Is the Trinity biblical? Is Jesus really God?

[JohnDB]

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 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.


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.

Training needs to come from experts in their fields of history, geography, and anthropology in the Ancient Near East...not the guy who claims to be an expert but whose last research paper was on how aliens moved the lost city of Atlantis to another dimension.
And I'd dare say that your physician wasn't trained by some miracle of osmosis or emanations from the penumbra...he went to school. Otherwise you wouldn't see him for your average sinus infection.

Then we have the gnostics whom were started by Nicolas... AKA Nicolaitans.
Their major malfunction was that since Jesus was fully God he wasn't really human and therefore since He wasn't Human it's only our spirit that matters instead of what our flesh does.... Meaning that you can do whatever so long as you claim to be a Christian with good intentions and you are golden as far as God cares. Nothing could be further from the truth. (And we have tons of those sorts to this day)

To be just like Jesus is an aspiration...not something that I will accomplish in my lifetime...I've already blown it so much that there's little chance that I can do what He did.
But I get accused of being a Christian on a regular basis. I take it as a compliment regardless of what they intended.

 

[Justicewolf]

Well, when God's words tell us repeatedly that Jesus was God, that should settle it against any cross argument that claims God never told the scribes to write that part of his truth down. Don't ya think?

 

[chessman]

the ones that sang at creation in Job would be one

when the morning stars were singing together and all the sons of God shouted for joy?​

Job 38:7 - https://www.biblegateway.com/passage?search=Job 38:7&version=LEB

These are stars/planets. It’s poetic language.

because the others are not begotten

So He’s the only begotten of the Father then, right?

The one who believes in him is not judged, but the one who does not believe has already been judged, because he has not believed in the name of the one and only Son of God. And this is the judgment: that the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light, because their deeds were evil. For everyone who practices evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds be exposed. But the one who practices the truth comes to the light, in order that his deeds may be revealed, that they are done in God.​

John 3:18-21 - https://www.biblegateway.com/passage?search=John 3:18-21&version=LEB

The only name someone can believe in and not be judged evil.

because His Father is the Most High

Close.

And behold— you will conceive in your womb and give-birth to a son. And you shall call His name Jesus. This One will be great, and will be called ‘Son of the Most-High’. And the Lord God will give Him the throne of David, His father.
...
And having responded, the angel said to her, “ The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most-High will overshadow you. For this reason also the Holy Child being born will be called God’s Son.​

Luke 1:31-32,35 - https://www.biblegateway.com/passage?search=Luke 1:31-32,35&version=DLNT

He’s called the Son of the Most High because The Holy Spirit came upon Mary and also because He will sit on the Throne of David.

And all the angels stood around the throne and the elders and the four living creatures, and they fell down on their faces before the throne and worshiped God, saying, “Amen! Praise and glory, and wisdom and thanksgiving, and honor and power and strength be to our God forever and ever. Amen!”​

Revelation 7:11-12 - https://www.biblegateway.com/passage?search=Revelation 7:11-12&version=LEB

 

[Runner]

I recently re-read all the letters in the NT - i.e., all of the NT except the four Gospels and Revelation - specifically with an eye toward any verses suggesting the Trinity. Bear in mind, the letters include the earliest NT writings. I found - wait for it - nothing. It is indeed quite remarkable how carefully the authors distinguish between God and Jesus the Son, the first-born of creation, the Lord of creation, and the Lord of their lives. This is a very high Christology, but not one in which Jesus occupies the same level as God. If I had never heard of the Trinity and had no predisposition one way or the other, I would come away from these letters with precisely the same understanding of Jesus as - wait for it - the Jehovah's Witnesses.

I have mentioned before that I am struck by how many of the really divisive doctrines - those that divide Christians and that cause the biggest disconnect between Christianity and other religions - have either their sole support or by far their greatest support in the Gospel of John or Revelation, two books that are pretty distinctly out of synch with the rest of the NT. I happen to love the Gospel of John because it is the most esoteric and intellectual of the Gospels, but I am skeptical of doctrines that have their foundation in it.

The Trinity may be a useful way of thinking about the Father, Son and Spirit, but it was not found in earliest Christianity and was pretty clearly not taught by Jesus. Hence, I do not believe that those who reject the Trinity can be characterized as non-Christian on this basis. It is a man-made doctrine, not really formalized until the fourth century (and then only to settle controversies that were then raging). If I had to bet my own money, my bet would be that Jesus would be more likely to find the doctrine "blasphemous" than "correct."

I have said in other posts that I accept the Trinity, but I am increasingly recognizing that I really don't accept it in any sense other than "a way of thinking and talking about mysterious relationships that are completely outside our frame of reference." Thinking about the mysterious relationships in this way is probably harmless even if the doctrine is incorrect, but this is one instance where I find my own thinking more in line with that of the Jehovah's Witnesses - not because this is what the JW's believe, because I have no affiliation whatsoever with them, but because I believe this is what the best evidence supports.

 

[jaybird]

when the morning stars were singing together and all the sons of God shouted for joy?​

Job 38:7 - https://www.biblegateway.com/passage?search=Job 38:7&version=LEB

These are stars/planets. It’s poetic language.

its symbolic, it means something, i dont think anything in the bible is arbitrary. none the less its a strange passage, it mentions morning stars and sons of the Most High.

So He’s the only begotten of the Father then, right?

The one who believes in him is not judged, but the one who does not believe has already been judged, because he has not believed in the name of the one and only Son of God. And this is the judgment: that the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light, because their deeds were evil. For everyone who practices evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds be exposed. But the one who practices the truth comes to the light, in order that his deeds may be revealed, that they are done in God.​

John 3:18-21 - https://www.biblegateway.com/passage?search=John 3:18-21&version=LEB

The only name someone can believe in and not be judged evil.


Close.

And behold— you will conceive in your womb and give-birth to a son. And you shall call His name Jesus. This One will be great, and will be called ‘Son of the Most-High’. And the Lord God will give Him the throne of David, His father.
...
And having responded, the angel said to her, “ The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most-High will overshadow you. For this reason also the Holy Child being born will be called God’s Son.​

Luke 1:31-32,35 - https://www.biblegateway.com/passage?search=Luke 1:31-32,35&version=DLNT

He’s called the Son of the Most High because The Holy Spirit came upon Mary and also because He will sit on the Throne of David.

And all the angels stood around the throne and the elders and the four living creatures, and they fell down on their faces before the throne and worshiped God, saying, “Amen! Praise and glory, and wisdom and thanksgiving, and honor and power and strength be to our God forever and ever. Amen!”​

Revelation 7:11-12 - https://www.biblegateway.com/passage?search=Revelation 7:11-12&version=LEB

these two points i agree with.

 

[jaybird]

Training needs to come from experts in their fields of history, geography, and anthropology in the Ancient Near East...not the guy who claims to be an expert but whose last research paper was on how aliens moved the lost city of Atlantis to another dimension.
And I'd dare say that your physician wasn't trained by some miracle of osmosis or emanations from the penumbra...he went to school. Otherwise you wouldn't see him for your average sinus infection.

we all need a good teacher but there has to be a day to graduate and start thinking for yourself. i think this is a big issue in the faith today.

Then we have the gnostics whom were started by Nicolas... AKA Nicolaitans.
Their major malfunction was that since Jesus was fully God he wasn't really human and therefore since He wasn't Human it's only our spirit that matters instead of what our flesh does.... Meaning that you can do whatever so long as you claim to be a Christian with good intentions and you are golden as far as God cares. Nothing could be further from the truth. (And we have tons of those sorts to this day)

gnostics were way to diverse to be tied down to one person. many of their thoughts go back to akhenaten 1500 bc

To be just like Jesus is an aspiration...not something that I will accomplish in my lifetime...I've already blown it so much that there's little chance that I can do what He did.

didnt the disciples come to Jesus with those same problems, He told them to have greater faith.

 

[sunfly]

I saw the moderator note that there was an edit and I guess that is why no video.
To the question itself, yes. Jesus may have looked like his mother but, he had his holy fathers blood.

 

[chessman]

its symbolic, it means something,

What do think it means?
What is the similarity that the stars/planets have with the only-begotten (unique) Son, versus the Scripture I posted that tells us the reasons Jesus is called the Son of God?

 

[jaybird]

I recently re-read all the letters in the NT - i.e., all of the NT except the four Gospels and Revelation - specifically with an eye toward any verses suggesting the Trinity. Bear in mind, the letters include the earliest NT writings. I found - wait for it - nothing. It is indeed quite remarkable how carefully the authors distinguish between God and Jesus the Son, the first-born of creation, the Lord of creation, and the Lord of their lives. This is a very high Christology, but not one in which Jesus occupies the same level as God. If I had never heard of the Trinity and had no predisposition one way or the other, I would come away from these letters with precisely the same understanding of Jesus as - wait for it - the Jehovah's Witnesses.

I have mentioned before that I am struck by how many of the really divisive doctrines - those that divide Christians and that cause the biggest disconnect between Christianity and other religions - have either their sole support or by far their greatest support in the Gospel of John or Revelation, two books that are pretty distinctly out of synch with the rest of the NT. I happen to love the Gospel of John because it is the most esoteric and intellectual of the Gospels, but I am skeptical of doctrines that have their foundation in it.

The Trinity may be a useful way of thinking about the Father, Son and Spirit, but it was not found in earliest Christianity and was pretty clearly not taught by Jesus. Hence, I do not believe that those who reject the Trinity can be characterized as non-Christian on this basis. It is a man-made doctrine, not really formalized until the fourth century (and then only to settle controversies that were then raging). If I had to bet my own money, my bet would be that Jesus would be more likely to find the doctrine "blasphemous" than "correct."

I have said in other posts that I accept the Trinity, but I am increasingly recognizing that I really don't accept it in any sense other than "a way of thinking and talking about mysterious relationships that are completely outside our frame of reference." Thinking about the mysterious relationships in this way is probably harmless even if the doctrine is incorrect, but this is one instance where I find my own thinking more in line with that of the Jehovah's Witnesses - not because this is what the JW's believe, because I have no affiliation whatsoever with them, but because I believe this is what the best evidence supports.

those are some good thoughts and well thought out.

and then only to settle controversies that were then raging

this is one of the most sensible reasons for the doctrine IMO. outside of that i dont see what purpose it serves.

this made me think of something else, why was Israel not infested with heresies like the Christian world was?

 

[jaybird]

What do think it means?
What is the similarity that the stars/planets have with the only-begotten (unique) Son, versus the Scripture I posted that tells us the reasons Jesus is called the Son of God?

i dont know what it means. the stars and planets singing is a thought that makes me seek. Jesus and Satan are both called morning stars. Jesus is Lord, Satan once held i high position, some think Paul referred to Satan as god of this world, maybe its talking about Jesus and Satan, who knows.

 

[Free]

i have replied to many of your points.

No, you have not. Merely putting words down does not constitute a reply.

and i am still waiting on the scripture where the Most High calls Himself "son of". you have yet to give one

I've given them to you twice. Jesus is God, he calls himself the Son of God, therefore, God (or perhaps better, one of the Godhead) has referred to himself as the "Son of God." 1+1=2.

i agree Jesus is unique, everything else is nothing but doctrine added to scripture.

Jesus is the Son of God in that he is uncreated. Have you studied the use of "Son of God" as it pertains to Jesus and noted the context?

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.

I said more than that. If you would read what I actually write, that would be helpful to this conversation. In regards to that verse, I previously stated: "He is not a creature, a created being. He is not like men that lie. God the Son became God in human flesh and remains that way," and "actually consider when God said this--prior to the Incarnation." And, yes, in context, the main point of that verse is that God does not lie like men do.

To use that verse as a prooftext to say that God can never be a man, is completely erroneous; a gross misuse of that verse. Not to mention that ultimately is taken out of the context of the entirety of Scripture.

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.

Are you ever going to at least try and understand what I have been saying? You agree with me that Jesus is unique, yet ignore that the Bible says he is the only Son of God. Based on his uniqueness, I have argued that language used of Jesus takes on a more significant meaning than when it is used of created men or angels. I have also suggested that you study each instance in the gospels where Jesus is referred to as the Son of God and note the circumstances, as that will support my argument here.

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.

You simply cannot be studying the Scriptures. As I clearly stated previously, at least three times the Jews stated that Jesus's claim to be the Son of God was Jesus making himself equal to the Father.

Joh 5:16 And this was why the Jews were persecuting Jesus, because he was doing these things on the Sabbath.
Joh 5:17 But Jesus answered them, “My Father is working until now, and I am working.”
Joh 5:18 This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God. (ESV)

Joh 10:30 I and the Father are one.”
Joh 10:31 The Jews picked up stones again to stone him.
Joh 10:32 Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?”
Joh 10:33 The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.”
...
Joh 10:35 If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be broken—
Joh 10:36 do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? (ESV)

Joh 19:6 When the chief priests and the officers saw him, they cried out, “Crucify him, crucify him!” Pilate said to them, “Take him yourselves and crucify him, for I find no guilt in him.”
Joh 19:7 The Jews answered him, “We have a law, and according to that law he ought to die because he has made himself the Son of God.”
Joh 19:8 When Pilate heard this statement, he was even more afraid. (ESV)

As for worshiping Jesus (all ESV):

Mat 14:31 Jesus immediately reached out his hand and took hold of him, saying to him, “O you of little faith, why did you doubt?”
Mat 14:32 And when they got into the boat, the wind ceased.
Mat 14:33 And those in the boat worshiped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.” (<--There is one instance I was talking about; note the circumstances)

Mat 28:9 And behold, Jesus met them and said, “Greetings!” And they came up and took hold of his feet and worshiped him.
Mat 28:10 Then Jesus said to them, “Do not be afraid; go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee, and there they will see me.”
...
Mat 28:16 Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them.
Mat 28:17 And when they saw him they worshiped him, but some doubted.

Luk 24:50 And he led them out as far as Bethany, and lifting up his hands he blessed them.
Luk 24:51 While he blessed them, he parted from them and was carried up into heaven.
Luk 24:52 And they worshiped him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy,

Joh 9:37 Jesus said to him, “You have seen him, and it is he who is speaking to you.”
Joh 9:38 He said, “Lord, I believe,” and he worshiped him.

Joh 20:28 Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!”

You say "not one," I have just shown you six.

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.

This is not true. The idea can be seen in early church writings, beginning at least in the early second century. And it is in those writings because it is in the Bible, most notably in Phil 2:5-8:

Php 2:5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,
Php 2:6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
Php 2:7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.
Php 2:8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. (ESV)

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.

"However, the Vandals tried for several decades to force their Arian beliefs on their North African Nicene subjects, exiling Nicene clergy, dissolving monasteries, and exercising heavy pressure on non-conforming Nicene Christians."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism

"Persecutions Under the Arian Heretics
The author of the Arian heresy was Arius, a native of Lybia, and a priest of Alexandria, who, in A.D. 318, began to publish his errors. He was condemned by a council of Lybian and Egyptian bishops, and that sentence was confirmed by the Council of Nice, A.D. 325. After the death of Constantine the Great, the Arians found means to ingratiate themselves into the favor of the emperor Constantinus, his son and successor in the east; and hence a persecution was raised against the orthodox bishops and clergy. The celebrated Athanasius, and other bishops, were banished, and their sees filled with Arians.
In Egypt and Lybia, thirty bishops were martyred, and many other Christians cruelly tormented; and, A.D. 386, George, the Arian bishop of Alexandria, under the authority of the emperor, began a persecution in that city and its environs, and carried it on with the most infernal severity. He was assisted in his diabolical malice by Catophonius, governor of Egypt; Sebastian, general of the Egyptian forces; Faustinus, the treasurer; and Heraclius, a Roman officer.
The persecutions now raged in such a manner that the clergy were driven from Alexandria, their churches were shut, and the severities practiced by the Arian heretics were as great as those that had been practiced by the pagan idolaters. If a man, accused of being a Christian, made his escape, then his whole family were massacred, and his effects confiscated."
https://www.biblestudytools.com/his...rs/persecutions-under-the-arian-heretics.html

 

[Free]

I recently re-read all the letters in the NT - i.e., all of the NT except the four Gospels and Revelation - specifically with an eye toward any verses suggesting the Trinity. Bear in mind, the letters include the earliest NT writings. I found - wait for it - nothing. It is indeed quite remarkable how carefully the authors distinguish between God and Jesus the Son, the first-born of creation, the Lord of creation, and the Lord of their lives. This is a very high Christology, but not one in which Jesus occupies the same level as God. If I had never heard of the Trinity and had no predisposition one way or the other, I would come away from these letters with precisely the same understanding of Jesus as - wait for it - the Jehovah's Witnesses.

Those are some rather stunning claims given that even the Jews understood Jesus as making himself equal with God, Jesus's claims to be God, and Jesus being worshiped as God (which he did nothing to deny or discourage, unlike the apostles and angels). And that is only the gospels. There are, of course, significant theological issues relating to the atonement if Jesus was a mere creature.

Of course, there has been someone on here in the past that said as soon as they became a Christian and started reading the Bible, they could clearly see that God was triune. So your word against his.

I have mentioned before that I am struck by how many of the really divisive doctrines - those that divide Christians and that cause the biggest disconnect between Christianity and other religions - have either their sole support or by far their greatest support in the Gospel of John or Revelation, two books that are pretty distinctly out of synch with the rest of the NT. I happen to love the Gospel of John because it is the most esoteric and intellectual of the Gospels, but I am skeptical of doctrines that have their foundation in it.

The Trinity may be a useful way of thinking about the Father, Son and Spirit, but it was not found in earliest Christianity and was pretty clearly not taught by Jesus. Hence, I do not believe that those who reject the Trinity can be characterized as non-Christian on this basis. It is a man-made doctrine, not really formalized until the fourth century (and then only to settle controversies that were then raging). If I had to bet my own money, my bet would be that Jesus would be more likely to find the doctrine "blasphemous" than "correct."

While the Trinity wasn't common doctrine, the foundations of the doctrine--namely, the deity of Jesus and his distinctness from the Father--were there from at least early second century, as seen in early Christian writings. The Trinity is a doctrine that is discovered in Scripture and only by men discovering it can it be said to be man-made. The doctrine best takes into account all that the Scriptures reveal about God.

Who Jesus is, is everything.

 

[th1b.taylor]

I saw the moderator note that there was an edit and I guess that is why no video.
To the question itself, yes. Jesus may have looked like his mother but, he had his holy fathers blood.

No, no, Mary Has never worn a narly looking beard, that is Jesus or it's that old kook, Bill Taylor.

 

[chessman]

i dont know what it means. the stars and planets singing is a thought that makes me seek.

Oh, I thought maybe you did know what what it means since you referred to it an answer to my question;

What other sons of the Most High?

 

[sunfly]

No, no, Mary Has never worn a narly looking beard, that is Jesus or it's that old kook, Bill Taylor.

 

[jaybird]

I've given them to you twice. Jesus is God, he calls himself the Son of God, therefore, God (or perhaps better, one of the Godhead) has referred to himself as the "Son of God." 1+1=2.

sorry but you have not. your argument is when Jesus calls Himself Son of the Most High He is claiming to be the Most High, and your scripture to establish this point is the exact same scripture. sorry but thats not how it works. all this does is establish that Jesus calls Himself "son of" it does not establish the meaning of the term.

I said more than that. If you would read what I actually write, that would be helpful to this conversation. In regards to that verse, I previously stated: "He is not a creature, a created being. He is not like men that lie. God the Son became God in human flesh and remains that way," and "actually consider when God said this--prior to the Incarnation." And, yes, in context, the main point of that verse is that God does not lie like men do.

To use that verse as a prooftext to say that God can never be a man, is completely erroneous; a gross misuse of that verse. Not to mention that ultimately is taken out of the context of the entirety of Scripture.

so when the Most High says He is not a man, to understand that scripture to mean the Most High is not a man is a misuse? and the proper use is to accept it to mean the Most High is sometimes a man? i dont agree

Are you ever going to at least try and understand what I have been saying? You agree with me that Jesus is unique, yet ignore that the Bible says he is the only Son of God. Based on his uniqueness, I have argued that language used of Jesus takes on a more significant meaning than when it is used of created men or angels. I have also suggested that you study each instance in the gospels where Jesus is referred to as the Son of God and note the circumstances, as that will support my argument here.

the bible says He is the only begotten Son. i believe all those that follow Jesus are sons just like Jesus teaches.

You simply cannot be studying the Scriptures. As I clearly stated previously, at least three times the Jews stated that Jesus's claim to be the Son of God was Jesus making himself equal to the Father.

Joh 5:16 And this was why the Jews were persecuting Jesus, because he was doing these things on the Sabbath.
Joh 5:17 But Jesus answered them, “My Father is working until now, and I am working.”
Joh 5:18 This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God. (ESV)

Joh 10:30 I and the Father are one.”
Joh 10:31 The Jews picked up stones again to stone him.
Joh 10:32 Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?”
Joh 10:33 The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.”
...
Joh 10:35 If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be broken—
Joh 10:36 do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? (ESV)

Joh 19:6 When the chief priests and the officers saw him, they cried out, “Crucify him, crucify him!” Pilate said to them, “Take him yourselves and crucify him, for I find no guilt in him.”
Joh 19:7 The Jews answered him, “We have a law, and according to that law he ought to die because he has made himself the Son of God.”
Joh 19:8 When Pilate heard this statement, he was even more afraid. (ESV)

they accused Him of blasphemy, first of all blasphemy is profaning the name which He did not do so the the blasphemy in question would be Jesus IMO accused of breaking a doctrine (not agreeing with a doctrine how ironic) and not a command from scripture. the blasphemy in question, for making Himself "theos"? so what does that mean? theos can mean the Most High or god. so which was Jesus claiming? He tells us in the same passage:
do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?

if Jesus was claiming to be the Most High He would have said exactly that, He does not, He says "Son of" the Most High. Son of the Most High is not the Most High. are sons of the Most High gods, according to psalm 82 sons of the Most High are gods. Jesus even quotes this passage to His accusers when questioned about who He is.

the pharisees could have just as well been accusing Him of being a god like the gods mentioned in psalm 82. if however they were accusing Him of claiming to be the Most High, Jesus does not confirm this as He says "Son of" the Most High.

IMO its far more likely they were all talking about sons of the Most High as this interpretation fits both the accusers and the accused, not Most High as this interpretation only fits one side of the argument.

As for worshiping Jesus (all ESV):

Mat 14:31 Jesus immediately reached out his hand and took hold of him, saying to him, “O you of little faith, why did you doubt?”
Mat 14:32 And when they got into the boat, the wind ceased.
Mat 14:33 And those in the boat worshiped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.” (<--There is one instance I was talking about; note the circumstances)

Mat 28:9 And behold, Jesus met them and said, “Greetings!” And they came up and took hold of his feet and worshiped him.
Mat 28:10 Then Jesus said to them, “Do not be afraid; go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee, and there they will see me.”
...
Mat 28:16 Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them.
Mat 28:17 And when they saw him they worshiped him, but some doubted.

Luk 24:50 And he led them out as far as Bethany, and lifting up his hands he blessed them.
Luk 24:51 While he blessed them, he parted from them and was carried up into heaven.
Luk 24:52 And they worshiped him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy,

Joh 9:37 Jesus said to him, “You have seen him, and it is he who is speaking to you.”
Joh 9:38 He said, “Lord, I believe,” and he worshiped him.

Joh 20:28 Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!”

You say "not one," I have just shown you six.

you showed six times He was worshiped, none show how He was worshiped, was He worshiped as king, Christ, the Most High, all three? ther is no way to know. we know in other passages angels and kings are worshiped. to say He was worshiped as the Most High is an assumption, you could be correct, im not saying your wrong, but im also not seeing Jesus worshiped as the Most High. when the lady called Him good Jesus didnt tell her she made a wise statement like He did with all other correct answers, He corrected her and said only one is good.had Jesus accepted worship as the Most High then it only makes sense Jesus would have accepted the lady calling Him good.

This is not true. The idea can be seen in early church writings, beginning at least in the early second century. And it is in those writings because it is in the Bible, most notably in Phil 2:5-8:

Php 2:5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,
Php 2:6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
Php 2:7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.
Php 2:8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. (ESV)

those early writings are of Jesus and His divine nature, they are not about the trinity. and none of these are detailed explanations, nothing close to the doctrine which is a detailed explanation.

"However, the Vandals tried for several decades to force their Arian beliefs on their North African Nicene subjects, exiling Nicene clergy, dissolving monasteries, and exercising heavy pressure on non-conforming Nicene Christians."
"Persecutions Under the Arian Heretics
i had to clip this out to get the post under 1000

[/QUOTE]i forgot about the vandals and the fact they were in fact followers of Arius making them non trins. its a bit different than Arius ordering a crusade against trins and there is much more to the story than simply vandals attacking trin Christians, there was a build up to all this that had nothing to do with religion, but non the less its an example of non trin violence against trins. good counter!

 

[Traveling teacher]

YAhweh God the Father is the only one true God
The greatest commandment tells us this
The shema...quoted every sabbath for 1000s of years......
Deuteronomy 6:4
The Father is greater than I
John 14:28
JEsus said this was the greatest commandment
There is only One God
Mark 12:29
Mark 12:32

Unless we agree with Jesus that there is only One God
And that this is the greatest commandment.....
Then confusion comes.....
As Jesus said when you first acknowledge God as Yahweh and Father
Then you will also accept His son
JEsus said no one has seen the Father accept the son.....
JOhn 6:46
Jesus always pointed to the Father and not to himself...
no one comes to the father accept through the son...
John 14:6

When Jesus said He was one with His Father...He wasnt saying He was equal in power and creation
And authority.......
All He was saying is that He was under submission to His Father and was in agreement with Him.....
Paul clearly says this in
1 corinthians 15:27
That God the Father is greater than Jesus the son......

JEsus said He can do nothing without the Father
John 5:19
This shows God the Father to be greater than His son
Also there are Plans of God the Father that He hasnt revealed to Jesus
Mark 13:32
Of that day and hour no one knows, not the angels, nor the Son
But the Father only......

 

[Free]

YAhweh God the Father is the only one true God
The greatest commandment tells us this
The shema...quoted every sabbath for 1000s of years......
Deuteronomy 6:4

The Shema tells you no such thing. You are reading your own idea into that verse. The Shema is about monotheism only, not the nature of God.

The Father is greater than I
John 14:28
JEsus said this was the greatest commandment

No, he did not say that was the greatest commandment, not even close. The mistake with using that verse, is that you are incorrectly arguing that a difference in function indicates an inferiority of nature. But that is not the case.

There is only One God
Mark 12:29
Mark 12:32

Unless we agree with Jesus that there is only One God
And that this is the greatest commandment.....
Then confusion comes.....

All Christians agree there was one God. That is a foundational belief of the Trinity.

As Jesus said when you first acknowledge God as Yahweh and Father
Then you will also accept His son

Where did he say this?

JEsus said no one has seen the Father accept the son.....
JOhn 6:46
Jesus always pointed to the Father and not to himself...
no one comes to the father accept through the son...
John 14:6

This has no bearing on the issue. This is in agreement with Trinitarianism.

When Jesus said He was one with His Father...He wasnt saying He was equal in power and creation
And authority.......
All He was saying is that He was under submission to His Father and was in agreement with Him.....
Paul clearly says this in
1 corinthians 15:27
That God the Father is greater than Jesus the son......

JEsus said He can do nothing without the Father
John 5:19
This shows God the Father to be greater than His son
Also there are Plans of God the Father that He hasnt revealed to Jesus
Mark 13:32
Of that day and hour no one knows, not the angels, nor the Son
But the Father only......

Again, a difference in function does not indicate an inferiority of nature.

 

[Runner]

mere creature

Discussions about the Trinity always seem to leap to something in the vein of "If Jesus isn't the Second Person of the Trinity, then He is a mere creature." As I read the NT, Jesus is the only begotten Son of God, the firstborn of creation, the one through whom and for whom all the rest of creation was brought into existence, and the Lord of creation. This is considerably more than "mere." Claiming to be the divine Son of God and to have the authority He claimed was sufficient "blasphemy" for the Jews.

Even when the Gospels are brought into the equation, I simply do not see a foundation for the Trinity outside the Gospel of John. I do, however, see a multiplicity of verses throughout the NT pointing very clearly toward an understanding (and self-understanding) of Jesus as I describe in the above paragraph. I really do not see how such an understanding diminishes Jesus or calls into question any of the key doctrines such as the Atonement.

I know from personal experience (primarily with former Mormons) how difficult it can be for someone to "let go" of religious indoctrination even after they have accepted at an intellectual level that the teaching is false. I have always felt blessed that I received no religious indoctrination at all and was always free to think for myself. I have studied the history, theology and supposed Biblical basis of the doctrine of the Trinity in considerable depth, and I simply do not find it convincing. I simply do not believe this was Jesus self-understanding or the understanding of those who knew Him. Because the relationship between the Father, Son and Spirit is mysterious any way you look at it (not to mention completely beyond our human frame of reference), I do not insist that those who view the relationship through the lens of the Trinity are "wrong," merely that I do not share this understanding or believe it is essential to being a Christian. If someone else believes that what I believe is "wrong" and that the Trinity is an essential doctrine - well, OK, but that's their theology, not mine, so it's really irrelevant to me.

 

[Free]

Discussions about the Trinity always seem to leap to something in the vein of "If Jesus isn't the Second Person of the Trinity, then He is a mere creature." As I read the NT, Jesus is the only begotten Son of God, the firstborn of creation, the one through whom and for whom all the rest of creation was brought into existence, and the Lord of creation. This is considerably more than "mere." Claiming to be the divine Son of God and to have the authority He claimed was sufficient "blasphemy" for the Jews.

All creatures are "mere" creatures compared to the Creator. As for being the "firstborn," as it refers to Jesus, it means that he is preeminent, that he has the rights and position as of a human firstborn son. What it does not mean is that he is created.

Even when the Gospels are brought into the equation, I simply do not see a foundation for the Trinity outside the Gospel of John. I do, however, see a multiplicity of verses throughout the NT pointing very clearly toward an understanding (and self-understanding) of Jesus as I describe in the above paragraph.

There is a very clear understanding that Jesus is not the Father but there is also an understanding that Jesus is God in the same way that the Father is God. For instance:

Tit 1:3 and at the proper time manifested in his word through the preaching with which I have been entrusted by the command of God our Savior;
Tit 1:4 To Titus, my true child in a common faith: Grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior.

Tit 2:10 not pilfering, but showing all good faith, so that in everything they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior.
...
Tit 2:13 waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,

Tit 3:4 But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared,
...
Tit 3:6 whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior,

Or,

2Pe 1:1 Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:

(All ESV)

Not to mention OT passages spoken of YHWH being applied directly to Jesus. There are numerous verses to support Jesus being God in nature, yet not the Father. And of course there is only one God. Those are the things the Bible shows us; those are the things we have to make sense of.

I really do not see how such an understanding diminishes Jesus or calls into question any of the key doctrines such as the Atonement.

No creature was sufficient before to put an end to the sacrifice for sins, so why would it be any different if Jesus was a creature? It means that Jesus could only die for his sins, or perhaps for a limited time for others. So ultimately, Jesus's death is insufficient for everyone's salvation, hence why that is one of the JWs beliefs.

I know from personal experience (primarily with former Mormons) how difficult it can be for someone to "let go" of religious indoctrination even after they have accepted at an intellectual level that the teaching is false. I have always felt blessed that I received no religious indoctrination at all and was always free to think for myself.

Do you really want to continue with that fallacious argument? I hear it most from atheists but it does creep into these forums when there is disagreement. Anyone is free to think for oneself, hence why people change beliefs every day around the world. And everyone brings bias to the table and everyone is "religiously indoctrinated," in one manner or another.

I have studied the history, theology and supposed Biblical basis of the doctrine of the Trinity in considerable depth, and I simply do not find it convincing. I simply do not believe this was Jesus self-understanding or the understanding of those who knew Him.

So when Jesus claims to be God, when the apostles claim that he is God, yet we clearly know that he is not the Father, how can you not "believe this was Jesus self-understanding or the understanding of those who knew Him"?

Because the relationship between the Father, Son and Spirit is mysterious any way you look at it (not to mention completely beyond our human frame of reference), I do not insist that those who view the relationship through the lens of the Trinity are "wrong," merely that I do not share this understanding or believe it is essential to being a Christian.

It is mysterious and there is simply no way to fully comprehend it, on that we agree. However, the Bible does give us enough that we can see God is triune. And given that Jesus is the central figure of the entirety of Scripture, and that he is the one through whom alone we have salvation, it very strongly suggests that who he is, is absolutely central to salvation.

If someone else believes that what I believe is "wrong" and that the Trinity is an essential doctrine - well, OK, but that's their theology, not mine, so it's really irrelevant to me.

So you, too, have given into post-modernism like much of the current church. That's too bad.