue, conflicting teachings/concepts could be around for centuries with people writing about it from both sides.

Click to expand...

Some of them really spell it out, like Origen, and St. Irenaeus. They say there is a right way, and a wrong way of understanding. There are more, but here are a few...


St. Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 61: said I, "from the Scriptures, that God begat before all creatures a Beginning, a certain rational power from Himself, who is called by the Holy Spirit, now the Glory of the Lord, now the Son...


St. Justin Martyr's, The First Apology Ch. 33: It is wrong, therefore, to understand the Spirit and the power of God as anything else than the Word, who is also the first-born of God, as the foresaid prophet Moses declared; and it was this which, when it came upon the virgin and overshadowed her, caused her to conceive, not by intercourse, but by power.


Tertullian, Against Hermogenes, Chapter 3. An Argument of Hermogenes. The Answer: While God is a Title Eternally Applicable to the Divine Being, Lord and Father are Only Relative Appellations, Not Eternally Applicable. An Inconsistency in the Argument of Hermogenes Pointed Out
Because God is in like manner a Father, and He is also a Judge; but He has not always been Father and Judge, merely on the ground of His having always been God. For He could not have been the Father previous to the Son, nor a Judge previous to sin. There was, however, a time when neither sin existed with Him, nor the Son; the former of which was to constitute the Lord a Judge, and the latter a Father. In this way He was not Lord previous to those things of which He was to be the Lord. But He was only to become Lord at some future time: just as He became the Father by the Son, and a Judge by sin, so also did He become Lord by means of those things which He had made, in order that they might serve Him.


St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies Book III, Chapter 8: 3 For that all things, whether Angels, or Archangels, or Thrones, or Dominions, were both established and created by Him who is God over all, through His Word, John has thus pointed out. For when he had spoken of the Word of God as having been in the Father, he added, “All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made.


St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies Book II, Chapter 30 9 But there is one only God, the Creator— He who is above every Principality, and Power, and Dominion, and Virtue: He is Father, He is God, He the Founder, He the Maker, He the Creator, who made those things by Himself, that is, through His Word and His Wisdom— heaven and earth, and the seas, and all things that are in them: He is just; He is good; He it is who formed man, who planted paradise, who made the world, who gave rise to the flood, who saved Noah; He is the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, the God of the living: He it is whom the law proclaims, whom the prophets preach, whom Christ reveals, whom the apostles make known to us, and in whom the Church believes. He is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ


St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies Book III, Chapter 9: 1 This, therefore, having been clearly demonstrated here (and it shall yet be so still more clearly), that neither the prophets, nor the apostles, nor the Lord Christ in His own person, did acknowledge any other Lord or God, but the God and Lord supreme: the prophets and the apostles confessing the Father and the Son; but naming no other as God, and confessing no other as Lord: and the Lord Himself handing down to His disciples, that He, the Father, is the only God and Lord, who alone is God and ruler of all; — it is incumbent on us to follow, if we are their disciples indeed, their testimonies to this effect. For Matthew the apostle— knowing, as one and the same God, Him who had given promise to Abraham, that He would make his seed as the stars of heaven, Genesis 15:5 and Him who, by His Son Christ Jesus, has called us to the knowledge of Himself, from the worship of stones, so that those who were not a people were made a people, and she beloved who was not beloved Romans 9:25 — declares that John, when preparing the way for Christ, said to those who were boasting of their relationship [to Abraham] according to the flesh, but who had their mind tinged and stuffed with all manner of evil, preaching that repentance which should call them back from their evil doings, said, “O generation of vipers, who has shown you to flee from the wrath to come? Bring forth therefore fruit meet for repentance. And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham [to our] father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.” Matthew 3:7 He preached to them, therefore, the repentance from wickedness, but he did not declare to them another God, besides Him who made the promise to Abraham; he, the forerunner of Christ, of whom Matthew again says, and Luke likewise, “For this is he that was spoken of from the Lord by the prophet, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare the way of the Lord, make straight the paths of our God. Every valley shall be filled, and every mountain and hill brought low; and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough into smooth ways; and all flesh shall see the salvation of God.” Matthew 3:3 There is therefore one and the same God, the Father of our Lord, who also promised, through the prophets, that He would send His forerunner; and His salvation— that is, His Word — He caused to be made visible to all flesh, [the Word] Himself being made incarnate, that in all things their King might become manifest. For it is necessary that those [beings] which are judged do see the judge, and know Him from whom they receive judgment; and it is also proper, that those which follow on to glory should know Him who bestows upon them the gift of glory.


Origen, Commentary on John, Book II
2. In What Way the Logos is God. Errors to Be Avoided on This Question.
We next notice John's use of the article in these sentences. He does not write without care in this respect, nor is he unfamiliar with the niceties of the Greek tongue. In some cases he uses the article, and in some he omits it. He adds the article to the Logos, but to the name of God he adds it sometimes only. He uses the article, when the name of God refers to the uncreated cause of all things, and omits it when the Logos is named God. Does the same difference which we observe between God with the article and God without it prevail also between the Logos with it and without it? We must enquire into this. As the God who is over all is God with the article not without it, so "the Logos" is the source of that reason (Logos) which dwells in every reasonable creature; the reason which is in each creature is not, like the former called par excellence The Logos. Now there are many who are sincerely concerned about religion, and who fall here into great perplexity. They are afraid that they may be proclaiming two Gods, and their fear drives them into doctrines which are false and wicked. Either they deny that the Son has a distinct nature of His own besides that of the Father, and make Him whom they call the Son to be God all but the name, or they deny the divinity of the Son, giving Him a separate existence of His own, and making His sphere of essence fall outside that of the Father, so that they are separable from each other. To such persons we have to say that God on the one hand is Very God (Autotheos, God of Himself); and so the Saviour says in His prayer to the Father, John 17:3 "That they may know You the only true God;" but that all beyond the Very God is made God by participation in His divinity, and is not to be called simply God (with the article), but rather God (without article). And thus the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with God, and to attract to Himself divinity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other gods beside Him, of whom God is the God, as it is written, "The God of gods, the Lord, has spoken and called the earth." It was by the offices of the first-born that they became gods, for He drew from God in generous measure that they should be made gods, and He communicated it to them according to His own bounty. The true God, then, is "The God," and those who are formed after Him are gods, images, as it were, of Him the prototype. But the archetypal image, again, of all these images is the Word of God, who was in the beginning, and who by being with God is at all times God, not possessing that of Himself, but by His being with the Father, and not continuing to be God, if we should think of this, except by remaining always in uninterrupted contemplation of the depths of the Father.

Hello Lightray.

God in the Old Testament described Himself below.

Isaiah 44
6 Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel, and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts:
I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god.

The God of the Old Testament also gave us an image of Himself below.

Daniel 10
5 I looked up and saw a man clothed in linen, with a belt of gold from Uphaz around his waist.
6 His body was like beryl, his face like lightning, his eyes like flaming torches, his arms and legs
like the gleam of burnished bronze, and the sound of his words like the roar of a multitude.

There is only one God, the King of Israel, the first and the last, no other god. God also is
'a man clothed in linen' that Daniel describes in some detail.

Now read the following.

Revelations 1
13 and in the midst of the lamp stands I saw one like the Son of Man, clothed with a long robe
and with a golden sash across his chest. 14 His head and his hair were white as white wool,
white as snow; his eyes were like a flame of fire, 15 his feet were like burnished bronze, refined
as in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of many waters. 16 In his right hand he held seven
stars, and from his mouth came a sharp, two-edged sword, and his face was like the sun shining
with full force 17 When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. But he placed his right hand on
me, saying, “Do not be afraid; I am the first and the last,

If you are on the ball, the one God revealed in Revelations, is an exact fit of the one and only God,
revealed in Isaiah and Daniel.

How do you interpret this information?

klutedavid said:

Hello Lightray.

God in the Old Testament described Himself below.

Isaiah 44
6 Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel, and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts:
I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god.

The God of the Old Testament also gave us an image of Himself below.

Daniel 10
5 I looked up and saw a man clothed in linen, with a belt of gold from Uphaz around his waist.
6 His body was like beryl, his face like lightning, his eyes like flaming torches, his arms and legs
like the gleam of burnished bronze, and the sound of his words like the roar of a multitude.

There is only one God, the King of Israel, the first and the last, no other god. God also is
'a man clothed in linen' that Daniel describes in some detail.

Now read the following.

Revelations 1
13 and in the midst of the lamp stands I saw one like the Son of Man, clothed with a long robe
and with a golden sash across his chest. 14 His head and his hair were white as white wool,
white as snow; his eyes were like a flame of fire, 15 his feet were like burnished bronze, refined
as in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of many waters. 16 In his right hand he held seven
stars, and from his mouth came a sharp, two-edged sword, and his face was like the sun shining
with full force 17 When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. But he placed his right hand on
me, saying, “Do not be afraid; I am the first and the last,

If you are on the ball, the one God revealed in Revelations, is an exact fit of the one and only God,
revealed in Isaiah and Daniel.

How do you interpret this information?

Click to expand...

Hi klutedavid,
Hope all is going well.

Yes, I am aware of these passages.

Well, seeing as you ask, one thing I would have to say, is read all of Isaiah 44 more carefully, even noticing verse 28, and you will notice it is the Father speaking. The Father is our redeemer, and the King of all kings, even the King of our lord, the king Jesus the anointed one. Jesus is the king sitting on his Father's (Yhwh's) throne. The Father is our savior, for it was the Father working through His Christ to reconcile us back to Himself, it was all His plan, and work; though Jesus obeyed the Father, even unto death.

The other thing I would have to say, is we would be making a big leap. Just because one is called first and last, does not mean they are the God. If being called god, makes us the God, then we are the God according to John 10:34. Abraham is called father, would we assume Abraham is God the Father? Of course not, but here is something, that may help you in understanding...


The promise of the Holy Spirit is the promise of the Father. So, lets go to Joel and see what the Father says, for it is the promise of the Father...


...the Father speaking, and saying, He the Father, is the only LORD God, and NONE else. He the Father is the one in the midst of Israel, as we know working through Jesus. His word became flesh. It was the Father's Spirit (not a third person) working through Jesus, both to will and to do.

The Father will pour out of His Spirit, in the Greek “I will pour out of the Spirit of Me.” The Father is sharing His Spirit, which is the same Spirit that is in the Son, which is the same Spirit that is in us, crying Father. When we have the right understanding all scriptures come together.

Another thing I would also suggest, would be to take a closer look at what is being conveyed by first and last, in Isaiah and Revelation.

Note what he says in Rev. 2:26 about “my works unto the end,” and 3:14 about “the beginning of the creation of God,” even note who he is speaking to in these churches. And a question to ask yourself here, is which creation is he referring to, and what is he trying to convey to the Laodiceans?

Another question to ask yourself, is it possible it could refer to both the Father, and the Son, and how?

All the clues are there.

Hello Lightray.

Appreciate your reply to my question.

The revelation of the YHWH in the scripture has been utterly misunderstood, both by the apostles and the church.
The apostles from the start were deeply confused, stumbling, not precise, though the revelation was clear and precise.

John 5
39 You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me;

The revelation (YHWH speaking) contained in the scripture is very clear, alas, the apostles were struggling with this
enormous revelation. So we have in the scripture the full revealed truth of YHWH, and we also have unfortunately,
a crude understanding proposed by some authors in the New Testament.

You stated,

The Father is our redeemer

Click to expand...

I must say the scripture does not say this, Lightray.

Ephesians 1:7
In Him we have redemption through His blood

The scripture tells us that the Christ is the redeemer, 'redemption through His blood'.

When YHWH speaks in Isaiah, YHWH tells us that He is the redeemer.

Isaiah 44
6 “Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: ‘I am the first and
I am the last, And there is no God besides Me.

Then you stated,

The Father is the King of all kings

Click to expand...

The scripture does not state this either.
The title 'King of kings' belongs to one specific person in the scripture.

Revelation 17
14 the Lamb will conquer them, for he is Lord of lords and King of kings

Lightray, in Isaiah we are told repeatedly that YHWH is the 'King of Israel'.

I am not aware of any occurrence in the scripture where the Father is the 'King of Israel'?

I am aware of many verses that clearly state.

Matthew 27
42 “He saved others; He cannot save Himself. He is the King of Israel; let Him now come down from the cross,
and we will believe in Him.

Lightray you need to understand a statement that Jesus made, Jesus tells you everything you need to know.

John 5
37 And the Father who sent Me, He has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time nor seen His form.

No prophet had ever seen the Father, no patriarch had ever seen the Father. No prophet ever heard the Father speaking,
no patriarch ever heard the Father speaking. Adam and Eve never saw, heard, or knew the Father!

We know that the prophets both saw and heard YHWH, their testimony is exactly that, they saw YHWH and this
same YHWH spoke to them.

Daniel 10
5 I lifted my eyes and looked, and behold, there was a certain man dressed in linen, whose waist was girded with a belt
of pure gold of Uphaz. 6 His body also was like beryl, his face had the appearance of lightning, his eyes were like flaming
torches, his arms and feet like the gleam of polished bronze, and the sound of his words like the sound of a tumult.

This precise vision of YHWH is the common vision all the way through the scripture, even John sees this same fellow.
This YHWH speaks and His words are a deafening and an overwhelming sound, the sound of a tumult.

I repeat, 'You have neither heard His voice at any time nor seen His form'.

We know the Father is invisible, unknown, not revealed, has not spoken to humanity, is Spirit. So why would you think
for one moment that the prophets saw and heard the Father? His voice is deafening, Jesus then said, you never heard the Father!

Lightray, please read this verse below which I will translate for you.

The original text.

Colossians 1
15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by Him all things were created, both in the
heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities, all things have been
created through Him and for Him.

The clearer translation.

Colossians 1
15 Jesus is the visible form of God to humanity, the firstborn from the dead over all creation. 16 For by Jesus all things
were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities, ALL THINGS HAVE BEEN CREATED THROUGH JESUS AND FOR JESUS.

All creation exists by Jesus and creation exists solely FOR JESUS. Then it holds that the one speaking to humanity, can be
none other YHWH, i.e., Christ Jesus.

Of the Father, 'You have neither heard His voice at any time nor seen His form'.

Disregard the clues and open your eyes to the clear revelation in all the scripture, Lightray.

klutedavid said:

Hello Lightray.

Appreciate your reply to my question.

The revelation of the YHWH in the scripture has been utterly misunderstood, both by the apostles and the church.
The apostles from the start were deeply confused, stumbling, not precise, though the revelation was clear and precise.

John 5
39 You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me;

The revelation (YHWH speaking) contained in the scripture is very clear, alas, the apostles were struggling with this
enormous revelation. So we have in the scripture the full revealed truth of YHWH, and we also have unfortunately,
a crude understanding proposed by some authors in the New Testament.

Click to expand...

Hi again klutedavid,

I do not mind replying to your question.

The scriptures, and Apostles make it very clear, who the God is, they would have to, because of Acts 17:29-31, and John 17:3. Yes I've heard that explanation before, even that the apostle did not have time to figure out the trinity, because they were to busy being persecuted. If there was one thing they needed to know, was who God was, and know who Jesus was, not whether woman should wear hats in church, or not, Mark 12:29. Besides that, there is nothing in scripture to suggest they did not understand after the anointing of the Spirit.
When I read the scriptures, I see they did know who God is, and who Jesus is, and made it very clear. Once I dropped Jesus is the God stuff, it became extremely clear. The reason it seems it was vague to them, is because you are reading the scriptures though Trinitarian eye's, and trinity is not taught in scripture, for there is only one true God, the Father, ...Scripture Does Plainly State That! How could scripture get any clearer?

I certainly would agree the O/T scriptures speak of Christ, though they also reveal the Father. I see Jesus in O/T scripture more now, then I ever did as an trinitarian, in fact, it was like I had a veil over my head when I read the scriptures.

klutedavid said:

You stated, "the Father is our redeemer" I must say the scripture does not say this, Lightray.

Ephesians 1:7
In Him we have redemption through His blood

The scripture tells us that the Christ is the redeemer, 'redemption through His blood'.

When YHWH speaks in Isaiah, YHWH tells us that He is the redeemer.

Isaiah 44
6 “Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: ‘I am the first and
I am the last, And there is no God besides Me.

Click to expand...

Sure it does. Jesus is our redeemer, but the Father is our redeemer, when properly understood, for He provided the Lamb, and much more. Not only that, but the Father is Jesus Rock and Savior, for if not for the Father saving Jesus we would not be saved. I mean saving him from the grave, and did not leave his soul in Sheol, or hades Psalm 16:10; Acts 2:27. We rejected the Father as our king, so the Father gave the Israelites a man as a king, and he will reign TILL all his enemies are made his footstool, then he hands over the kingdom to his God and Father 1 Cor. 15. As well, Jesus became king after his resurrection, as verse 27 shows.


And we also have...


Here it says that Paul is an apostle of Jesus, by two persons, one by God our saviour, and the other Jesus. As this is what scripture teaches.


This section will show in 1 Timothy 1:1 “God our savior” by “the commandment of God” speaks of the Father. And that there are two that made him an apostle.


As we can also see from that passage “God of our fathers” must refer to the Father, otherwise he would have said “shouldest know his will and see himself” instead of “see that just one” which the just one refers to Jesus, and it was Jesus he heard, and saw. It was the Father's will that Paul be a witness to all men. To make even more clear that 1 Timothy 1:1 “by the commandment of God our Saviour,”Acts 22:14 “know his will, and verse 15” speaks of it being the Father's will...


And why would he not say according to the will of God the Father, and Son?

Then, as to Jesus, it is written of Paul...


Obviously from those passages God the Father sent Jesus to make Paul an apostle, as Paul states he was made an apostle by God the Father and the Lord Jesus. Therefore it does state the Father is our savior.

klutedavid said:

We know the Father is invisible, unknown, not revealed, has not spoken to humanity, is Spirit. So why would you think
for one moment that the prophets saw and heard the Father? His voice is deafening, Jesus then said, you never heard the Father!

Click to expand...

Just to be clear, in my last post I never said the prophets saw, or heard the Father. What they seen were angels, that spoke in the name of God, or by His Spirit. In these last days He has spoken unto us by his Son. When I said, the Father speaking, I was referring in the passage, not literally.

klutedavid said:

Then you stated, "The Father is the King of all Kings" The scripture does not state this either.
The title 'King of kings' belongs to one specific person in the scripture.

Revelation 17
14 the Lamb will conquer them, for he is Lord of lords and King of kings

Lightray, in Isaiah we are told repeatedly that YHWH is the 'King of Israel'.

I am not aware of any occurrence in the scripture where the Father is the 'King of Israel'?

I am aware of many verses that clearly state.

Matthew 27
42 “He saved others; He cannot save Himself. He is the King of Israel; let Him now come down from the cross,
and we will believe in Him.

Lightray you need to understand a statement that Jesus made, Jesus tells you everything you need to know.

John 5
37 And the Father who sent Me, He has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time nor seen His form.

No prophet had ever seen the Father, no patriarch had ever seen the Father. No prophet ever heard the Father speaking,
no patriarch ever heard the Father speaking. Adam and Eve never saw, heard, or knew the Father!

We know that the prophets both saw and heard YHWH, their testimony is exactly that, they saw YHWH and this
same YHWH spoke to them.

Daniel 10
5 I lifted my eyes and looked, and behold, there was a certain man dressed in linen, whose waist was girded with a belt
of pure gold of Uphaz. 6 His body also was like beryl, his face had the appearance of lightning, his eyes were like flaming
torches, his arms and feet like the gleam of polished bronze, and the sound of his words like the sound of a tumult.

This precise vision of YHWH is the common vision all the way through the scripture, even John sees this same fellow.
This YHWH speaks and His words are a deafening and an overwhelming sound, the sound of a tumult.

I repeat, 'You have neither heard His voice at any time nor seen His form'.

Click to expand...

You did not understand when it says, Jesus is sitting on his Father's throne? If it is the Father's throne, then the Father is King, and greater then Jesus, for it is the Father's throne. It's not the Father, Son and Holy Spirit's throne, it is the Father's throne. And Who is the head of Christ? Is Christ the head of Christ? No, God is, God the Father. And if God the Father is the head of Jesus, Jesus cannot be the almighty, for one is greater then him. Confusion of scripture drifts away, when we have the right God, and lord.

Nebuchadnezzar is also called king of kings in Daniel 2:37, does that mean Nebuchadnezzar is God also? That simply is not good reasoning, to assume titles makes one the one and only true God. As we see, Jesus is not the only one called king of kings.


Who does Peter say this God is that regardeth not persons...


We can see from the next two verses that Peter has the Father in mind...


I agree, the Father is the invisible one, that no one has seen, as we can also see from this passage...


And in this next passage, the invisible Father is called the King eternal.


I could also show 1 Timothy 6:14-16 speaks of the Father, Who is also called King of kings, and Lord of lords, as well as only Potentate, and Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see. Even quickly right now, I can show this could not be referring to Jesus, for Paul was approached by Jesus, and did see Jesus in light, and was blinded, proving he did look upon him.

So, we can see from these passages the Father is also King, and King of kings, and if you need me to show you 1 Timothy 6:14-16, I can do that to.

klutedavid said:

Lightray, please read this verse below which I will translate for you.

The original text.

Colossians 1
15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by Him all things were created, both in the
heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities, all things have been
created through Him and for Him.

The clearer translation.

Colossians 1
15 Jesus is the visible form of God to humanity, the firstborn from the dead over all creation. 16 For by Jesus all things
were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities, ALL THINGS HAVE BEEN CREATED THROUGH JESUS AND FOR JESUS.

All creation exists by Jesus and creation exists solely FOR JESUS. Then it holds that the one speaking to humanity, can be
none other YHWH, i.e., Christ Jesus.

Of the Father, 'You have neither heard His voice at any time nor seen His form'.

Click to expand...

I would have to say, your not reading Colossians 1 as carefully as you should.


Which creation is he referring to here? He does not say Jesus is the creator of heaven and earth, but in and on. They refer to authorities. He does not even say, Jesus created angels, or the beasts of the field. You are reading to much into that passage. Jesus is the beginning of the new creation, and it is because of him we are kings and priests. Also...


Why would they need to be made subject to God? Did they not know Jesus was God? The scriptures don't make sense, when we make Jesus the God. Anyway, we also notice in Revelation 12 after the child was caught up to God and His throne, the dragon and his angels were cast out, nor was there a place found for them in heaven any longer, creating authorities, removing some, making room for new. The next age, is when Jesus goes out to conquer all nations.

klutedavid said:

Disregard the clues and open your eyes to the clear revelation in all the scripture, Lightray.

Click to expand...

I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say. I was giving you clues to search these things out for yourself, so that you could find and see them for yourself.

It seems to me that God as Triune is an idea which developed, and is not in Scripture. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all mentioned, but emphasis seems to be on God as Father and Sole Creator, and Son as the One through whom the Only God created, and on whom we need to call to be saved. I would love to know if other Christians at any time held to similar views. Imo, our specific views on the Trinity don't save us, but it'd be cool to know. Michael Servetus believed that in presenting God as Triune instead of One with a Son He wants us to believe on and follow, Christians had put a stumbling block before Jews and Muslims. Perhaps this is true.

Hello Lightray.

Appreciate your reply Lightray, we both stumble from Genesis to Revelations, in our attempt to comprehend
the full revelation of the Christ. This may be one of the most difficult topics to tackle, in all the topics that the
scripture generates.

Be very careful when you read the verses written by the apostles about the Christ. They do not understand
the revelation of the Christ, and often proclaim a very poor interpretation.

Here is a simple but often over looked declaration of the deity of the Christ. You will need to pay extra attention
Lightray to these verses, as these verses have not been subject to an apostle's interpretation. The Christ is
speaking and the Christ is answering the critical question about His identity. No input from an apostle, thank God.

Matthew 22
41 Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them a question: 42 “What do you think about
the Christ, whose son is He?” They said to Him, “The son of David.” 43 He said to them, “Then how does David
in the Spirit call Him ‘Lord,’ saying, 44 ‘The Lord said to my Lord,“Sit at My right hand, until I put Your enemies
beneath Your feet”’?

Jesus is quoting from a revelation (in the Spirit) given to King David, Jesus is directly quoting from Psalm (110:1).

Printed below is this Psalm (110) and we read.

Psalm 110
1 The Lord says to my lord, “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool.”

Here is the important section of this verse, this declaration is given by Jesus.

1 The Lord says to my lord

If you check the Hebrew text, there are two distinct names of God in this text, 'YHWH' and 'ADONAI'.

So the text is more clearly read as follows.

1 The YHWH says to my ADONAI

Both YHWH and ADONAI are the names of the one and only God, in the Old Testament.

The English translation is in error, the word 'Lord' is not the correct translation, the word
'lord' is a generic English term. The Hebrew text contains 'YHWH' and that is the formal
name of God, YHWH is not a descriptive term (Exodus 3:14).

Jesus is telling the Pharisees that He is not really a son of anyone, Jesus is telling the Pharisees
that He is ADONAI.

Jesus is telling you Lightray, that He is the one and only God, the YHWH, the ADONAI.

Never trust any apostle Lightray, they do not understand the revelation of the Christ.

Further and you would do well to remember this.

Jesus is only at the Father's right hand for a short time, until the enemies of the Christ have been
dealt with. Then Jesus returns to His original position in the center of the throne in heaven.

Revelation 7
17 for the Lamb at the center of the throne will be their shepherd

I would not be surprised if I receive no reply regarding Christ's declaration.

klutedavid said:

Hello Lightray.

Appreciate your reply Lightray, we both stumble from Genesis to Revelations, in our attempt to comprehend
the full revelation of the Christ. This may be one of the most difficult topics to tackle, in all the topics that the
scripture generates.

Click to expand...

I don't know why you would say this, I'm not stumbling at all, no double mindedness here, in fact never been more sure in in the 36 years of studying scripture. It use to be a difficult topic, I agree, but not anymore.

klutedavid said:

Here is a simple but often over looked declaration of the deity of the Christ. You will need to pay extra attention
Lightray to these verses, as these verses have not been subject to an apostle's interpretation. The Christ is
speaking and the Christ is answering the critical question about His identity. No input from an apostle, thank God.

Matthew 22
41 Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them a question: 42 “What do you think about
the Christ, whose son is He?” They said to Him, “The son of David.” 43 He said to them, “Then how does David
in the Spirit call Him ‘Lord,’ saying, 44 ‘The Lord said to my Lord,“Sit at My right hand, until I put Your enemies
beneath Your feet”’?

Jesus is quoting from a revelation (in the Spirit) given to King David, Jesus is directly quoting from Psalm (110:1).

Printed below is this Psalm (110) and we read.

Psalm 110
1 The Lord says to my lord, “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool.”

Here is the important section of this verse, this declaration is given by Jesus.

1 The Lord says to my lord

If you check the Hebrew text, there are two distinct names of God in this text, 'YHWH' and 'ADONAI'.

So the text is more clearly read as follows.

1 The YHWH says to my ADONAI

Both YHWH and ADONAI are the names of the one and only God, in the Old Testament.

The English translation is in error, the word 'Lord' is not the correct translation, the word
'lord' is a generic English term. The Hebrew text contains 'YHWH' and that is the formal
name of God, YHWH is not a descriptive term (Exodus 3:14).

Jesus is telling the Pharisees that He is not really a son of anyone, Jesus is telling the Pharisees
that He is ADONAI.

Jesus is telling you Lightray, that He is the one and only God, the YHWH, the ADONAI.

Click to expand...

I don't know how you made the leap from Jesus is adonai to him being YHWH.

In Psalm 110 the Father is YHWH, and Jesus is adonai. Not only that, but others are called adonai in scripture other then God, so not sure where your going with that.

klutedavid said:

Be very careful when you read the verses written by the apostles about the Christ. They do not understand
the revelation of the Christ, and often proclaim a very poor interpretation.
Never trust any apostle Lightray, they do not understand the revelation of the Christ.

Click to expand...

This is what you tell me, then we have...

Galatians 1
6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
10 For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.
11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

...or, what about Jesus statement himself John 17:3 that the Father is the only true God? Did Jesus not really know who he was either?

I'm going to have to pass on your warning, especially when you have not given me any real reason to take you up on your warning, nor do I think you will be able to.

I don't see any reason not to trust the apostles, whatsoever, in fact they warn not to except any other gospel then the one they teach.

klutedavid said:

Jesus is only at the Father's right hand for a short time, until the enemies of the Christ have been
dealt with. Then Jesus returns to His original position in the center of the throne in heaven.

Revelation 7
17 for the Lamb at the center of the throne will be their shepherd

I would not be surprised if I receive no reply regarding Christ's declaration.

Click to expand...

Would you like to explaining how you got to your conclusion. I would think first you would need to show Jesus is the God, before you can say he returns to his original position. There really is nothing here in Rev. 7 to suggest to me Jesus is God, and that he returns to his original position. When does Jesus hand over the kingdom to the Father, and become subject to the Father, or is that a false statement by the apostle, to you as well?

All your saying to me is I'm wrong, yet, you do not attempt to show any error I may have had in expounding the scriptures... “I would not be surprised if I receive no reply regarding Christ's declaration.” ...just seems strange then that you would say this.

Your telling me I should not trust scripture, or the apostles. To me it would seem the reason is because you can't make them work, the way you think they should read. Maybe you need to change the way you read them, consider reading them with different eye's, cause I have no problem with scripture, so why would I change the way I read them? I have tried reading them with many different eye's, and this way is the only way I found they work, from beginning to end, and make sense, and flow naturally.

It helps in being aware of some of the slight of hand some Trinitarian translators play though, Like...


This is also the same 1 John 3:16

Hello Lightray.

You said.

I don't know how you made the leap from Jesus is adonai to him being YHWH.

Click to expand...

No leap, YHWH is the Christ.

Then you said.

In Psalm 110 the Father is YHWH, and Jesus is adonai. Not only that, but others are called adonai
in scripture other then God, so not sure where your going with that.

Click to expand...

Lightray surely you know my destination by now, 'Not sure where your going with that'.

What you said is entirely correct Lightray, 'I said you are ELOHIM', I will grant you that one, in protest.

Further on you said.

Galatians 1
6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

Click to expand...

Negative Lightray, the Gospel is simply (Romans 10:9, 1 Corinthians 15), the Gospel is still intact.
Innerrant scripture is when God speaks directly to us. The authors of any N.T letter, may or may not,
be the author of innerrant scripture.

Your comment below.

what about Jesus statement himself John 17:3 that the Father is the only true God?

Click to expand...

Jesus humbled Himself and became a man, so of course He humbly refers to His Father as the 'only true God'.
Jesus was excellent in His humility, fooled everyone, had the apostles stumped for at least three years,
possibly even longer.

Did Jesus not really know who he was either?

Click to expand...

Yes He did know, He received worship and never corrected those who worshipped Him, unlike the messengers do.

I'm going to have to pass on your warning, especially when you have not given me any real reason to take you
up on your warning, nor do I think you will be able to.

Click to expand...

Are you sure Lightray, that I will not find verses to reverse your opinion?

I apologise if I got a bit carried away Lightray.

Alright here are some verses for you to attempt to explain away.

Zechariah 11
12 I then said to them, “If it seems right to you, give me my wages; but if not, keep them.” So they weighed out as my wages thirty shekels of silver. 13 Then the Lord (YHWH) said to me, “Throw it into the treasury”, this lordly price at which I was valued by them. So I took the thirty shekels of silver and threw them into the treasury in the house of the Lord.

I cannot see how you can get around this prophecy? It clearly states 'my wages', YHWH is speaking
and certainly not Adonai or Elohim. The value of YHWH was thirty pieces of silver!

7xlightray said:

Some of them really spell it out, like Origen, and St. Irenaeus. They say there is a right way, and a wrong way of understanding. There are more, but here are a few...


St. Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 61: said I, "from the Scriptures, that God begat before all creatures a Beginning, a certain rational power from Himself, who is called by the Holy Spirit, now the Glory of the Lord, now the Son...


St. Justin Martyr's, The First Apology Ch. 33: It is wrong, therefore, to understand the Spirit and the power of God as anything else than the Word, who is also the first-born of God, as the foresaid prophet Moses declared; and it was this which, when it came upon the virgin and overshadowed her, caused her to conceive, not by intercourse, but by power.


Tertullian, Against Hermogenes, Chapter 3. An Argument of Hermogenes. The Answer: While God is a Title Eternally Applicable to the Divine Being, Lord and Father are Only Relative Appellations, Not Eternally Applicable. An Inconsistency in the Argument of Hermogenes Pointed Out
Because God is in like manner a Father, and He is also a Judge; but He has not always been Father and Judge, merely on the ground of His having always been God. For He could not have been the Father previous to the Son, nor a Judge previous to sin. There was, however, a time when neither sin existed with Him, nor the Son; the former of which was to constitute the Lord a Judge, and the latter a Father. In this way He was not Lord previous to those things of which He was to be the Lord. But He was only to become Lord at some future time: just as He became the Father by the Son, and a Judge by sin, so also did He become Lord by means of those things which He had made, in order that they might serve Him.


St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies Book III, Chapter 8: 3 For that all things, whether Angels, or Archangels, or Thrones, or Dominions, were both established and created by Him who is God over all, through His Word, John has thus pointed out. For when he had spoken of the Word of God as having been in the Father, he added, “All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made.


St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies Book II, Chapter 30 9 But there is one only God, the Creator— He who is above every Principality, and Power, and Dominion, and Virtue: He is Father, He is God, He the Founder, He the Maker, He the Creator, who made those things by Himself, that is, through His Word and His Wisdom— heaven and earth, and the seas, and all things that are in them: He is just; He is good; He it is who formed man, who planted paradise, who made the world, who gave rise to the flood, who saved Noah; He is the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, the God of the living: He it is whom the law proclaims, whom the prophets preach, whom Christ reveals, whom the apostles make known to us, and in whom the Church believes. He is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ


St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies Book III, Chapter 9: 1 This, therefore, having been clearly demonstrated here (and it shall yet be so still more clearly), that neither the prophets, nor the apostles, nor the Lord Christ in His own person, did acknowledge any other Lord or God, but the God and Lord supreme: the prophets and the apostles confessing the Father and the Son; but naming no other as God, and confessing no other as Lord: and the Lord Himself handing down to His disciples, that He, the Father, is the only God and Lord, who alone is God and ruler of all; — it is incumbent on us to follow, if we are their disciples indeed, their testimonies to this effect. For Matthew the apostle— knowing, as one and the same God, Him who had given promise to Abraham, that He would make his seed as the stars of heaven, Genesis 15:5 and Him who, by His Son Christ Jesus, has called us to the knowledge of Himself, from the worship of stones, so that those who were not a people were made a people, and she beloved who was not beloved Romans 9:25 — declares that John, when preparing the way for Christ, said to those who were boasting of their relationship [to Abraham] according to the flesh, but who had their mind tinged and stuffed with all manner of evil, preaching that repentance which should call them back from their evil doings, said, “O generation of vipers, who has shown you to flee from the wrath to come? Bring forth therefore fruit meet for repentance. And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham [to our] father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.” Matthew 3:7 He preached to them, therefore, the repentance from wickedness, but he did not declare to them another God, besides Him who made the promise to Abraham; he, the forerunner of Christ, of whom Matthew again says, and Luke likewise, “For this is he that was spoken of from the Lord by the prophet, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare the way of the Lord, make straight the paths of our God. Every valley shall be filled, and every mountain and hill brought low; and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough into smooth ways; and all flesh shall see the salvation of God.” Matthew 3:3 There is therefore one and the same God, the Father of our Lord, who also promised, through the prophets, that He would send His forerunner; and His salvation— that is, His Word — He caused to be made visible to all flesh, [the Word] Himself being made incarnate, that in all things their King might become manifest. For it is necessary that those [beings] which are judged do see the judge, and know Him from whom they receive judgment; and it is also proper, that those which follow on to glory should know Him who bestows upon them the gift of glory.


Origen, Commentary on John, Book II
2. In What Way the Logos is God. Errors to Be Avoided on This Question.
We next notice John's use of the article in these sentences. He does not write without care in this respect, nor is he unfamiliar with the niceties of the Greek tongue. In some cases he uses the article, and in some he omits it. He adds the article to the Logos, but to the name of God he adds it sometimes only. He uses the article, when the name of God refers to the uncreated cause of all things, and omits it when the Logos is named God. Does the same difference which we observe between God with the article and God without it prevail also between the Logos with it and without it? We must enquire into this. As the God who is over all is God with the article not without it, so "the Logos" is the source of that reason (Logos) which dwells in every reasonable creature; the reason which is in each creature is not, like the former called par excellence The Logos. Now there are many who are sincerely concerned about religion, and who fall here into great perplexity. They are afraid that they may be proclaiming two Gods, and their fear drives them into doctrines which are false and wicked. Either they deny that the Son has a distinct nature of His own besides that of the Father, and make Him whom they call the Son to be God all but the name, or they deny the divinity of the Son, giving Him a separate existence of His own, and making His sphere of essence fall outside that of the Father, so that they are separable from each other. To such persons we have to say that God on the one hand is Very God (Autotheos, God of Himself); and so the Saviour says in His prayer to the Father, John 17:3 "That they may know You the only true God;" but that all beyond the Very God is made God by participation in His divinity, and is not to be called simply God (with the article), but rather God (without article). And thus the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with God, and to attract to Himself divinity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other gods beside Him, of whom God is the God, as it is written, "The God of gods, the Lord, has spoken and called the earth." It was by the offices of the first-born that they became gods, for He drew from God in generous measure that they should be made gods, and He communicated it to them according to His own bounty. The true God, then, is "The God," and those who are formed after Him are gods, images, as it were, of Him the prototype. But the archetypal image, again, of all these images is the Word of God, who was in the beginning, and who by being with God is at all times God, not possessing that of Himself, but by His being with the Father, and not continuing to be God, if we should think of this, except by remaining always in uninterrupted contemplation of the depths of the Father.

Click to expand...

Again am not going to argue that people have not looked at what the Fathers have said and taken great liberties to show they supposedly supported many thing. My point was we can find elements of the Trinity Doctrine in their writings. You asked if they taught the Trinity Doctrine and my reply was someone cannot teach a doctrine that has not been fully formulated yet.

Looking at these writings from our remote seat and NOT considering who these letters were sent to, why and what was going on in the Church, it is rather easy to make it appear any number of these guys are saying something they did actually believe or teach. Which is why I said whatever else one does when reading these letters, if someone tells us in a talking point that they said this or that to support something, we should at least explore their other writings and what was going on at that time. In my experience, people do not typically support two opposing opinions at the same time - and in some cases the point someone is trying to claim today they supported is refuted in the same letter they are quoting from. There is also often a manner of writing we are unfamiliar with adding to the confusion.

And then there is a question of being precise not necessarily required unless one knows the audience may have conflicting notions that one's imprecise language may allow two opposing thoughts - Jesus is not really human or Jesus is both God and human. If no in the audience has seriously questioned His Divinity or humanity (or heard other leaders doing so), then the need for precision in choice of words is not always required. Even in the Bible we have Saint Paul stressing Jesus humanity and Saint John stressing His Divinity - yet neither writer speaks against the other on the matter. If such writing really represented opposing views on such an important issue to the Church there would be a huge battle - yet we have no record of that. How are we then to conclude (as some do today) that which ever view of Jesus they favor the other Apostle must be wrong?

7xlightray said:

Some of them really spell it out, like Origen, and St. Irenaeus. They say there is a right way, and a wrong way of understanding. There are more, but here are a few...

Click to expand...

7xlightray said:

St. Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 61: said I, "from the Scriptures, that God begat before all creatures a Beginning, a certain rational power from Himself, who is called by the Holy Spirit, now the Glory of the Lord, now the Son...

St. Justin Martyr's, The First Apology Ch. 33: It is wrong, therefore, to understand the Spirit and the power of God as anything else than the Word, who is also the first-born of God, as the foresaid prophet Moses declared; and it was this which, when it came upon the virgin and overshadowed her, caused her to conceive, not by intercourse, but by power.

Click to expand...

Tertullian, Against Hermogenes, Chapter 3. An Argument of Hermogenes. The Answer: While God is a Title Eternally Applicable to the Divine Being, Lord and Father are Only Relative Appellations, Not Eternally Applicable. An Inconsistency in the Argument of Hermogenes Pointed Out
Because God is in like manner a Father, and He is also a Judge; but He has not always been Father and Judge, merely on the ground of His having always been God. For He could not have been the Father previous to the Son, nor a Judge previous to sin. There was, however, a time when neither sin existed with Him, nor the Son; the former of which was to constitute the Lord a Judge, and the latter a Father. In this way He was not Lord previous to those things of which He was to be the Lord. But He was only to become Lord at some future time: just as He became the Father by the Son, and a Judge by sin, so also did He become Lord by means of those things which He had made, in order that they might serve Him.

Click to expand...

St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies Book III, Chapter 8: 3 For that all things, whether Angels, or Archangels, or Thrones, or Dominions, were both established and

Click to expand...

created by Him who is God over all, through His Word, John has thus pointed out. For when he had spoken of the Word of God as having been in the Father, he added, “All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made.

Click to expand...

St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies Book II, Chapter 30 9 But there is one only God, the Creator— He who is above every Principality, and Power, and Dominion, and Virtue:

Click to expand...

He is Father, He is God, He the Founder, He the Maker, He the Creator, who made those things by Himself, that is, through His Word and His Wisdom— heaven and earth, and the seas, and all things that are in them: He is just; He is good; He it is who formed man, who planted paradise, who made the world, who gave rise to the flood, who saved Noah; He is the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, the God of the living: He it is whom the law proclaims, whom the prophets preach, whom Christ reveals, whom the apostles make known to us, and in whom the Church believes. He is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ

Click to expand...

St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies Book III, Chapter 9: 1 This, therefore, having been clearly demonstrated here (and it shall yet be so still more clearly), that neither the prophets, nor the apostles, nor the Lord Christ in His own person, did acknowledge any other Lord or God, but the God and Lord supreme: the prophets and the apostles confessing the Father and the Son; but naming no other as God, and confessing no other as Lord: and the Lord Himself handing down to His disciples, that He, the Father, is the only God and Lord, who alone is God and ruler of all; — it is incumbent on us to follow, if we are their disciples indeed, their testimonies to this effect. For Matthew the apostle— knowing, as one and the same God, Him who had given promise to Abraham, that He would make his seed as the stars of heaven, Genesis 15:5 and Him who, by His Son Christ Jesus, has called us to the knowledge of Himself, from the worship of stones, so that those who were not a people were made a people, and she beloved who was not beloved Romans 9:25 — declares that John, when preparing the way for Christ, said to those who were boasting of their relationship [to Abraham] according to the flesh, but who had their mind tinged and stuffed with all manner of evil, preaching that repentance which should call them back from their evil doings, said, “O generation of vipers, who has shown you to flee from the wrath to come? Bring forth therefore fruit meet for repentance. And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham [to our] father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.” Matthew 3:7 He preached to them, therefore, the repentance from wickedness, but he did not declare to them another God, besides Him who made the promise to Abraham; he, the forerunner of Christ, of whom Matthew again says, and Luke likewise, “For this is he that was spoken of from the Lord by the prophet, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare the way of the Lord, make straight the paths of our God. Every valley shall be filled, and every mountain and hill brought low; and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough into smooth ways; and all flesh shall see the salvation of God.” Matthew 3:3 There is therefore one and the same God, the Father of our Lord, who also promised, through the prophets, that He would send His forerunner; and His salvation— that is, His Word — He caused to be made visible to all flesh, [the Word] Himself being made incarnate, that in all things their King might become manifest. For it is necessary that those [beings] which are judged do see the judge, and know Him from whom they receive judgment; and it is also proper, that those which follow on to glory should know Him who bestows upon them the gift of glory.

Click to expand...

Origen, Commentary on John, Book II
2. In What Way the Logos is God. Errors to Be Avoided on This Question.

Click to expand...

We next notice John's use of the article in these sentences. He does not write without care in this respect, nor is he unfamiliar with the niceties of the Greek tongue. In some cases he uses the article, and in some he omits it. He adds the article to the Logos, but to the name of God he adds it sometimes only. He uses the article, when the name of God refers to the uncreated cause of all things, and omits it when the Logos is named God. Does the same difference which we observe between God with the article and God without it prevail also between the Logos with it and without it? We must enquire into this. As the God who is over all is God with the article not without it, so "the Logos" is the source of that reason (Logos) which dwells in every reasonable creature; the reason which is in each creature is not, like the former called par excellence The Logos. Now there are many who are sincerely concerned about religion, and who fall here into great perplexity. They are afraid that they may be proclaiming two Gods, and their fear drives them into doctrines which are false and wicked. Either they deny that the Son has a distinct nature of His own besides that of the Father, and make Him whom they call the Son to be God all but the name, or they deny the divinity of the Son, giving Him a separate existence of His own, and making His sphere of essence fall outside that of the Father, so that they are separable from each other. To such persons we have to say that God on the one hand is Very God (Autotheos, God of Himself); and so the Saviour says in His prayer to the Father, John 17:3 "That they may know You the only true God;" but that all beyond the Very God is made God by participation in His divinity, and is not to be called simply God (with the article), but rather God (without article). And thus the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with God, and to attract to Himself divinity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other gods beside Him, of whom God is the God, as it is written, "The God of gods, the Lord, has spoken and called the earth." It was by the offices of the first-born that they became gods, for He drew from God in generous measure that they should be made gods, and He communicated it to them according to His own bounty. The true God, then, is "The God," and those who are formed after Him are gods, images, as it were, of Him the prototype. But the archetypal image, again, of all these images is the Word of God, who was in the beginning, and who by being with God is at all times God, not possessing that of Himself, but by His being with the Father, and not continuing to be God, if we should think of this, except by remaining always in uninterrupted contemplation of the depths of the Father.

Click to expand...

Selective quoting from the ECF as with selective quoting from the Bible, people are able to "prove" a number of things. Here are a few quotes from the early church fathers showing that the ECF believed that Jesus was "God the Word" and "God the Son."

Are there Unitarian Christians who call on the Son as they would God, the Father? Most Unitarian Christians seem intent on praising and petitioning only the Father, and not the Son. Do some call on God, and His Messiah? Just curious.

klutedavid said:

No leap, YHWH is the Christ.

Click to expand...

You still have not shown this, though actually LORD was, and is, in Christ. When they were looking upon Christ they were looking upon the LORD, and when they reject Christ, they were rejecting the LORD - Psalm 69:9.

klutedavid said:

Negative Lightray, the Gospel is simply (Romans 10:9, 1 Corinthians 15), the Gospel is still intact.
Innerrant scripture is when God speaks directly to us. The authors of any N.T letter, may or may not,
be the author of innerrant scripture.

Click to expand...

The gospel is more then that, for example: it is also called the kingdom of God Acts 20:24-25, also includes John 17:3 and what Jesus taught Mark 1:1. And there's Romans 2:16, and 2 John 1:9, and 1 John 3:23. Also, you could not preach anything unless you preach the true God of the Bible Roman 1.

I know many read Romans 10:4 as if it read, we need to confess Jesus with the mouth, and believe he rose from the dead, but lets read Romans 10:9 and see what it really says...


Does it say God raised Himself, or Jesus raised himself? Or, Does it say God raised him? We must believe in our heart that God the Father raised “him” Jesus from the dead.

And lets throw in Romans 4:24 as well...


So then, it is important in the gospel to believe in the One that raised Jesus, if that be the case, then we would need to know "Who" raised Jesus. We do need to get it right.

Who is God, to Paul ...Romans 1...

klutedavid said:

Jesus humbled Himself and became a man, so of course He humbly refers to His Father as the 'only true God'.
Jesus was excellent in His humility, fooled everyone, had the apostles stumped for at least three years,
possibly even longer.

Click to expand...

1 John 4:6. Gospel of John was written near the end of his life. John knows Who God is 1 John 2:1; 1 John 2:15; 1 John 4:9; 1 John 5:9; 1 John 5:10; 1 John 5:11.

That does not explain Jesus saying the Father is the only true God, Jesus is speaking to the Father. There is also Paul's clear statement 1 Corinthians 8:6. This is what many do, they say on one hand, Jesus openly claimed to the Jew's that he was God, and equal to God, then on the other hand say, when Jesus was speaking privately with the Father, he was being humble, and did not claim to be God ...I think we got it backwards of what being humble is.

klutedavid said:

Yes He did know, He received worship and never corrected those who worshipped Him, unlike the messengers do.

Click to expand...

He was God's chosen king of Israel, and over all of God's creation. Jesus was not the only one worshiped in scripture besides God, nor will be, thought not as the God.

klutedavid said:

Are you sure Lightray, that I will not find verses to reverse your opinion?

I apologise if I got a bit carried away Lightray.

Alright here are some verses for you to attempt to explain away.

Zechariah 11
12 I then said to them, “If it seems right to you, give me my wages; but if not, keep them.” So they weighed out as my wages thirty shekels of silver. 13 Then the Lord (YHWH) said to me, “Throw it into the treasury”, this lordly price at which I was valued by them. So I took the thirty shekels of silver and threw them into the treasury in the house of the Lord.

I cannot see how you can get around this prophecy? It clearly states 'my wages', YHWH is speaking
and certainly not Adonai or Elohim. The value of YHWH was thirty pieces of silver!

Click to expand...

I don't have to get around it, because you are not reading it correctly, though this passage may not come out so clear. I mean ya have to really pay attention to what's going on, and what's being said. Zechariah is acting out what God told him verse 4 “Thus says the LORD my God, “feed the flock for slaughter.”” And without going through every detail, in verse 7 Zechariah says “So I fed the flock...,” then he takes two staffs, broke the staff Beauty, then Zechariah said to the people there, “if ye think good, give me my price; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver.”

Zechariah is the one speaking in that verse, not the LORD. So, who would Zechariah represent who said “the LORD my God?” Then who does he represent in verse 13 “I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of the Lord?” I'm sure your not suggesting LORD is Judas?

DrBubbaLove said:

Again am not going to argue that people have not looked at what the Fathers have said and taken great liberties to show they supposedly supported many thing. My point was we can find elements of the Trinity Doctrine in their writings. You asked if they taught the Trinity Doctrine and my reply was someone cannot teach a doctrine that has not been fully formulated yet.

Looking at these writings from our remote seat and NOT considering who these letters were sent to, why and what was going on in the Church, it is rather easy to make it appear any number of these guys are saying something they did actually believe or teach. Which is why I said whatever else one does when reading these letters, if someone tells us in a talking point that they said this or that to support something, we should at least explore their other writings and what was going on at that time. In my experience, people do not typically support two opposing opinions at the same time - and in some cases the point someone is trying to claim today they supported is refuted in the same letter they are quoting from. There is also often a manner of writing we are unfamiliar with adding to the confusion.

And then there is a question of being precise not necessarily required unless one knows the audience may have conflicting notions that one's imprecise language may allow two opposing thoughts - Jesus is not really human or Jesus is both God and human. If no in the audience has seriously questioned His Divinity or humanity (or heard other leaders doing so), then the need for precision in choice of words is not always required. Even in the Bible we have Saint Paul stressing Jesus humanity and Saint John stressing His Divinity - yet neither writer speaks against the other on the matter. If such writing really represented opposing views on such an important issue to the Church there would be a huge battle - yet we have no record of that. How are we then to conclude (as some do today) that which ever view of Jesus they favor the other Apostle must be wrong?

Click to expand...

It's not an argument I'm really interested in getting into either. If we can't agree on scripture, then we probably won't agree on what the fathers stated either. Just wanted to see if you were willing to see.

Der Alter said:

Selective quoting from the ECF as with selective quoting from the Bible, people are able to "prove" a number of things. Here are a few quotes from the early church fathers showing that the ECF believed that Jesus was "God the Word" and "God the Son."

Link to writings of the early church fathers (ECF).

Ignatius, Epistle to the Magnesians, disciple of John the apostle. [30-107 AD]
He, being begotten by the Father before the beginning of time, was God the Word, the only-begotten Son, and remains the same for ever; for “of His kingdom there shall be no end,” says Daniel the prophet. …

Ignatius, Epistle to the Trallians
And God the Word was truly born of the Virgin, having clothed Himself with a body of like passions with our own. He who forms all men in the womb, was Himself really in the womb, and made for Himself a body of the seed of the Virgin, but without any intercourse of man. Since, also, there is but one unbegotten Being, God, even the Father; and one only-begotten Son, God, the Word and man; . . .
Ignatius, Epistle to the Philadelphians
If any one confesses these things, and that God the Word did dwell in a human body, being within it as the Word, . . .

Ignatius, Epistle to the Smyrneans
our Lord Jesus Christ, that He was the Son of God, “the firstborn of every creature,” God the Word, the only-begotten Son, and was of the seed of David according to the flesh, . . .

Ignatius, Epistle to the Tarsians
. . . He who was born of a woman was the Son of God, and He that was crucified was “the first-born of every creature,” and God the Word, who also created all things.
How could such a one be a mere man, receiving the beginning of His existence from Mary, and not 210 rather God the Word, and the only-begotten Son? For “in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

Ignatius, Epistle to the Philippians
And again, “Hath not one God created us? Have we not all one Father? And there is also one Son, God the Word. For “the only-begotten Son,” saith [the Scripture], “who is in the bosom of the Father.” …
... For “the Word became flesh.” For “Wisdom builded for herself a house.” And God the Word was born as man, with a body, of the Virgin, without any intercourse of man.

Justin - Dialogue with Trypho - [110-165 AD]
God begat before all creatures a Beginning, [who was] a certain rational power [proceeding] from Himself, who is called by the Holy Spirit, now the Glory of the Lord, now the Son, again Wisdom, again an Angel, then God, and then Lord and Logos;
...
“And that Christ being Lord, and God the Son of God, and appearing formerly in power as Man, and Angel, and in the glory of fire as at the bush, . . .

Irenaeus - Against Heresies Book 1 [120-202 AD] - Disciple of Polycarp, a disciple of John
Very properly, then, did he say, “In the beginning was the Word,” for He was in the Son; “and the Word was with God,” for He was the beginning; “and the Word was God, ” of course, for that which is begotten of God is God. “The same was in the beginning with God” …
Irenaeus - Against Heresies - Book 2 [120-202 AD] -
Him who is God over all, since He is all Nous, and all Logos, … and has in Himself nothing more ancient or late than another, and nothing at variance with another, but continues altogether equal, and similar, and homogeneous, … And in what respect will the Word of God — yea, rather God Himself, since He is the Word . . .
Chap 17 Father of all is not to be regarded as a kind of compound Being, who 762 can be separated from his Nous (mind), as I have already shown; . . .he is Logos, must be perfect and impassible,… they are of the same substance with himself, should be perfect and impassible, …

Irenaeus - Against Heresies - Book 3 [120-202 AD] -
For inasmuch as the Word of God was man from the root of Jesse, and son of Abraham, in this respect did the Spirit of God rest upon Him, and anoint Him to preach the Gospel to the lowly. But inasmuch as He was God, He did not judge according to glory, nor reprove after the manner of speech.

Irenaeus - Against Heresies - Book 4 [120-202 AD] -
And through the Word Himself who had been made visible and palpable, was the Father shown forth, … all saw the Father in the Son: for the Father is the invisible of the Son, but the Son the visible of the Father. And for this reason all spake with Christ when He was present [upon earth], and they named Him God.
...
He, therefore, who was known, was not a different being from Him who declared “No man knoweth the Father,” but one and the same, the Father making all things subject to Him; while He received testimony from all that He was very man, and that He was very God, from the Father, from the Spirit,
...
For the true God did confess the commandment of the law as the word of God, and called no one else God besides His own Father.​

Click to expand...

I don't see how any of these fathers I quoted, from what you quoted, change anything I quoted.

7xlightray said:

I don't see how any of these fathers I quoted, from what you quoted, change anything I quoted.

Click to expand...

Of course not, doing what you accuse me of.

7xlightray said:

It's not an argument I'm really interested in getting into either. If we can't agree on scripture, then we probably won't agree on what the fathers stated either. Just wanted to see if you were willing to see.

Click to expand...

Am not in the habit of telling people that unless they agree with me that they are unwilling to see. My point is simple, what others may "show me" that supposedly Scriptures or the Fathers said is of little interest to me unless they can "show me" the Authority behind the explanation they are showing me. Especially when I know the explanation given goes against a known teaching Authority. Any schmo can put together a case for many things and then "show me". Why would I want to open myself up to that?

Der Alter said:

Selective quoting from the ECF as with selective quoting from the Bible, people are able to "prove" a number of things. Here are a few quotes from the early church fathers showing that the ECF believed that Jesus was "God the Word" and "God the Son."

Link to writings of the early church fathers (ECF).

Ignatius, Epistle to the Magnesians, disciple of John the apostle. [30-107 AD]
He, being begotten by the Father before the beginning of time, was God the Word, the only-begotten Son, and remains the same for ever; for “of His kingdom there shall be no end,” says Daniel the prophet. …

Ignatius, Epistle to the Trallians
And God the Word was truly born of the Virgin, having clothed Himself with a body of like passions with our own. He who forms all men in the womb, was Himself really in the womb, and made for Himself a body of the seed of the Virgin, but without any intercourse of man. Since, also, there is but one unbegotten Being, God, even the Father; and one only-begotten Son, God, the Word and man; . . .
Ignatius, Epistle to the Philadelphians
If any one confesses these things, and that God the Word did dwell in a human body, being within it as the Word, . . .

Ignatius, Epistle to the Smyrneans
our Lord Jesus Christ, that He was the Son of God, “the firstborn of every creature,” God the Word, the only-begotten Son, and was of the seed of David according to the flesh, . . .

Ignatius, Epistle to the Tarsians
. . . He who was born of a woman was the Son of God, and He that was crucified was “the first-born of every creature,” and God the Word, who also created all things.
How could such a one be a mere man, receiving the beginning of His existence from Mary, and not 210 rather God the Word, and the only-begotten Son? For “in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

Ignatius, Epistle to the Philippians
And again, “Hath not one God created us? Have we not all one Father? And there is also one Son, God the Word. For “the only-begotten Son,” saith [the Scripture], “who is in the bosom of the Father.” …
... For “the Word became flesh.” For “Wisdom builded for herself a house.” And God the Word was born as man, with a body, of the Virgin, without any intercourse of man.

Justin - Dialogue with Trypho - [110-165 AD]
God begat before all creatures a Beginning, [who was] a certain rational power [proceeding] from Himself, who is called by the Holy Spirit, now the Glory of the Lord, now the Son, again Wisdom, again an Angel, then God, and then Lord and Logos;
...
“And that Christ being Lord, and God the Son of God, and appearing formerly in power as Man, and Angel, and in the glory of fire as at the bush, . . .

Irenaeus - Against Heresies Book 1 [120-202 AD] - Disciple of Polycarp, a disciple of John
Very properly, then, did he say, “In the beginning was the Word,” for He was in the Son; “and the Word was with God,” for He was the beginning; “and the Word was God, ” of course, for that which is begotten of God is God. “The same was in the beginning with God” …
Irenaeus - Against Heresies - Book 2 [120-202 AD] -
Him who is God over all, since He is all Nous, and all Logos, … and has in Himself nothing more ancient or late than another, and nothing at variance with another, but continues altogether equal, and similar, and homogeneous, … And in what respect will the Word of God — yea, rather God Himself, since He is the Word . . .
Chap 17 Father of all is not to be regarded as a kind of compound Being, who 762 can be separated from his Nous (mind), as I have already shown; . . .he is Logos, must be perfect and impassible,… they are of the same substance with himself, should be perfect and impassible, …

Irenaeus - Against Heresies - Book 3 [120-202 AD] -
For inasmuch as the Word of God was man from the root of Jesse, and son of Abraham, in this respect did the Spirit of God rest upon Him, and anoint Him to preach the Gospel to the lowly. But inasmuch as He was God, He did not judge according to glory, nor reprove after the manner of speech.

Irenaeus - Against Heresies - Book 4 [120-202 AD] -
And through the Word Himself who had been made visible and palpable, was the Father shown forth, … all saw the Father in the Son: for the Father is the invisible of the Son, but the Son the visible of the Father. And for this reason all spake with Christ when He was present [upon earth], and they named Him God.
...
He, therefore, who was known, was not a different being from Him who declared “No man knoweth the Father,” but one and the same, the Father making all things subject to Him; while He received testimony from all that He was very man, and that He was very God, from the Father, from the Spirit,
...
For the true God did confess the commandment of the law as the word of God, and called no one else God besides His own Father.

Theophilus To Autolycus - Book 2 - [115 -181 AD]
In like manner also the three days which were before the luminaries, are types of the Trinity, of God, and His Word, and His wisdom.
...
Hear what I say. The God and Father, indeed, of all cannot be contained, and is not found in a place, for there is no place of His rest; but His Word, through whom He made all things, being His power and His wisdom, assuming the person of the Father and Lord of all, went to the garden in the person of God, and conversed with Adam.
...
The Word, then, being God, and being naturally produced from God, whenever the Father of the universe wills, He sends Him to any place; and He, coming, is both heard and seen, being sent by Him, and is found in a place.

Clement of Alexandria - Exhortation To The Heathen - [153 - 217 AD]
Well, inasmuch as the Word was from the first, He was and is the divine source of all things; but inasmuch as He has now assumed the name Christ, consecrated of old, and worthy of power. . .. This Word, then, the Christ, the cause of both our being at first (for He was in God) and of our well-being, this very Word has now appeared as man, He alone being both, God and man.
...
He, who is in Him that truly is, has appeared; for the Word, who “was with God,” and by whom all things were created, has appeared as our Teacher. The Word, who in the beginning bestowed on us life as Creator when He formed us, taught us to live well when He appeared as our Teacher; that as God He might afterwards conduct us to the life which never ends.
...
If it is thy wish, be thou also initiated; and thou shalt join the choir along with angels around the unbegotten and indestructible and the only true God, the Word of God, raising the hymn with us. This Jesus, who is eternal, the one great High Priest of the one God, and of His Father, prays for and exhorts men.

Clement of Alexandria - The Instructor
God in the form of man, stainless, the minister of His Father’s will, the Word who is God, who is in the Father, who is at the Father’s right hand, and with the form of God is God.

Address Of Tatian To The Greeks – [110-172 AD]
God was in the beginning; but the beginning, we have been taught, is the power of the Logos. . . .And by His simple will the Logos springs forth; and the Logos, not coming forth in vain, becomes the first-begotten work of the Father. Him (the Logos) we know to be the beginning of the world. But He came into being by participation, not by abscission;
...
Chapter XXI.-Doctrines of the Christians and Greeks Respecting God Compared.
We do not act as fools, O Greeks, nor utter idle tales, when we announce that God was born in the form of a man.

A Plea For The Christians By Athenagoras The Athenian: [c.120- 180]
. . . But the Son of God is the Logos of the Father, in idea and in operation; for after the pattern of Him and by Him were all things made, the Father and the Son being one. . . .Who, then, would not be astonished to hear men who speak of God the Father, and of God the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and who declare both their power in union and their distinction in order, called atheists?
…that they know God and His Logos, what is the oneness of the Son with the Father, what the communion of the Father with the Son, what is the Spirit, what is the unity of these three, the Spirit, the Son, the Father, and their distinction in unity; and who know 255 that the life for which we look is far better than can be described in words,

The Epistle Of Mathetes To Diognetus [c. 130 AD]
…but truly God Himself, who is almighty, the Creator of all things, and invisible, has sent from heaven, and placed among men, [Him who is] the truth, and the holy and incomprehensible Word, and has firmly established Him in their hearts … but the very Creator and Fashioner of all things-by whom He made the heavens-by whom he enclosed the sea within its proper bounds-. . .by whom all things have been arranged, and placed within their proper limits, . . .This [messenger] He sent to them. Was it then, as one might conceive, for the purpose of exercising tyranny, or of inspiring fear and terror? By no means, but under the influence of clemency and meekness. As a king sends his son, who is also a king, so sent He Him; as God He sent Him; as to men He sent Him; as a Saviour He sent Him, and as seeking to persuade, not to compel us; for violence has no place in the character of God....​

Click to expand...

I'll just pick out a couple...

Irenaeus - Against Heresies Book 1 [120-202 AD] - Disciple of Polycarp, a disciple of John


Very properly, then, did he say, “In the beginning was the Word,” for He was in the Son; “and the Word was with God,” for He was the beginning; “and the Word was God, ” of course, for that which is begotten of God is God. “The same was in the beginning with God” …

You forgot the beginning sentence “Further, they teach that John, the disciple of the Lord, indicated the first Ogdoad, expressing themselves in these words:”

...your quote fits right here in the middle, then the last three sentences...

“Thus, then, does he [according to them] distinctly set forth the first Tetrad, when he speaks of the Father, and Charis, and Monogenes, and Aletheia. In this way, too, does John tell of the first Ogdoad, and that which is the mother of all the Æons. For he mentions the Father, and Charis, and Monogenes, and Aletheia, and Logos, and Zoe, and Anthropos, and Ecclesia. Such are the views of Ptolemæus.”

And you claim what by this, that they taught the Nicene Creed by this?



Or this one here...

Irenaeus - Against Heresies - Book 4 [120-202 AD] -


And through the Word Himself who had been made visible and palpable, was the Father shown forth, … all saw the Father in the Son: for the Father is the invisible of the Son, but the Son the visible of the Father. And for this reason all spake with Christ when He was present [upon earth], and they named Him God.

...

He, therefore, who was known, was not a different being from Him who declared “No man knoweth the Father,” but one and the same, the Father making all things subject to Him; while He received testimony from all that He was very man, and that He was very God, from the Father, from the Spirit,

...

For the true God did confess the commandment of the law as the word of God, and called no one else God besides His own Father.

Can you explain to me, how this proves Irenaeus believed as it is taught in the Nicene Creed?

Besides all this, the Father was in Christ. And according to the Granville Sharp's rule, Thomas was referring to two persons, when Thomas said, “My Lord and my God.”

apekrithē Thōmas kai eipen autō HO Kyrios mou kia ho Theos mou.
Answred Thomas and said to him the Lord of me and the God of me

And since many claim “Lord” means God, would you then say, Thomas is saying, “the God of me and the God of me”

Hello Lightray.

Back to the passage I quoted.

Zechariah 11
12 I then said to them, “If it seems right to you, give me my wages; but if not, keep them.” So they weighed out as
my wages thirty shekels of silver. 13 Then the Lord (YHWH) said to me, “Throw it into the treasury”, this lordly
price at which I was valued by them. So I took the thirty shekels of silver and threw them into the treasury in the
house of the Lord.

I asked how you would interpret this passage, you replied.

because you are not reading it correctly, though this passage may not come out so clear. I mean ya have to
really pay attention to what's going on, and what's being said. Zechariah is acting out what God told him verse 4
“Thus says the LORD my God, “feed the flock for slaughter.”” And without going through every detail, in verse
7 Zechariah says “So I fed the flock...,” then he takes two staffs, broke the staff Beauty, then Zechariah said to the
people there, “if ye think good, give me my price; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of
silver.” Zechariah is the one speaking in that verse, not the LORD.

Click to expand...

I have printed the verses from seven to ten, are you sure that Zechariah annulled the covenant with Israel?

7 So, on behalf of the sheep merchants, I became the shepherd of the flock doomed to slaughter. I took two staffs;
one I named Favor, the other I named Unity, and I tended the sheep. 8 In one month I disposed of the three shepherds,
for I had become impatient with them, and they also detested me. 9 So I said, “I will not be your shepherd. What is to die,
let it die; what is to be destroyed, let it be destroyed; and let those that are left devour the flesh of one another!” 10 I took my staff Favor and broke it, annulling the covenant that I had made with all the peoples.

This is a messianic prophecy, Zechariah does not pasture the flock doomed to slaughter? Zechariah does not break
this staff, '10 I took my staff Favor and cut it in pieces, to break my covenant which I had made with all the peoples.'

Matthew 27
9 Then was fulfilled what had been spoken through the prophet Jeremiah, “And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the
price of the one on whom a price had been set, on whom some of the people of Israel had set a price.

Your interpretation of this passage from Zechariah is incorrect, Lightray.

13 Then the Lord (YHWH) said to me, “Throw it into the treasury”, this lordly price at which I was valued by them.