Why The Trinity is a False Teaching - Summarized Doctrinal Reasons

[Der Alte]

The context shows he is referring to the plan of God, and the glory yet to come. John 17:1-2 is clearly is showing this...

John 17
1 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:
2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.

The first "hast" Aorist Tense in the indicative mood, is past Tense. And “he should give” is in the Subjunctive Mood and means: the action of the verb will possibly happen, depending on certain objective factors or circumstances.

Jesus has not received this yet, nor is he able yet to give life until his resurrection. So, he is referring to the plan of God, obviously!

Are you now an expert in Greek? Perhaps you could translate this for me?

ταῦτα λελάληκα ὑμῖν ἵνα ἐν ἐμοὶ εἰρήνην ἔχητε· ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ θλῖψιν ἔχετε, ἀλλὰ θαρσεῖτε, ἐγὼ νενίκηκα τὸν κόσμον. ​

Nothing is John 17:1-2 says or implies that Jesus could not give life until after resurrection. He gave life to one of the criminals crucified with Him, from the cross, before the resurrection. Read John 3:16-18.

 

[Der Alte]

Previous post

When the Jewish leaders brought charges against Jesus to the Roman authorities was it done according to Roman law or was it a lynch mob action as it was when they attempted to murder Him in the temple?

The problem with this is, Jesus did not say "I was before Abraham as the word of God?" Whenever scripture, as written, disproves your assumptions/presuppositions you have to add words to it to make it say what you want it to.​

I really don't know what your going on about, or how this proves Jesus meant he was the God, or that they understood him correctly. I mean God the Father was working through him though.

It would be most helpful; if you would keep track of your own arguments. Jesus said "Before Abraham was, I am." He did not say, as you claim, "I was before Abraham as the word of God?"

 

[Der Alte]

Previous post

I have been discussing John 17:5 which says, "And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." You say it is literal but here is what you want it to say.

[Post #599] "Jesus is talking about Glory which God has given him. This glory was given to him before the foundation of the world, and is written in scripture . . . It's because it was foreordained of him, for God planed to have a son and give him glory. All this was planed before the foundation of the world. This is the glory Jesus is talking about that he had with God, before the foundation of the world, and put him over all, and loved him all the way back then. This is how God works."​

And I just showed you the context reveals Jesus is talking about the plan of God in post #656, not including the others.

Jesus' "High priestly" prayer John 17 does refer to God's plan but John 17:5 does not refer to something that was planned but the actuality that Jesus had glory with the Father before the world was. Nothing you have posted proves otherwise. Jesus did not say "the glory that you ordained for me before the world was."

 

[7xlightray]

Are you now an expert in Greek? Perhaps you could translate this for me?

ταῦτα λελάληκα ὑμῖν ἵνα ἐν ἐμοὶ εἰρήνην ἔχητε· ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ θλῖψιν ἔχετε, ἀλλὰ θαρσεῖτε, ἐγὼ νενίκηκα τὸν κόσμον.​

​

Is this correct or not?

The first "hast" Aorist Tense in the indicative mood is past Tense. And “he should give” is in the Subjunctive Mood and means: the action of the verb will possibly happen, depending on certain objective factors or circumstances.

Of course it is.

Nothing is John 17:1-2 says or implies that Jesus could not give life until after resurrection. He gave life to one of the criminals crucified with Him, from the cross, before the resurrection. Read John 3:16-18.

Ya, but then the criminal died. So, he did not actually give it to him right there and then, did he.

Are you denying the work of the death and resurrection of Christ?

Jesus is talking about “all flesh, that he should give eternal life.” All flesh! Eternal life! Have we now all entered into eternal life?

 

[7xlightray]

When the Jewish leaders brought charges against Jesus to the Roman authorities was it done according to Roman law or was it a lynch mob action as it was when they attempted to murder Him in the temple?

The problem with this is, Jesus did not say "I was before Abraham as the word of God?" Whenever scripture, as written, disproves your assumptions/presuppositions you have to add words to it to make it say what you want it to.​

It would be most helpful; if you would keep track of your own arguments. Jesus said "Before Abraham was, I am." He did not say, as you claim, "I was before Abraham as the word of God?"

Nether did he literally say, as you claim, "I was before Abraham as the person I AM?"
Sorry about that.
edit: "I was before Abraham as a person I AM?"

 

[7xlightray]

I have been discussing John 17:5 which says, "And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." You say it is literal but here is what you want it to say.

[Post #599] "Jesus is talking about Glory which God has given him. This glory was given to him before the foundation of the world, and is written in scripture . . . It's because it was foreordained of him, for God planed to have a son and give him glory. All this was planed before the foundation of the world. This is the glory Jesus is talking about that he had with God, before the foundation of the world, and put him over all, and loved him all the way back then. This is how God works."​

Jesus' "High priestly" prayer John 17 does refer to God's plan but John 17:5 does not refer to something that was planned but the actuality that Jesus had glory with the Father before the world was. Nothing you have posted proves otherwise. Jesus did not say "the glory that you ordained for me before the world was."

And Nothing of what you posted proves what you claim, other then you saying that is how it should be taken. At lest mine is kept in context though. There is no context in which he is proving he preexisted as a person, but one a couple of words that could be interpret that way, but is that how he means it, because it could also be understood another way, keeping it within context.

Isaiah 45
4 For Jacob my servant's sake, and Israel mine elect, I have even called thee by thy name: I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me.
5 I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:



The first "hast" Aorist Tense in the indicative mood is past Tense. And “he should give” is in the Subjunctive Mood and means: the action of the verb will possibly happen, depending on certain objective factors or circumstances.
Jesus has not been lifted up yet, he is not able to give life until his resurrection. So, he is referring to the plan of God, obviously!

 

[MerriestHouse]

We have a problem here. "Status, position and rank" is a totally bogus, made up "definition. Here is the complete definition of morphe from Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, Danker one of, if not the, most highly accredited Greek lexicon available. Note the terms "status, position and rank" do not appear anywhere.

μορφή ( Hom. +; inscr. , pap. , LXX , Philo , Joseph. ; Sib. Or. 3, 8; 27) form, outward appearance, shape gener. of bodily form 1 Cl 39:3 (Job 4:16 ). Of the shape or form of statues ( Jos. , Vi. 65) Dg 2:3. Of appearances in visions, etc., similar to persons ( Callisthenes [IV BC ] in Athen. 10, 75 p. 452 B Limo;" e[cwn gunaiko;" morfhvn ; Diod. S. 3, 31, 4 ejn morfai`" ajnqrwvpwn ; Jos. , Ant. 5, 213 a messenger fr. heaven neanivskou morfh`/ ): of the church Hv 3, 10, 2; 9; 3, 11, 1; 3, 13, 1; s 9, 1, 1; of the angel of repentance hJ m. aujtou` hjlloiwvqh his appearance had changed m 12, 4, 1. Of Christ (gods ejn ajnqrwpivnh/ morfh`/ : Iambl. , Vi. Pyth. 6, 30; cf. Phil o, Abr. 118) morfh;n douvlou labwvn he took on the form of a slave Phil 2:7 . The risen Christ ejfanerwvqh ejn eJtevra/ morfh`/ appeared in a different form Mk 16:12 . Of the preëxistent Christ: ejn m. qeou` uJpavrcwn although he was in the form of God (on morfh; qeou` cf. Pla ., Rep. 2p. 380 D ; 381 B and C; X ., Mem. 4, 3, 13; Diog. L. 1, 10 the Egyptians say mh; eijdevnai tou` qeou` morfhvn ; Philo , Leg. ad Gai. 80; 110; Jos. , C. Ap. 2, 190; PGM 7, 563; 13, 272; 584.— Rtzst., Mysterienrel. 3 357 f ) Phil 2:6 . For lit. s. on aJrpagmov" and kenovw 1; RPMartin, ET 70, ’59, 183 f ).—JBehm, TW IV 750-67: morfhv and related words. M-M. * ​

http://lareopage.free.fr/a&g/mu/mu-Index.html

Philippians 2:6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men."

The passage was describing the Son of God on earth. The passage in Greek reads: hos en morphe theos hyparchon ouk harpagmon hegesato.

There's not much to argue about with the word hos. It means, "who, which, as long as , that means." In this passage it must mean "who."

There is no Greek word for the translated 'although.'

There is no Greek word for "He existed."

The verb, hyparchon, comes from hypo and archomai. It means "to begin under." This verb is present tense and cannot be translated "He existed." It should be translated as "existing" or "belonging" or "being present as."

Why would the translators decide that this is a statement about pre-existence when there is no past tense??

Having the form of something does not require its essential characteristic. Paul complained about disciples having the 'form of religion.' Having the 'form' does not mean that one automatically has the essence of religion. "holding the form of religion but denying the power of it." 2 Timothy 3:5

en morphe theou, means 'in form of God.' There is no definitive article. No 'the.'

'Morphe' in the LXX is associated with 'facial expression' or 'facial color.' In the classical Greek, 'morphe theou' is often used of the gods of Greek religion, gods who have obvious physical forms. Jewish law rejects any such application to YHVH and so does Yeshua in John 4. He has no form in His essence - - - the second commandment.

No Jew in the first century would think of God in terms of physical form.

The passage says that Jesus took the form of a 'doulos' in an act of exemplary renunciation.

There is no mythical concept of a God in human form, nor is there any idea of a metamorphosis. The phrase 'morphe theou' is wholly in the biblical tradition.

God has no form. Did Jesus look like God? He chose the way of humility rather than glory. In the apostles writings, morphe often means outward appearance. Paul uses "form of a slave." Not a pre-existent state of being, but rather about the choice to become a doulos.

The actual Greek text reads: "counted equality not something that could be grasped." The simple meaning is, Jesus saw equality with God as something unattainable.

The verse does not say that Jesus gave up equality with God voluntarily, it says that Jesus never aspired to be equal with God because equality with God is not possible.

 

[Strong in Him]

I can understand people finding the trinity difficult - let's face it, it is. But what I can't understand - and maybe it's been explained and I missed it - is, if the trinity is false/there is no trinity; what's the alternative?

As far as I can see, there are only two:
1. There are 3 Gods, God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. If someone rejects the teaching that these 3 are 1, they must be separate.
2. There IS only one God, the Father, so the Son and Spirit are something else; maybe heavenly beings, or in the case of Jesus, a holy man, and maybe highly anointed - but not God.

But neither of those positions are Scriptural.
1. It is very clear, almost from the beginning, that there is only one God. The first commandment that the Israelites received was that they should have no other god besides the Lord, and they were frequently punished for doing so; for forgetting the Lord their God, giving their worship to others and making idols. Many people were captured or killed because they disobeyed these commands. Would the Lord really do this - command them, and us, to worship only ONE God, if he knew there were 3 of them?
2. If Jesus was not God when he was on earth, then he was ONLY a man. So firstly, the Scriptures which say that he was conceived by the Holy Spirit are surely wrong - how could God himself fertilize a human egg and the resulting child be ONLY human? And secondly, if the man who died on the cross was ONLY human, how does he have the ability to take our sins upon himself, reconcile us to God and give us everlasting, or eternal, life? Similarly, if the Holy Spirit is not God, but an angel or some lesser heavenly being, how is he able to give us new life, assure us of our adoption as children of God, and take everything that belongs to Jesus and make it known to us?

The trinity IS difficult to understand, and explain, but I, personally, can't see a Scriptural alternative, nor how salvation and the Gospel are possible without it.

 

[Der Alte]

Philippians 2:6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men."

The passage was describing the Son of God on earth. The passage in Greek reads: hos en morphe theos hyparchon ouk harpagmon hegesato.

There's not much to argue about with the word hos. It means, "who, which, as long as , that means." In this passage it must mean "who."

There is no Greek word for the translated 'although.'

The word "although" is really irrelevant it does not significantly affect the translation. You are quoting either the ISV or NET the latter was edited by Dr. Dan Wallace who has taught graduate level Greek for more than 30 years. It will take a lot more than saying "Nuh uh" to prove him wrong.

There is no Greek word for "He existed."

The version you quoted does not have the word "existed." If you are going to argue the meaning of Greek I suggest you use an accredited Greek lexicon. What you think a word means is not enough.

The verb, hyparchon, comes from hypo and archomai. It means "to begin under." This verb is present tense and cannot be translated "He existed." It should be translated as "existing" or "belonging" or "being present as."

Another straw man argument. The version you quoted does not have the word "existed." A.T. Robertson who taught graduate level Greek for 47 years translated "hyparchon" as "existing." What are your qualifications in Greek? If you are going to make definitive statements about the correct translation of Greek then you need to provide some justification.

Why would the translators decide that this is a statement about pre-existence when there is no past tense??

Have you ever actually read any exegesis by accredited scholars to learn what their rationale was?

Having the form of something does not require its essential characteristic. Paul complained about disciples having the 'form of religion.' Having the 'form' does not mean that one automatically has the essence of religion. "holding the form of religion but denying the power of it." 2 Timothy 3:5

Straw man argument. The word "morphe" does not occur in 2 Timothy 3:5.

en morphe theou, means 'in form of God.' There is no definitive article. No 'the.'

Irrelevant. The lack or presence of the definite article does not significantly affect the translation. Something that is unique does not require the definite article to be definite.

'Morphe' in the LXX is associated with 'facial expression' or 'facial color.' In the classical Greek, 'morphe theou' is often used of the gods of Greek religion, gods who have obvious physical forms. Jewish law rejects any such application to YHVH and so does Yeshua in John 4. He has no form in His essence - - - the second commandment.
Wrong!

No Jew in the first century would think of God in terms of physical form.

Thank you for this unsupported opinion.

The passage says that Jesus took the form of a 'doulos' in an act of exemplary renunciation.

Opinion! "act of exemplary renunciation" is not in the text.

There is no mythical concept of a God in human form, nor is there any idea of a metamorphosis. The phrase 'morphe theou' is wholly in the biblical tradition.

Thank you for this unsupported opinion. Opinion is not evidence.

God has no form. Did Jesus look like God? He chose the way of humility rather than glory. In the apostles writings, morphe often means outward appearance. Paul uses "form of a slave." Not a pre-existent state of being, but rather about the choice to become a doulos.

Morphe only occurs twice in the NT there is no "often means" to it. Your argument is spurious., Paul did not say Jesus "hyparchon [existing] en morphe doulos." "Morphe" alone does not mean "pre-existent state of being."

The actual Greek text reads: "counted equality not something that could be grasped." The simple meaning is, Jesus saw equality with God as something unattainable.

The verse does not say that Jesus gave up equality with God voluntarily, it says that Jesus never aspired to be equal with God because equality with God is not possible.

The word "Arpagmon" translated "something that could be grasped" is a noun not a verb, your interpretation tries to turn it into a verb. Have you ever studied Greek? Have you ever done any actual research on this? Do you have anything equal to a 25 page Harvard study to support your translation, as quoted below?

The Committee on Bible Translation worked at updating the New International Version of the Bible to be published in 2011.

In it's notes under "Progress in Scholarship" it discusses the following change:

When the NIV was first translated, the meaning of the rare Greek word αρπαγμον /harpagmos, rendered ‟something to be grasped,” in Philippians 2:6 was uncertain. But further study has shown that the word refers to something that a person has in their possession but chooses not to use to their own advantage. The updated NIV reflects this new information, making clear that Jesus really was equal with God when he determined to become a human for our sake: ‟[Christ Jesus], being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage.”​

See full translators notes at: Bible Gateway NIV Translator’s Notes​

A short excerpt from the 25 page Harvard theological review article αρπαγμον /harpagmos, by Roy Hoover, referenced in the NIV.

‘O petros de arpagmon ton dia stavrou thanton epoieito dia tas soterious elpidas”

(And Peter considered death by means of the cross harpagmon on account of the hope of salvation, Comm in Luc 6)

“Tines…ton thanaton arpagma themenoi ten ton dussebon moxtherias”

(Since some regarded death as harpagma in comparison with the depravity of ungodly men. Hist. Eccl VCIII,12.2)

Not only are arpagma and arpagmos used synonymously in these two statements, but they are used synonymously by the same author in reference to the same object—death—and in expressions whose form precisely parallels that of the arpagmos remark in Phil 2:6.

What [Eusebius] wants to say, rather, is that because of the hope of salvation crucifixion was not a horror to be shunned, but an advantage to be seized.

“Arpagma” is used exactly this way in Hist. Eccl. VIII,12.2. At this point Eusebius is recounting the sufferings of Christians in periods of persecution. Some believers in order to escape torture threw themselves down from rooftops. There can be no suggestion of “robbery” or of violent self-assertion in this remark, nor can self-inflicted death under such circumstances be considered an unanticipated windfall.

Roy W. Hoover, Harvard Theological Review (1971) 95-119, pg. 108

Link to: Hoover Article​

 

[Der Alte]

Nether did he literally say, as you claim, "I was before Abraham as the person I AM?"
Sorry about that.
edit: "I was before Abraham as a person I AM?"

Where did I ever say anything like Jesus said "I was before Abraham as a person I AM?" Jesus did not say "I was." Read the verse again, "Before Abraham was I am." Several of the ECF understood "I am" to be a claim to be God. When God told Moses His name He did not say "I am the person God."

 

[Der Alte]

. . . en morphe theou, means 'in form of God.' There is no definitive article. No 'the.' . . .

Further response to this post. "Theou" in Philippians 2:6 is in the genitive case.

The article is associated with gesture and aids in pointing out like an index finger. It is a pointer. It is not essential to language, but certainly very convenient and useful and not " otiosum loquacissimae gentis instrumentum," as Scaliger called it. The Greek article is not the only means of making words definite.
Many words are definite from the nature of the case. The word itself may be definite, like ye, [earth] ouranos, [heaven] Iesous.[Jesus] The use of a preposition with definite anarthrous nouns is old, as en eiko.[in house] Possessive pronouns also make definite, as do genitives. The context itself often is clear enough. The demonstrative may be used besides the article. Whenever the Greek article occurs, the object is certainly definite. When it is not used, the object may or may not be. The article is never meaningless in Greek, though it often fails to correspond with the English idiom, as in e sofia,[the wisdom] O Paulos.[the Paul] It is not a matter of translation. The older language and higher poetry are more anarthrous than Attic prose. Dialects vary in the use of the article, as do authors. Plato is richer in the article than any one. Its free use leads to exactness and finesse (Gildersleeve, Syntax, Part II, p. 215 f.).
A Grammar Of The Greek New Testament, A.T. Robertson, 1914, p. 756​

 

[DrBubbaLove]

?

Does the Father not know Himself?

 

[Der Alte]

I can understand people finding the trinity difficult - let's face it, it is. But what I can't understand - and maybe it's been explained and I missed it - is, if the trinity is false/there is no trinity; what's the alternative?

As far as I can see, there are only two:
1. There are 3 Gods, God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. If someone rejects the teaching that these 3 are 1, they must be separate.
2. There IS only one God, the Father, so the Son and Spirit are something else; maybe heavenly beings, or in the case of Jesus, a holy man, and maybe highly anointed - but not God.

But neither of those positions are Scriptural.
1. It is very clear, almost from the beginning, that there is only one God. The first commandment that the Israelites received was that they should have no other god besides the Lord, and they were frequently punished for doing so; for forgetting the Lord their God, giving their worship to others and making idols. Many people were captured or killed because they disobeyed these commands. Would the Lord really do this - command them, and us, to worship only ONE God, if he knew there were 3 of them?
2. If Jesus was not God when he was on earth, then he was ONLY a man. So firstly, the Scriptures which say that he was conceived by the Holy Spirit are surely wrong - how could God himself fertilize a human egg and the resulting child be ONLY human? And secondly, if the man who died on the cross was ONLY human, how does he have the ability to take our sins upon himself, reconcile us to God and give us everlasting, or eternal, life? Similarly, if the Holy Spirit is not God, but an angel or some lesser heavenly being, how is he able to give us new life, assure us of our adoption as children of God, and take everything that belongs to Jesus and make it known to us?

The trinity IS difficult to understand, and explain, but I, personally, can't see a Scriptural alternative, nor how salvation and the Gospel are possible without it.

I want to add to your second paragraph. Since the quote function truncates part of the quoted post I'm quoting paragraph 2, here.

2. If Jesus was not God when he was on earth, then he was ONLY a man. So firstly, the Scriptures which say that he was conceived by the Holy Spirit are surely wrong - how could God himself fertilize a human egg and the resulting child be ONLY human? And secondly, if the man who died on the cross was ONLY human, how does he have the ability to take our sins upon himself, reconcile us to God and give us everlasting, or eternal, life? Similarly, if the Holy Spirit is not God, but an angel or some lesser heavenly being, how is he able to give us new life, assure us of our adoption as children of God, and take everything that belongs to Jesus and make it known to us?
​

Psalm 49 states that a man cannot redeem another person's soul

Psa 49:7 None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him:
8 (For the redemption of their soul is precious, and it ceaseth for ever; )
9 That he should still live for ever, and not see corruption. ​

 

[7xlightray]

I can understand people finding the trinity difficult - let's face it, it is. But what I can't understand - and maybe it's been explained and I missed it - is, if the trinity is false/there is no trinity; what's the alternative?

As far as I can see, there are only two:
1. There are 3 Gods, God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. If someone rejects the teaching that these 3 are 1, they must be separate.
2. There IS only one God, the Father, so the Son and Spirit are something else; maybe heavenly beings, or in the case of Jesus, a holy man, and maybe highly anointed - but not God.

But neither of those positions are Scriptural.
1. It is very clear, almost from the beginning, that there is only one God. The first commandment that the Israelites received was that they should have no other god besides the Lord, and they were frequently punished for doing so; for forgetting the Lord their God, giving their worship to others and making idols. Many people were captured or killed because they disobeyed these commands. Would the Lord really do this - command them, and us, to worship only ONE God, if he knew there were 3 of them?
2. If Jesus was not God when he was on earth, then he was ONLY a man. So firstly, the Scriptures which say that he was conceived by the Holy Spirit are surely wrong - how could God himself fertilize a human egg and the resulting child be ONLY human? And secondly, if the man who died on the cross was ONLY human, how does he have the ability to take our sins upon himself, reconcile us to God and give us everlasting, or eternal, life? Similarly, if the Holy Spirit is not God, but an angel or some lesser heavenly being, how is he able to give us new life, assure us of our adoption as children of God, and take everything that belongs to Jesus and make it known to us?

The trinity IS difficult to understand, and explain, but I, personally, can't see a Scriptural alternative, nor how salvation and the Gospel are possible without it.

Why must you have three Gods? Why must there be three God? There is no reason for this.

What God did the Israelites serve? Deuteronomy 13:2; Mark 12:32, 34.

What God did Paul say he served? Acts 24:14 “But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:”

 

[7xlightray]

Where did I ever say anything like Jesus said "I was before Abraham as a person I AM?" Jesus did not say "I was." Read the verse again, "Before Abraham was I am." Several of the ECF understood "I am" to be a claim to be God. When God told Moses His name He did not say "I am the person God."

I know, I was just trying to explain something to you. I'm not trying to quoting you, I was just trying to say that, Jesus did not say, he existed as a person. God the Father did exist as a person. Jesus was in the Father, as Levi was in Abraham.

I have no problem interpreting Jesus saying “Before Abraham was, I AM,” as you do, except, that Jesus was not a person, but he did exist as God, which is the Father, his Father. Jesus was the I AM. And he is even the I AM, for it is the Father working in him Isaiah 52:6, but Jesus is not another I AM, and he is not the I AM, he is the Son, and the one sent. Jesus came in His Father's name, it was the Father that sent him. Jesus is the word that came forth from the Father, and sent into the world to reveal the Father. God did not beget a Son in heaven, there was not another God formed. God's Son was made lower then the angels. His Son was a man with the fullness of God dwelling in him. So, there was no other God formed. And on top of that, there is no other God formed, because it is the same God, which is the Father, that is in the Son. Jesus being the image of God. Jesus is the Son of God, so he is not the God, but the Son of the God. He was the God, and God is in him. It may be a little hard to grasp, but not illogical, as the distance of the stars are hard to grasp, but not illogical.

 

[Der Alte]

Why must you have three Gods? Why must there be three God? There is no reason for this.

What God did the Israelites serve? Deuteronomy 13:2; Mark 12:32, 34.

What God did Paul say he served? Acts 24:14 “But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:”

We do not have three Gods. There is one God! The Father is God but He is not the Son or the Holy Spirit. The Son is God but He is not the Father or the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is God but He is not the Son or the Father. There is one God. But feel free to misrepresent the Trinity if that makes you feel good.

 

[7xlightray]

We do not have three Gods. There is one God! The Father is God but He is not the Son or the Holy Spirit. The Son is God but He is not the Father or the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is God but He is not the Son or the Father. There is one God. But feel free to misrepresent the Trinity if that makes you feel good.

I'm know the doctrine. Read Strong in Him post #668 first before replying to mine, because I'm replying to his post #668, then you will be able to reply to my post correctly.

 

[Goatee]

God's Son was made lower then the angels.

Waw!! How can you say that?!!! So wrong!!!

He may have been made into flesh and blood like us but in no way was he made lower than an angel!

 

[7xlightray]

Waw!! How can you say that?!!! So wrong!!!

He may have been made into flesh and blood like us but in no way was he made lower than an angel!

I was not the first to say it. This is His only begotten son...Hebrews 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels.

 

[Strong in Him]

Why must you have three Gods? Why must there be three God? There is no reason for this.

What God did the Israelites serve? Deuteronomy 13:2; Mark 12:32, 34.

What God did Paul say he served? Acts 24:14 “But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:”

Some people - like the OP but there may be others - have said that Jesus was God, but that there is no trinity. If anyone does believe this, the only alternative is that there are 3 Gods.

If by rejecting the trinity people are saying, "I reject the doctrine that Christ was God", then my other questions apply; can someone be conceived by the Spirit of God and yet not be God? Was it only a man who died on the cross? And how can a mere human being give us eternal life?
If the Spirit also isn't God, then how can he give new life, make someone a new creation and assure us of our adoption as God's children? What are Jesus and the Spirit anyhow if they are not God, and what is the Gospel all about; how is it Good News that a human being was once crucified by the Romans?