if one doest accept the trinity then what was jesus?

[JudaicChristian]

The word "Godhead" is not in the original scripture, but is a interpretation. The term "Godhead" was first introduced by John Wycliffe (1330-1384 C.E.) in English Bible versions as godhede. The word "Godhead" is a interpretation of three different Greek words, theion (meaning "divinity, deity", # 2304 in Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament) at Acts 17:29, theiot?s (meaning "divinity, divine nature", # 2305 in Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament) at Romans 1:20, and theot?s (meaning "deity", # 2320 in Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament) Both Yahwah and Yahshua were called Lord. It was not until Around the sixth century, the word Filioque was added to the Nicene Creed, defining as a doctrinal teaching that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Father and the Son." In Judaism, the idea of God as a duality or trinity is heretical. In the only codices which would be even likely to preserve an older reading, namely the Sinaitic Syriac and the oldest Latin Manuscript, the pages are GONE which contained the end of Matthew 28. (F.C. Conybeare) Here is the oldest recorded document of Matthew 28:19. "The Demonstratio Evangelica" by Eusebius: Eusebius of Caesarea. 265 ? AD.– 337 ? AD.
Eusebius was the Church historian and Bishop of Caesarea. On page 152 Eusebius quotes the early book of Matthew that he had in his library in Caesarea. According to that eyewitness of an unaltered Book of Matthew that could have been the original book or the first copy of the original of Matthew. Eusebius informs us of Jesus' actual words to his disciples in the original text of Matthew 28:19: "With one word and voice He said to His disciples: "Go, and make disciples of all nations in My Name, teaching them to observe all...

 

[dadof10]

These are verses that non-trinitarians and those against the deity of Christ must either ignore or change the meaning of, as has been shown numerous times. The whole point of the doctrine of the Trinity is to make sense of all that Scripture reveals about God and Christ.

:amen ...ignoring some CLEAR verses in favor of others.

 

[watchman F]

These are verses that non-trinitarians and those against the deity of Christ must either ignore or change the meaning of, as has been shown numerous times. The whole point of the doctrine of the Trinity is to make sense of all that Scripture reveals about God and Christ. Every other position that I have come across that is non-trinitarian does violence to the text in some way.

No one is saying (that I can see) that if one doesn't understand the Trinity that one isn't saved. However, salvation is very much based on who Jesus is; that is absolutely central.

Sorry free but to get the Trinity out of scripture you must ignore certain verses that plainly state that the Father is the only true God such as Jesus' statement in John 17:3 and Paul's in 1st Corinthians 8:6. While on the other hand those that deny the deity of Christ are clearly ignoring many passages of scripture that plainly state Jesus is God. The only way that scripture as a whole makes sense in this particular subject is that Jesus is the only true God ''the Father'' in the flesh as the Son.

Both Trinitarians and those that deny Christ's deity are accepting some verses and ignoring others. The Oneness doctrine accept all scripture as equally true.

 

[mondar]

The word "Godhead" is not in the original scripture, but is a interpretation. The term "Godhead" was first introduced by John Wycliffe (1330-1384 C.E.) in English Bible versions as godhede. The word "Godhead" is a translation of three different Greek words, theion (meaning "divinity, deity", # 2304 in Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament) at Acts 17:29, theiot?s (meaning "divinity, divine nature", # 2305 in Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament) at Romans 1:20, and theot?s (meaning "deity", # 2320 in Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament) Both Yahwah and Yahshua were called Lord.

This is a typical example of someone going through a lexicon and then picking and choosing a meaning that fits his preconceived theology. Most words have a semantic range of meaning. Some very technical words do not have a range of meaning. The exact meaning of a word is then set by the context.

As an illustration, if I say "I see the light." I could be referring to the light bulb above my desk. I could be referring to the sunlight coming in the window, I could be referring to an idea you just gave me, or I could be referring to a Bud Light sitting next to your computer. How do you know which "light" I am referring to... context. So read the paragraph above, who cannot agree that the author looked up the word, and is picking and choosing the meaning based upon his own theology instead of the context in which the word was used.... Colossians 2:9.

It was not until Around the sixth century, the word Filioque was added to the Nicene Creed, defining as a doctrinal teaching that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Father and the Son." In Judaism, the idea of God as a duality or trinity is heretical.

Can you show me a Jewish council that even addresses the concept of the trinity and quote from its canons? Please quote some historical sources to show that the Nicean Cannons were amended or changed in any way. Of course Nicea was in the 4th century.

In the only codices which would be even likely to preserve an older reading, namely the Sinaitic Syriac and the oldest Latin Manuscript, the pages are GONE which contained the end of Matthew 28.

What does this have to do with Colossians 2:9? Of course many texts in the scripture have varients. The only greek manuscript you mention that it is missing in is the Sinaiticus. What about the Vatacanus, the Ephraimicus Rescriptus, the Byzantine, and many other codex. What about the Papyrai? You mention the Syriac and Latin, but they are translations themselves and not even greek manuscripts. The fact that varients exist do not mean the reading is not original.

(F.C. Conybeare) Here is the oldest recorded document of Matthew 28:19. "The Demonstratio Evangelica" by Eusebius: Eusebius of Caesarea. 265 ? AD.– 337 ? AD.
Eusebius was the Church historian and Bishop of Caesarea. On page 152 Eusebius quotes the early book of Matthew that he had in his library in Caesarea. According to that eyewitness of an unaltered Book of Matthew that could have been the original book or the first copy of the original of Matthew. Eusebius informs us of Jesus' actual words to his disciples in the original text of Matthew 28:19: "With one word and voice He said to His disciples: "Go, and make disciples of all nations in My Name, teaching them to observe all...

[/quote]
This is probably referring to some papyrai, I am not sure. In any case, 265 aint great, but it aint bad. Check out the OT MSS, it is literally hundreds of years between the autograph and the DSS. What about Tacitus, or other secular documents and their manuscripts, most are like a thousand years. 200 years is a blip in time. By the way, I have doubts that this information is correct.---- I dont have time to do some research, but if I could find a web page with the papyrai we could check it out.

Now real scholarship would list all the papyrai that have a copy of Matthew in it, and show which ones are missing Mat 28:19ff. My guess would be none of them do.

 

[shad]

The Bible nowhere says that the Bible is to be taken as a rule of faith,

Yes, it is written, all Scripture is God breathed.

my point beingyou accept extra-Biblical doctrines (i.e. sola-Scriptura).

The same as the above.

That the Trinity is not spelled out clearly enough for you shouldn't matter, since you accept other doctrines also not clearly spelled out.

I will bring out all clear and simple verses about God and Jesus and their relationship in new thread. Please join me.

Thomas said - "My Lord and My God"
You must deal with the plain, SIMPLE words of Scripture.

Your interpretation is out of context of other clear statements.
That's why it is wrong. Your interpretation is preconceived Trinity doctrine.

 

[Free]

These are verses that non-trinitarians and those against the deity of Christ must either ignore or change the meaning of, as has been shown numerous times. The whole point of the doctrine of the Trinity is to make sense of all that Scripture reveals about God and Christ. Every other position that I have come across that is non-trinitarian does violence to the text in some way.

No one is saying (that I can see) that if one doesn't understand the Trinity that one isn't saved. However, salvation is very much based on who Jesus is; that is absolutely central.

Sorry free but to get the Trinity out of scripture you must ignore certain verses that plainly state that the Father is the only true God such as Jesus' statement in John 17:3 and Paul's in 1st Corinthians 8:6. While on the other hand those that deny the deity of Christ are clearly ignoring many passages of scripture that plainly state Jesus is God. The only way that scripture as a whole makes sense in this particular subject is that Jesus is the only true God ''the Father'' in the flesh as the Son.

Both Trinitarians and those that deny Christ's deity are accepting some verses and ignoring others. The Oneness doctrine accept all scripture as equally true.

Those verses pose no problem, properly understood in light of the entirety of Scripture. Oneness theology ignores plain rules of grammar to make the Father and Son the same person when that clearly cannot be the case.

 

[Mysteryman]

Quote Watchman : "Both Trinitarians and those that deny Christ's deity are accepting some verses and ignoring others."


_____________________________________

:rolling :biglol

 

[Good News Bob]

Do Christians ever say that "Christ is Lord"?

I've heard that Christ saves and Christ redeems.

 

[ORwarriOR]

Yes, the issue is who is a Christian. That has always been the question. The first anti-trinitarians may have been the gnostics. Of course the Early Church Fathers rejected gnostic philosophy. Later the Arians came into being. Historic Christianity has always rejected non-trinitarians as being a part of the faith. I say this not to cause offense, but the truth in this matter is definitional of the term "Christian." The concept of three persons, one being is historically definitional. If I am wrong about Christ being a part of the godhead, then I am not a Christian. I am not worshipping the real and actual God. If you are wrong, then you are not a Christian, and you worship a wrong God. I absolutely admit that I think in those ways because the issue of the trinity is definitional to Christianity.

I disagree very strongly with this. In a world with so many opinions, I don't think this is fair way of looking at things. People are going to have different beliefs because everyone is going to have a different understanding of the scripture, and I don't see that as a bad thing I guess; but when person 1 is saying to person 2 that "My faith is more right than your faith" it takes away from our focus. Our focus is to be disciples of Christ. I think as long as you are talking every effort to become more and more like Christ and worshiping God Almighty, then you have definitely earned your right to call yourself a Christian, no matter how you interpret the scripture.

 

[jasoncran]

i asked my pastor on this, his thought while ignorance of the bible isnt a cause to be rejected, but are we really reading the bible and seeking the lord and lining up our beliefs or the other way around nit picking verses to fit our view. some here are doing just that.

 

[francisdesales]

Your interpretation is out of context of other clear statements.
That's why it is wrong. Your interpretation is preconceived Trinity doctrine.

Hello, Shad.

Do you pray to Jesus?

How we worship helps to determine how we believe...

Regards

 

[shad]

Your interpretation is out of context of other clear statements.
That's why it is wrong. Your interpretation is preconceived Trinity doctrine.

Hello, Shad.

Do you pray to Jesus?

How we worship helps to determine how we believe...

Regards

I pray to God in Jesus' name. That's what Jesus says to do.

I only use clear verses to support my claim so anyone can understand.

 

[Mysteryman]

Your interpretation is out of context of other clear statements.
That's why it is wrong. Your interpretation is preconceived Trinity doctrine.

Hello, Shad.

Do you pray to Jesus?

How we worship helps to determine how we believe...

Regards

_______________

Correct, your last statement speaks volumes.

 

[shad]

Correct, your last statement speaks volumes.

You are speaking too soon. Francis is Catholic and you don't know how he worships.

 

[JudaicChristian]

Yes, the issue is who is a Christian. That has always been the question. The first anti-trinitarians may have been the Gnostic's. Of course the Early Church Fathers rejected gnostic philosophy.

The Judaizing Christians were Anti-Gnostic and Anti-Trinitarian. The word gnostic or gnosis was also used in a derogatory way against anyone who did not agree with Catholicism. There's your clue!

 

[jasoncran]

Yes, the issue is who is a Christian. That has always been the question. The first anti-trinitarians may have been the Gnostic's. Of course the Early Church Fathers rejected gnostic philosophy.

The Judaizing Christians were Anti-Gnostic and Anti-Trinitarian. The word gnostic or gnosis was also used in a derogatory way against anyone who did not agree with Catholicism. There's your clue!

the write of the book of john the gospel dealt with gnostiscm

that is why he dealt with the nature of christ in the first chapter of the book of john.and that was before the name of catholic was used!

 

[JudaicChristian]

the write of the book of john the gospel dealt with gnostiscm

that is why he dealt with the nature of christ in the first chapter of the book of john.and that was before the name of catholic was used!

We are all made in the image of God, and we also are called to be ONE in unity with the Father. There were two different groups of Gnostic's during the first centuries AD. The first group of Gnostic's were opposed to Christianity. The other group of Gnostic's were not opposed, and joined Pagan notions to Christianity. The Gnostic Christians believed in Sunday Sabbath, authority of the Pope, and Trinitarianism, while the Judaizing Christians were opposed to such things as Catholicism [Universalism.]

 

[jasoncran]

odd the second century ones were rejected as well by the disciplines of the apostles as well.

let me see origin was a second century gnostic was rejected by the church as whole as he taught that jesus was spirit only he had no flesh, and that we could sin all we want in the flesh as it wasnt real anyway(sound familair the stoics thought that as well)

 

[mondar]

Yes, the issue is who is a Christian. That has always been the question. The first anti-trinitarians may have been the gnostics. Of course the Early Church Fathers rejected gnostic philosophy. Later the Arians came into being. Historic Christianity has always rejected non-trinitarians as being a part of the faith. I say this not to cause offense, but the truth in this matter is definitional of the term "Christian." The concept of three persons, one being is historically definitional. If I am wrong about Christ being a part of the godhead, then I am not a Christian. I am not worshipping the real and actual God. If you are wrong, then you are not a Christian, and you worship a wrong God. I absolutely admit that I think in those ways because the issue of the trinity is definitional to Christianity.

I disagree very strongly with this. In a world with so many opinions, I don't think this is fair way of looking at things. People are going to have different beliefs because everyone is going to have a different understanding of the scripture, and I don't see that as a bad thing I guess; but when person 1 is saying to person 2 that "My faith is more right than your faith" it takes away from our focus. Our focus is to be disciples of Christ. I think as long as you are talking every effort to become more and more like Christ and worshiping God Almighty, then you have definitely earned your right to call yourself a Christian, no matter how you interpret the scripture.

How do you know your a disciple of Christ? How do you know that you are worshiping God Almighty? If you think God is something less then what he is, and you are wrong, are you a blasphemer? If I say God is a little green Leprechaun, and he hides behind one of the violets in the yard, and I worship him, would you still say my faith is equal to yours?

Sir, your view of truth is very new age and not Christian at all. You say that...
"People are going to have different beliefs because everyone is going to have a different understanding of the scripture, and I don't see that as a bad thing I guess;"
Words have meaning. Words penned long ago by those who recorded the words of the prophets and apostles were understood in their language and culture. The words I am writing now have a specific meaning that does not have different meanings, it has a specific meaning. If you get some minor issue wrong, that is one thing. I have many brothers in the Lord that disagree with me on paedo baptism. I believe in believers baptism. While they are my Christian brother, one who redefines who God is, is not my Christian brother.

1Jn 2:22 Who is the liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, even he that denieth the Father and the Son.
1Jn 2:23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: he that confesseth the Son hath the Father also.

 

[JudaicChristian]

odd the second century ones were rejected as well by the disciplines of the apostles as well.

let me see origin was a second century gnostic was rejected by the church as whole as he taught that jesus was spirit only he had no flesh, and that we could sin all we want in the flesh as it wasnt real anyway(sound familair the stoics thought that as well)

Origin and Arius later rejected Gnosticism. Some Gnostics's converted to Christian Judaism. {Judaizing Christians}