What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Is the Trinity biblical? Is Jesus really God?

Is this article saying the truth about the Trinity?

  • Total voters
    5
Free said:
I have given you where. You keep asking where "2" is in the Bible. I have shown you how 1+1=2, yet you don't even address my points and continue to ask me to show you were 2 is. If you can't see how 1+1=2, then there is nothing more I can say to help you.
Click to expand...
you didnt give me anythig you dodged the question. there is not a passage where the Most High calls Himself "son of". Jesus calls himself that, if you want to imply this is Jesus calling Himself the Most High you cant establish it with the exact same scripture.


This shows that you are not at all reading what I am saying. I very clearly said, "You will notice that the meaning of monogenes includes "only" and "unique." Regardless, the use of monogenes supports what I have been saying." I never "chose" anything. I merely pointed out that it does include those definitions. That is why some translations simply have "one" or "one and only." There is nothing mind-boggling about simply pointing things out. Not to mention that "only" has nothing to do with "son of;" "only" is a meaning of monogenes, "son of" is not.

Again, the Bible makes abundantly clear Jesus is the only Son of God in a sense that is vastly different than any other referred to as a son of God.
Click to expand...
this i agree. Jesus is unique, above all other sons, but not the only son.

Every passage fits the context of the doctrine of the Trinity, and only the doctrine of the Trinity.
Click to expand...
they only fit when you change the meaning of the words. when the Most High says He is not a man you have to change the "NOT" to mean "sometimes". as long as we keep doing that for all those passages the theology works.

then you have the logical arguments, the trinity is the debate of all debates, yet when Jesus was teaching not once did anyone ever test Him on this. the hottest subject ever and there is no mention of it are you kidding?? its as if the idea didnt exist at that time.

you also have the fruits of the trinity which are not so good. lots of death bloodshed and division over this.
 
jaybird said:
you didnt give me anythig you dodged the question. there is not a passage where the Most High calls Himself "son of". Jesus calls himself that, if you want to imply this is Jesus calling Himself the Most High you cant establish it with the exact same scripture.
Click to expand...
I've answered you twice already. It is not I who is dodging. You are continually refusing to reply to the points I am making, instead simply repeating the same question. Please go back and read my posts to you. This is beyond tiresome, although this is what happens every single time with anti-Trinitarians.

jaybird said:
this i agree. Jesus is unique, above all other sons, but not the only son.
Click to expand...
Then you should agree that Jesus is the only Son--uncreated, deity, and equal with the Father. Every other use of "son of God" refers to creatures.

jaybird said:
they only fit when you change the meaning of the words. when the Most High says He is not a man you have to change the "NOT" to mean "sometimes". as long as we keep doing that for all those passages the theology works.
Click to expand...
Not at all. As I have stated already, the doctrine of the Trinity exists precisely because of all that the Bible reveals about God. Your position is not based on all that the Bible reveals about God. And that erroneous use of that passage has been dealt with. Please stop using it and move on.

jaybird said:
then you have the logical arguments, the trinity is the debate of all debates, yet when Jesus was teaching not once did anyone ever test Him on this. the hottest subject ever and there is no mention of it are you kidding?? its as if the idea didnt exist at that time.
Click to expand...
Jesus claimed to be God and claimed equality with the Father. Three times the Jews wanted to kill Jesus because in claiming to be the Son of God, he was making himself equal to God, the Father. I have pointed this out to you previously as well and you have failed to address it.

jaybird said:
you also have the fruits of the trinity which are not so good. lots of death bloodshed and division over this.
Click to expand...
It happened on all sides but it completely and utterly irrelevant as to whether or not God is triune.
 
jaybird said:
men are not 100% G-D.
Click to expand...
This is begging the question. Of course men aren't; no one is suggesting otherwise. But Scripture quite clearly shows us that Jesus is equal to the Father, making him God just as the Father is God--the God-man.
 
Free said:
I've answered you twice already. It is not I who is dodging. You are continually refusing to reply to the points I am making, instead simply repeating the same question. Please go back and read my posts to you. This is beyond tiresome, although this is what happens every single time with anti-Trinitarians.
Click to expand...
i have replied to many of your points. and i am still waiting on the scripture where the Most High calls Himself "son of". you have yet to give one

Then you should agree that Jesus is the only Son--uncreated, deity, and equal with the Father. Every other use of "son of God" refers to creatures.
Click to expand...
i agree Jesus is unique, everything else is nothing but doctrine added to scripture.

Not at all. As I have stated already, the doctrine of the Trinity exists precisely because of all that the Bible reveals about God. Your position is not based on all that the Bible reveals about God. And that erroneous use of that passage has been dealt with. Please stop using it and move on.
Click to expand...
i wouldnt like that passage either if it blew up my theology. and no you never dealt with it, you simply ignored it. saying the passage is about lying, and ignoring the example used to establish He does not lie is ignoring.


Jesus claimed to be God and claimed equality with the Father. Three times the Jews wanted to kill Jesus because in claiming to be the Son of God, he was making himself equal to God, the Father. I have pointed this out to you previously as well and you have failed to address it.
Click to expand...
if Jesus was claiming to be the Most High then it makes no sense for Jesus to refer to Psalm 82. those gods mentioned in the psalm are not all Most Highs.
when Jesus is on trial He is not accused of claiming to be the Most High, He is accused of claiming to be the Christ and Son of the Most High. if the Jews thought "Son of" meant Most High, then there should be a scripture somewhere where the people of Israel are praising, worshiping or praying to the son of the Most High. but again, there is not one.
and if the pharisees didnt believe Jesus then it shouldnt make a difference on the idea itself. the idea that the Christ is the Most High in a human form. and this idea is absent from all the discussions, it never pops up until around 300 years later and the process never completed until about 600 years later.
It happened on all sides but it completely and utterly irrelevant as to whether or not God is triune.
Click to expand...
there are no examples in history of non trins attacking, killing destroying trin Christians. we do have examples of Cathar (non trins) living side by side with trin Christians with no problems until the trin Christians decided to declare a crusade against them and slaughters them like animals.
the fruits of a doctrine are very relevant. Jesus taught this.
 
Papa Zoom said:
Jaybird, the Bible teaches that Jesus was fully God and fully man. It's the orthodox view of the Church. This has been the understanding from the beginning. Were you taught differently?
Click to expand...
i thought the bible taught that the Most High can not be tempted and that Jesus was tempted?
i do fully understand that church councils teach that Jesus was fully the Most High and fully man. but IMO church councils are not scripture.
its interesting to me that in Judaism there is no mention of godmen, Jews consider this a pagan concept, the empire that subjugated Judea was pagan and believed in godmen, then that empire becomes "Christian", then they give us new doctrines, and one of these doctrines establishes a godman. and how do they spread this doctrine, through fear and terror. non trinatarianism was the number one leading judgment for those that were burned alive.
how many did Jesus and the 12 burn alive?
 
jaybird said:
then he was not a man
Click to expand...
Yes Jesus was clearly a man. Yes Jesus Christ is Deity.

Colossians 2: NIV
8 See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces of this world rather than on Christ.

9 For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, 10 and in Christ you have been brought to fullness.

How much more "full" Does Jesus Christ need to be for you?
 
Pegasus said:
Yes Jesus was clearly a man. Yes Jesus Christ is Deity.

Colossians 2: NIV
8 See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces of this world rather than on Christ.

9 For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, 10 and in Christ you have been brought to fullness.

How much more "full" Does Jesus Christ need to be for you?
Click to expand...
if he was fully the Most High then He was not a man because men are not the Most High.
 
Papa Zoom said:
It's the orthodox view of the Church.
Click to expand...
there is one thing i would like to add. yes it is the orthodox view. and it became orthodox during a time when common people were prevented from reading the scriptures for themselves.

This has been the understanding from the beginning. Were you taught differently?
Click to expand...
they were debating this in the very beginning. it was not accepted by everyone.
i was raised baptist, about 10 years back i strted reading and studying the bible for myself and noticed many things i was taught did not line up with scripture. i did my best to reset my brain back to factory defaults and re learned the bible.
 
Pegasus said:
The apostle Paul disagrees with you as I pointed out in Colossians 2:9.
Click to expand...
in Jesus dwells the Most High is not the same as saying Jesus is the Most High. i dont disagree with Paul but i do respectfully disagree with your thoughts on that passage.

Is your view Jesus was just a man?
Click to expand...
i believe Jesus was a man, scripture says He was a man. what He was before He came here is the grey area. He was a Son of the Most High, and He was above the other sons of the Most High. beyond that im not sure. i dont like saying He is above or equal to the Father when Jesus Himself says the Father is greater.
there is no question Jesus was something very special before He came here but IMO i believe its more than just saying He is the Most High. i think the truth is more complex.
 
jaybird said:
there is one thing i would like to add. yes it is the orthodox view. and it became orthodox during a time when common people were prevented from reading the scriptures for themselves.


they were debating this in the very beginning. it was not accepted by everyone.
i was raised baptist, about 10 years back i strted reading and studying the bible for myself and noticed many things i was taught did not line up with scripture. i did my best to reset my brain back to factory defaults and re learned the bible.
Click to expand...

There are issues with this method.
(Not that I completely agree with all Baptist traditional theology)
But when setting out to understand why you believe what you believe by going back to the source scriptures and using some blend of Hermeneutics one must be properly trained to understand why the words on the page we're written in the manner they were written.
The big proverbial elephant in the room is always anthropology. Today in our post Westernised Roman mindset it isn't as easy as it appears. Translational difficulties also come into the mix.

And when you quoted the history of the Early Church...you missed the part of history that mentioned that the gnostics also were somehow also present at the discussion of declaration of the Trinity. Of course these guys were not going to have a proper view of God and holy behavior. They had sinful lifestyles they wished to continue to have.

Jesus regularly referred to himself as "The Son of Man". This is His own statement concerning his deity. Which is another anthropology thingy. It basically meant that Jesus was fully God AND fully Man at the same time.
 
jaybird said:
what He was before He came here is the grey area. He was a Son of the Most High, and He was above the other sons of the Most High.
Click to expand...

What other sons of the Most High? Please use the Scripture that supports your claim there were other sons of the Most High before He “came here”.

What Scripture leads you to believe He was “above” these other sons of the Most High?

Why do you believe He is called the son of the Most High?
 
JohnDB said:
There are issues with this method.
(Not that I completely agree with all Baptist traditional theology)
But when setting out to understand why you believe what you believe by going back to the source scriptures and using some blend of Hermeneutics one must be properly trained to understand why the words on the page we're written in the manner they were written.
Click to expand...
i am only a baptist by birth and culture. i dont base my theology off what baptist think. if i consider thoughts of others i would go all the way back to the early Nazarenes and Essenes.

properly trained by who? in the end the only teacher you can trust is the spirit leading you correctly.

The big proverbial elephant in the room is always anthropology. Today in our post Westernised Roman mindset it isn't as easy as it appears. Translational difficulties also come into the mix.

And when you quoted the history of the Early Church...you missed the part of history that mentioned that the gnostics also were somehow also present at the discussion of declaration of the Trinity. Of course these guys were not going to have a proper view of God and holy behavior. They had sinful lifestyles they wished to continue to have.
Click to expand...
the great thing about gnostics, if you dont like them, is they didnt have universal theology and creeds. gnostic beliefs went from one end of the spectrum to the other. i like some of their ideas and some are really out there. im still looking for a gnostic expert to explain the demiurge concept and yet to find one.

Jesus regularly referred to himself as "The Son of Man". This is His own statement concerning his deity. Which is another anthropology thingy. It basically meant that Jesus was fully God AND fully Man at the same time.
Click to expand...
i would say Jesus used this on Himself to say He was man and one of us. He wanted us to believe if He could do it we could do it. if Jesus was not one of us then He wouldnt be an example.
 
chessman said:
What other sons of the Most High? Please use the Scripture that supports your claim there were other sons of the Most High before He “came here”.
Click to expand...
the ones that sang at creation in Job would be one

What Scripture leads you to believe He was “above” these other sons of the Most High?
Why do you believe He is called the son of the Most High?
Click to expand...
because the others are not begotten
because His Father is the Most High
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top