A case for the Trinity

[Nick]

I know there's been a few Trinity topics lately, but I came across this page in a book I was buying for a friend and thought I'd get it out there. It is a small, summarised case for the Trinity, supported by loads of Bible verses. I hope it will be of some use.

I hope that this topic will be more of a resource for people to put in Bible references and other arguements for the Trinity rather than another debate topic. Thanks!

The below excerpt is from: Where to find it in the Bible, from ROSE Bible basics, ROSE Publishing and Bristol Works Inc, 2008, page 12


What do Christians believe about the Trinity?

Christians believe that there is only one God, and this one God exists as one essence in three Persons.

The Bible clearly teaches that there is only one God, yet all three Persons are called God.

• There is only one God (Isaiah 43:10)
• The Father is God (1 Corinthians 8:6)
• The Son is God (John 1:1-5, 14)
• The Holy Spirit is God (Acts 5:3-4; compare 2 Corinthians 3:17 and Exodus 34:34)

The Bible teaches that God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit each possess the divine attributes. The Scriptures in the chart below show how each Person of the Trinity has the attributes of God.

 

[JamesG]

.
Nick

I used to be a Trinitarian. I am not anymore. But neither am I an anti-Trinitarian like the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

I agree that Jesus and Jehovah are of the same essence. That is very clear in Peter’s dissertation in Acts 2. But there are many reasons given by Trinitarians as evidence that Jesus and Jehovah are of the same essence that I do not agree with. Isaiah 9:6, for instance, is not a reference to the Divinity of Christ. It is in context a reference to the Kingdom of the Son. The reference to the mighty god is a reference to rulership. If this verse is to be taken as a reference to the Divinity of Christ, then it must also be evidence that the Father is the Son. Not something that the “orthodox†Trinitarians agree with.

Consider also that there are three distinct versions of “orthodox†Trinitarianism. They correspond to the Eastern Orthodox Church that adheres to the original Trinitarian formulation, the Roman Catholic Church that adheres to a progressively understood Western form of Trinitarianism, and the originators of Protestantism that adheres to a modified form of Western Trinitarianism, most notably apart from any inclusion of Mary in the doctrine.

The Trinitarian concept is fundamentally based on one verse, Matthew 28:19. That was the basic verse for those who originally formulated the Trinitarian doctrine. Today, some add 2Corinthians 13:14 to that basic. It was originally a doctrine emphasizing the Divinity of Jesus Christ against the Arians in the 4th century. The original formulators of the Trinitarian doctrine felt that to deny the Divinity of Jesus Christ is a limitation on the understanding of the nature of God. They did not realize that the Trinitarian doctrine itself is a doctrine that is a limitation on the understanding of the nature of God.

There are two reasons that I believe that God is more than merely a Trinity. God is a multi-personed God.

First, it must be made clear that God is not a person. God is a kind of being. Within that kind of being are many persons. This is not entirely understood by the Trinitarians. They contribute to the non-Trinitarian belief when they claim that the Old Testament writers sometimes refer to God as a person, such as when he gives his own name as Jehovah or the self-existent one.

God created humanity in the image of God. And humanity is not a person. It is a kind of being, just as God is a kind of person. If humanity is truly created in the image of God, and humanity is composed of a multitude of persons by design, then God is composed of a multitude of persons as well.

In Revelation written by John is the phrase, the seven Spirits of God. That phrase is interpreted in Christianity to mean anything except what it literally says. They say that Revelation is a book of symbols, thus even this phrase must be a symbol for something other than its literal meaning. And those who take that way of understanding Revelation to its logical conclusion, even understand the seven ekklesia as referring to something symbolic, such as a history of Christianity.

The symbol for the ekklesia is clearly given as the lampstands. Thus I see the seven ekklesia as literal ekklesia that existed at the time John wrote this writing. And I see no reason to believe that the seven Spirits are anything more than seven Spirits each one associated with one of the seven ekklesia. Today, wherever those who are truly in Christ reside, there is an ekklesia. There are a multitude of ekklesia today, each with a Spirit of God associated with it. Such Spirits have no specific name that is known to us because it is not necessary. Thus there are a multitude of persons within the one God. And just including Revelation, there is the Father, the Son, and the Pure or Holy Spirit, plus there are the seven Spirits of God. That in itself is 10 persons in the being that is God. Through the practice of interpretation, the seven Spirits of God could refer to anything, anything at all. Through the practice of interpretation, the seven Spirits of God, in a practical sense, mean nothing at all.

Thus I do not believe in the Trinity. I believe that God is a multi-personed God.

And I am sorry, but I am not a Protestant. I do not bring up a specific verses to interpret out of existence just to prove a point. I have learned to be more general in order to present ideas that are the same as what the Biblical writers present. Generally, if one has a general knowledge of the Bible, they know what particular portions of the Bible I am referring to. If there is a question, I will sometimes offer specific Biblical portions. But I believe that it is necessary for each one who is in Christ to see what is being said by the Biblical writers themselves through the Spirit of God. Since most are hindered by an adherence to preconceived human interpretations learned through the denomination to which they adhere or through there own personal interpretations, I find that bringing up specific Biblical verses as evidence and then must be proved to be evidence is futile. Except for those who are only on a forum to banter or to use the forum as their own soapbox for personal interpretive understandings of reality.

JamesG

 

[jasoncran]

modalism is what that sounds like james.

 

[JamesG]

.
Jasoncran

Well, a point of view that is not “orthodox†Trinitarianism, but includes the Divinity of Christ, is often misunderstood as being Modalism.

This description of Modalism from Theopedia is accurate:

Modalism, also called Sabellianism, is the unorthodox belief that God is one person who has revealed himself in three forms or modes in contrast to the Trinitarian doctrine where God is one being eternally existing in three persons. According to Modalism, during the incarnation, Jesus was simply God acting in one mode or role, and the Holy Spirit at Pentecost was God acting in a different mode. Thus, God does not exist as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit at the same time. Rather, He is one person and has merely manifested himself in these three modes at various times. Modalism thus denies the basic distinctiveness and coexistence of the three persons of the Trinity.


That is NOT the same as a multi-personed God. Do you agree?

Perhaps you were confused by what I said about Isaiah 9:6. I did NOT say that I agreed with the idea that the Father is the Son. What I did say is that neither is the phrase "a mighty god", included in that verse, a reference to the Divinity of the Son.

I do agree that my view of a multi-personed God is certainly not an "orthodox" understanding of the nature of God. Nor am I particularly bothered by the fact that I have "unorthodox" views anymore. Many of my beliefs are not considered "orthodox" by one denomination of Christianity or another; and by persons who have beliefs that are as "unorthodox" as my own. I am just thankful that there are any points of agreement at all, given the fact that most who are in Christ, or are just Christians, are being so influenced by a humanly derived religion that has a variety of "orthodox" and "unorthodox" views.

JamesG

 

[JamesG]

.
Mujahid Abdullah

Since the idea of the Trinity wasn't formulated until the 4th century, it is pretty doubtful. There is no evidence in the Old Testament that they had any such idea as the Trinity. And modern Judaism that claims to follow the Old Testament does not have such an idea. And if Muhammad was influenced at all by the Old Testament writings, he didn't think that there was such an idea either. Historically, the idea of a Trinity appears to be limited to Christianity.

JamesG

 

[PouringRain]

.
Mujahid Abdullah

Since the idea of the Trinity wasn't formulated until the 4th century, it is pretty doubtful. There is no evidence in the Old Testament that they had any such idea as the Trinity. And modern Judaism that claims to follow the Old Testament does not have such an idea. And if Muhammad was influenced at all by the Old Testament writings, he didn't think that there was such an idea either. Historically, the idea of a Trinity appears to be limited to Christianity.

JamesG

yeah I understand all of that, but christian have a gift for seeing things in the OT that the jews never saw, so i am assuming if any christians beleive the OT prophets worshipped a triune God, the evidence will be implicit, rather than explicit.

They did not worship a triune God, but if you want to know how Christians interpret the OT to reveal the triune nature of God, then I will try and explain. Start at Genesis and you will see where God says "Let us make man in our own image." A Christian will interpret this to the trinity, whereas a Jew will interpret this to God speaking to the angels. Additionally, throughout the OT there are instances where God's spirit came upon men for various reasons: to empower them, to give prophecy, etc. There are also some instances in the OT where angels came to men, and Christians attribute some of these to places to be Jesus coming in the form of an angel. So, in other words, not all "angels" in the OT would really be angels, but in some cases it would be Jesus. If you want a specific example, I'd have to look it up.

I hope this helps answer your question.

 

[JamesG]

.
Mujahid Abdullah

You have to consider that whenever a specific doctrine is understood in Christianity, it will be seen everywhere. For example, the Hebrew word translated God is in the plural. That is seen as referring to the Trinity, even though it didn't take on such a meaning to the Jews. There is an unfortunate practice of interpretation, through which things can take on meanings that they didn't originally have. Through this practice, many Old Testament verses take on Christian meanings that weren't there to begin with. They call this understanding the Old Testament in the light of the New Testament. But often it is more understanding the Old Testament in light of a particular interpretation that had its origins after the New Testament era or the 1st century. Such is the case for the matter of the Trinity.

JamesG

 

[watchman F]

modalism is what that sounds like james.

James was not teaching modalism, far from it. this is something new and very strange. I have heard it before. Basically it is polytheism. That just like all humans are human, all god's are God. That God is a type of being, just like humans are a type of being.

this is way out there in the the spectrum from normal to strange. It is almost completely off the map. Especially by Bible believing ''christians''

 

[dadof10]

.
Isaiah 9:6, for instance, is not a reference to the Divinity of Christ. It is in context a reference to the Kingdom of the Son. The reference to the mighty god is a reference to rulership. If this verse is to be taken as a reference to the Divinity of Christ, then it must also be evidence that the Father is the Son. Not something that the “orthodox†Trinitarians agree with.

Nick didn't reference Is.9:6 above. Is it referenced somewhere else in the book he quoted?

 

[Nick]

.
Isaiah 9:6, for instance, is not a reference to the Divinity of Christ. It is in context a reference to the Kingdom of the Son. The reference to the mighty god is a reference to rulership. If this verse is to be taken as a reference to the Divinity of Christ, then it must also be evidence that the Father is the Son. Not something that the “orthodox†Trinitarians agree with.

Nick didn't reference Is.9:6 above. Is it referenced somewhere else in the book he quoted?

Correct, I did not reference Isaiah 9:6. In fact the only Isaiah reference was 43:10.

-----

I posted this topic as a quick reference on what Christians in general believe about the Trinity. I did not exactly expect to have other theories of the Godhead (or non Godhead) in here as welll. Hence the title "A case for the Trinity".

 

[JamesG]

.
Nick

““I posted this topic as a quick reference on what Christians in general believe about the Trinity. I did not exactly expect to have other theories of the Godhead (or non Godhead) in here as welll. Hence the title "A case for the Trinity".â€â€

Sorry Nick. I misunderstood. You are free to have my posts removed. If that’s possible.

JamesG

 

[Drew]

Post 1 of 2 presenting an argument for Jesus' divinity:

One Old Testament theme is often overlooked is the theme of the promised return of YHWH to Zion – that though God has abandoned His people through the exile, He will, one day, return to them. A wide range of Old Testament texts embody this hope. Here are just two:
Ezekiel 43:1-7:

Then he led me to the gate, the gate facing toward the east; 2and behold, the glory of the God of Israel was coming from the way of the east And His voice was like the sound of many waters; and the earth shone with His glory. 3And it was like the appearance of the vision which I saw, like the vision which I saw when He came to destroy the city And the visions were like the vision which I saw by the river Chebar; and I fell on my face. 4And the glory of the LORD came into the house by the way of the gate facing toward the east. 5And the Spirit lifted me up and brought me into the inner court; and behold, the glory of the LORD filled the house. 6Then I heard one speaking to me from the house, while a man was standing beside me. 7He said to me, "Son of man, this is the place of My throne and the place of the soles of My feet, where I will dwell among the sons of Israel forever And the house of Israel will not again defile My holy name, neither they nor their kings, by their harlotry and by the corpses of their kings when they die,…

Remember the context. The Jews are in a state of exile. The temple had been abandoned by God and destroyed. This vision given to Ezekiel constitutes a promise that God will return to inhabit the “temple†once more.

Behold, I am going to send My messenger, and he will clear the way before Me And the Lord, whom you seek, will suddenly come to His temple; and the messenger of the covenant, in whom you delight, behold, He is coming," says the LORD of hosts. 2"But who can endure the day of His coming? And who can stand when He appears? For He is like a refiner's fire and like fullers' soap.

This material, just like the Ezekiel text, was written during the time of exile. Once more we have a promised return of God to the temple.

These and other texts express a deep hope of the Jewish nation – the God that had abandoned them will one day return to them. When we forget such expectations, and reduce the discussion of Jesus’ divinity to technical matters about the boundaries between the concept of “man†and of “godâ€, we entirely overlook what really matters – the Jewish matrix of expectation into which Jesus was born. I suggest the Biblically literate 1st century Jew would be anticipating this return. If that Jew were being true to the Biblical tradition, he would at least be open to the possibility that YHWH might return to His people in the form of a “humanâ€. From the famous throne chariot vision of Ezekiel 1:

And there came a voice from above the expanse that was over their heads; whenever they stood still, they dropped their wings. 26Now above the expanse that was over their heads there was something resembling a throne, like lapis lazuli in appearance; and on that which resembled a throne, high up, was a figure with the appearance of a man.

I want to be clear: this and other texts such as Daniel 7 only hint at a possibility - there is no strong and pervasive theme in the Old Testament that clearly anticipates the notion of God incarnated in the form of man. But, and this is key, neither is such a possibility over-ruled, with texts like this one from Ezekiel and the one from Daniel 7 giving the hint of the possibility a divine human figure.

This is why arguments against Jesus’ divinity that are grounded in conceptual distinction entirely miss the point (e.g. Jesus is man, and a man cannot be God, Jesus is the “son†of God and therefore cannot be God, etc.). The real issue is the grand plan of covenantal redemption that we see woven through both testaments. If honouring the coherence of that story leads us to see Jesus as divine, so be it – the conceptual distinctions are derivative, not fundamental.

As I will argue in the next post, Jesus clearly sees Himself as fitting into the story in a specific way – it is His life’s work to embody the promised return of YHWH to Zion. And that makes Him “divineâ€, with divinity understood in the appropriate framework – not the framework of conceptual categories that have little connection to large Biblical narrative of covenantal redemption, but rather in the context of a God who promised to return to His people. In that framework, we have a young Jew named Jesus who saw Himself as called to the vocation of implementing that promised return.

 

[Drew]

Post 2 of 2 of an argument for the divinity of Jesus:

Much of the gospel of Luke is the story of Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem. Towards the end of that journey, Jesus tells the parable of the returning king – the story of a king who goes away and then returns to call his servants to account. This parable is found in Luke 19:11 and following.

This parable has almost universally been understood to constitute a statement by Jesus that He will go away, though crucifixion, resurrection, and then ascension, only to return in the future (i.e. in the 2nd coming). On such a reading, Jesus sets Himself, as He tells the parable, in the role of the king who is about to leave.

I suggest this is not the correct reading. Instead, we should understand that in telling the parable, Jesus is setting Himself in the role of the returning king, not the departing one. On such a reading, the departing king represents YHWH leaving his people by abandoning the temple and sending the Jews into exile, something that lies in the past of Jesus’ audience. If this interpretation is correct, Jesus can logically fill only one role in the parable: YHWH returning to Zion as promised. And this means, of course, that Jesus is the embodiment of Israel’s God.

Why should we read the parable this way? Well, for starters, the parable does not really work on its traditional reading. Note what happens to the third servant – all that he has is taken from him. This really cannot be reconciled with the notion that the returning King is Jesus at his 2nd coming, calling his people to account. Nowhere in the New Testament is there even the slightest suggestion that any of Jesus’ followers will be cast out and lose all at Jesus’ 2nd coming as the parable would seem to suggest on the traditional reading. It is clear from the scriptures that that believers who “build with hay and stubble†will still be saved. So it is very hard to make the parable work with Jesus as the King about to go away and return at a 2nd coming.

Besides, consideration of what happens next makes it clear that Jesus is setting himself in the role of the returning king. Note what happens after parable is told – Jesus rides on to Jerusalem and, upon seeing it, says the following:

"If you had known in this day, even you, the things which make for peace! But now they have been hidden from your eyes. 43"For the days will come upon you when your enemies will throw up a barricade against you, and surround you and hem you in on every side, 44and they will level you to the ground and your children within you, and they will not leave in you one stone upon another, because you did not recognize the time of your visitation."

Clearly, Jesus sees Himself as the King returning in visitation, returning to judge Jerusalem who is set in the role of the unfaithful 3rd servant. If, as many believe, the returning King in the parable is Jesus at His second coming, then it would be deeply misleading for Jesus to give the parable then immediately ride into Jerusalem as He does, to palm branches waving no less, with all the imagery of a returning King that this action clearly evokes. No. Jesus clearly intends his listeners to understand that He is the returning King, not the departing one. In giving this parable and then riding into the royal city as a king, Jesus is clearly telling us that He, through this teaching and these actions, is embodying the fulfillment of the hoped for return of YHWH to his people. And what does Jesus do next?:

Then he entered the temple area and began driving out those who were selling. 46"It is written," he said to them, " 'My house will be a house of prayer'; but you have made it 'a den of robbers.'

Note how this maps perfectly to this prophecy about the return of YHWH to his people:

Behold, I am going to send My messenger, and he will clear the way before Me And the Lord, whom you seek, will suddenly come to His temple; and the messenger of the covenant, in whom you delight, behold, He is coming," says the LORD of hosts. 2"But who can endure the day of His coming? And who can stand when He appears? For He is like a refiner's fire and like fullers' soap.

The overall picture is clear. As per an earlier post, we have the strong Biblical tradition of the promised return of YHWH to Zion (and his temple) after the time of the exile. Now here, in Luke, we have the journey of a young Jew named Jesus to Jerusalem. As He is about to enter, He tells a parable of a king who goes away and then returns. Next, He laments over Jerusalem and declares that she is not recognizing His mission as a “visitationâ€. In the context of Jews who saw themselves still in exile, and still awaiting the return of YHWH, Jesus’ intended meaning is clear. In saying that Jerusalem has not recognized her visitation, He is saying that she has failed to recognize that, in His very actions, the promised return of YHWH to Zion is being fulfilled. And then Jesus enters the temple and overturns the tables in judgement, fulfilling the Malach 3 promise that YHWH will come suddenly to the temple in judgement. The coherence of this picture is compelling. Jesus is embodying the return of YHWH to Zion. And that, of course, makes Him the embodiment of Israel’s God.

This is why arguments like “Jesus cannot be divine since Jesus was tempted and God cannot be tempted†are a spectacular exercise in missing the point. Such arguments assume a model for the nature of God-hood and human-ness and then leverage that assumption to make the case against Jesus’ divinity. Well, we should be getting our concepts of who YHWH is from the Old Testament, not from conceptual definitions with no connection to the Jewish worldview. And in the Old Testament, YHWH is the one who has left His people and promised to return. When Jesus, then, so obviously sees Himself as embodying that promised return, that, and not vague conceptual arguments, makes the case that Jesus sees Himself as the incarnation of Israel’s God. Again, the conceptual arguments you make are deeply misleading since they are built on a model of the “boundaries†between god and man that make no reference at all to the Scriptures.

 

[Nick]

Thanks Drew. I'll read it properly when I get the chance.

JamesG: don't worry about it. I'll leave the posts there to keep the flow. Thanks for your consideration. Feel free to start your own topic on your PoV though.

 

[dadof10]

.

I agree that Jesus and Jehovah are of the same essence. That is very clear in Peter’s dissertation in Acts 2.

What do you mean by this? Is it your opinion that Jesus is Uncreated? What do you mean by the word "essence"?

 

[Hawkins]

Do you guys beleive the all the Prophets before Jesus(AS) and John(AS) also beleived in a triune God?

Some of them yes. Even David knows and refered to as "Lord of my Lord".

And I believe that Isaiah even mentioned the Trinity through his prophecy.

 

[Free]

A bump to hopefully see someone who denies that Jesus is God engage Drew's posts.

 

[watchman F]

A bump to hopefully see someone who denies that Jesus is God engage Drew's posts.

said person will not engage Drews post. They will not engage any scripture that [proves them wrong on any subject. In many different threads if you want to get rid of them just post scripture that they cannot rebut. At that point they will just start the name calling and insults.

He has yet to respond to these scripture.
John 1
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

John 14
7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.
8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?

John 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My LORD and my God.

Philippians 2
5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

1st Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Titus 2:13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ

1st John 5:20 And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.

The Father Himself calls Jesus God in Hebrews
Hebrews 1:8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

 

[seekandlisten]

Just an observation for those who may be interested.

John 1:1 - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

From the sacred scripture of the Hindu's Veda, written well before John.

"Prajapatir vai idam asit: In the beginning was Brahman. Tasya vag dvitya asit; with whom was the Vak or the Word... Vag vai paramam Brahma; and the word is Brahman."

It's also interesting to look at the trinity similarities you find with Brahma(Father), Vishnu(Word), Shiva(Power). You also needn't look to far to find that both Krishna and Christ are viewed as incarnations of 'God'. Some even go as far as to say the same 'spirit' incarnated in both figures. In the Bhagavad Gita (500-250 BC) you find this doctrine of incarnation (in reference Krishna). These definitely weren't new concepts.

I found this interesting anyways.

cheers

 

[Mysteryman]

[quote="Mujahid Abdullah":1q6s528y]Do you guys beleive the all the Prophets before Jesus(AS) and John(AS) also beleived in a triune God?

Some of them yes. Even David knows and refered to as "Lord of my Lord".

And I believe that Isaiah even mentioned the Trinity through his prophecy.

My original question has been deleted, probably because it was deemed irrealavent to the thread, thats ok.

I am one of those who dispute Jesus'(AS) godhood - and the reason for that question was this:

The christian references to trinitarian language in the OT are very vague, and were never viewed in a tinatarian fashion until the advent of christianity.

So my question is, If our God is not bound by time and space, then in fact He was either always triune or has always been, the way the Jews saw Him, as completely singular.

Why then did God not say He was three in one to previous Prophets(AS)?[/quote:1q6s528y]


Hi

You are correct. There is no refernce in the OT of the three in one concept. He was only - "One"

God put so much emphasis upon Israel to have no other gods before him, the One true God. Whenever Isreal went a whoring after other gods. God was very upset with Israel.

The so called three in one doctrine didn't show up until some time after the third century. It is still difficult to pin point exactly when it first appeared. However, even within the writting of the gospels, we never see this three in one concept. We never see Paul teach such a concept either. Never is this concept ever taught throughout scripture. It is a fabrication that has entered the church for many years, and has caused no end of confusion, division,and envy and strife among the brethren.

Today, the majority of christendom defends this theory. Turning Jesus the Christ into another god.

God is a God that changes not. Yet, trinitarism has changed the One true God into three mini gods , and uses this fabricated theory that these three are one.

People are so blinded today, that they can not even realize when their comments about this doctrine contradict scripture in the way that it does.

Jesus told us, that he did not come to do his own will, but the will of the Father who sent him. Yet, they call him God who didn't come to do his own will. Total contradiction to that which Jesus just said !

Jesus clearly tells us not to call him good, that there is none other that is good, but my Father which is in heaven. Yet, they call him God and that he should not be called good. Again a total contradiction !

Jesus clearly tells us, that he has a God, and that his God is our God (John 20:17) . Well, if his God is our God, then why do the trinitarians call Jesus God then ? Another total contradiction !

And I am just warming up when it comes to all of these contradictions. But who is listening ? That is the question !

As Paul states in the epistles, for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear. Even Jesus said that he spoke the truth, and those who know the truth hear him and understand, becaue of the truth. Christians have the Spirit of truth in them. They should know the difference between the truth and error (untruth). But some have swayed so far from the truth, that speaking to them in a logical sound minded manner, is almost impossible.

Christ coming back to gather up the church (members) will occur after there comes a falling away. We are in that time of the falling away, where they will not adhere to sound doctrine anymore. Soon, God will tell His Son, to go and gather up the church (God's elect - members of the body of Christ)

God Bless - IN Christ - MM