The Trinity

[Board]

I don't know where else to put this post. But I need an answer before I proceed.

The denotation of the term “Christian” has come to belong exclusively to a particular religion that is called specifically Christianity. The foundational doctrine of Christianity has been since the 4th century, and is to the present day, the Trinity. It is a doctrine that was developed into a specific doctrinal definition. So then, while there is a broad definition of Christianity, Christianity proper is composed only of those denominations and individuals that adhere to the specific doctrinal definition. A person such as myself who does not believe in that specific doctrinal definition should not, indeed can not, call himself a Christian in any proper sense of the word. Even though I believe that the Bible is the word of God, that Jesus Christ was resurrected and today sits at the right hand of God, that Jesus Christ is the only way to God, and that salvation is in Jesus Christ alone. The similarities thus named are few since the Jesus Christ of Trinitarianism and the Jesus Christ of personal understanding are two entirely different individuals. I do not belong to any particular group, having met no one who believes as I do. I can not call myself a Unitarian since that denotation also has been usurped by a specific group that believes that Jesus Christ is merely a man and defines the term “Son of God” accordingly. I believe that Jesus Christ as the Son of God is a generated person (e.g. begotten) adding human nature to his person afterward. Thus Jesus Christ is not just a man. As a generated person, Jesus Christ has a beginning and thus can not be God, who is a different eternal individual commonly called Father by Jesus Christ. The Holy Spirit is a person, but also has a beginning. I also note that all presently existing non-Trinitarian groups have their source in Protestantism and are fundamentally Protestant. I’m not one to waste my time. What was to me once a very free forum (CARM) decided to change what I stated or remove it altogether claiming that what I stated was against their forum in some way or another. No other non-Trinitarian was treated this way. They made up stuff and I simply left not wanting to waste my time. But they showed the true colors of the Moderator who did this and Matt Slick who stood behind him. It is a brand of Evangelical Christianity that I’ve detested every time I’ve ran into it. My question is: would you want me to be a part of this forum believing as I do?

 

[GodsGrace]

I don't know where else to put this post. But I need an answer before I proceed.

The denotation of the term “Christian” has come to belong exclusively to a particular religion that is called specifically Christianity. The foundational doctrine of Christianity has been since the 4th century, and is to the present day, the Trinity. It is a doctrine that was developed into a specific doctrinal definition. So then, while there is a broad definition of Christianity, Christianity proper is composed only of those denominations and individuals that adhere to the specific doctrinal definition. A person such as myself who does not believe in that specific doctrinal definition should not, indeed can not, call himself a Christian in any proper sense of the word. Even though I believe that the Bible is the word of God, that Jesus Christ was resurrected and today sits at the right hand of God, that Jesus Christ is the only way to God, and that salvation is in Jesus Christ alone. The similarities thus named are few since the Jesus Christ of Trinitarianism and the Jesus Christ of personal understanding are two entirely different individuals. I do not belong to any particular group, having met no one who believes as I do. I can not call myself a Unitarian since that denotation also has been usurped by a specific group that believes that Jesus Christ is merely a man and defines the term “Son of God” accordingly. I believe that Jesus Christ as the Son of God is a generated person (e.g. begotten) adding human nature to his person afterward. Thus Jesus Christ is not just a man. As a generated person, Jesus Christ has a beginning and thus can not be God, who is a different eternal individual commonly called Father by Jesus Christ. The Holy Spirit is a person, but also has a beginning. I also note that all presently existing non-Trinitarian groups have their source in Protestantism and are fundamentally Protestant. I’m not one to waste my time. What was to me once a very free forum (CARM) decided to change what I stated or remove it altogether claiming that what I stated was against their forum in some way or another. No other non-Trinitarian was treated this way. They made up stuff and I simply left not wanting to waste my time. But they showed the true colors of the Moderator who did this and Matt Slick who stood behind him. It is a brand of Evangelical Christianity that I’ve detested every time I’ve ran into it. My question is: would you want me to be a part of this forum believing as I do?

Hi Board,
You can be a part of this forum as long as you don't try to PUSH your beliefs in a demanding and aggressive way.

You're right that to be called a Christian one must believe that Jesus is God, that He was resurrected, and that He lived before He was incarnated - otherwise He would just be a man.

There are others who feel this way.
Begotten means unique - Jesus was the unique Son of God.
This does not mean that He did not exist before.
Maybe by joining this forum you could explain yourself and also listen and pay attention to replies.
Also, you might want to join other threads for the doctrines upon which you do agree.

Also, you're correct the the Trinity took some time to develop, but all the ideas are there in the bible, both the OT and the NT. The Early Church Fathers (early theologians) made many statements leading us to understand that they felt that there was only one God but in 3 persons or parts. I can see how it took time to understand this.

I'm not here to convince you, but Jesus said to baptize in the name of The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit.
Did Jesus believe in 3 Gods? No. He was Jewish. Then why mention all three in the same sentence with the same authority?

Anyway, welcome to the forum.
What we look to advance here is civility toward one another and the spreading of God's love between us.

 

[CherubRam]

After the Trinitarians killed off the Non-Trinitarians they proclaimed themselves as the true Christians.

Few Sheep

Enoch

90:4 and as for me I looked and lamented in my sleep over that shepherd who pastured the sheep. And I saw until those sheep were devoured by the dogs and eagles and kites, and they left neither flesh nor skin nor sinew remaining on them till only their bones stood there: and their bones too fell
90:5 to the earth and the sheep became few.

 

[hawkman]

My question is: would you want me to be a part of this forum believing as I do?

Sure , welcome to the forum Board . But I do have a question for you .

The Holy Spirit is a person, but also has a beginning.

I have always thought the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God so if God has always existed then the Holy Spirit has always existed .
Why do you say the Holy Spirit had a beginning and when did the Holy Spirit begin if this is what you believe ?

 

[Board]

To Wondering:



When I was a Trinitarian, I was in the habit of being “pushy” about what I believed at the time. After that era ended I learned to present the truth as Jesus did. He rarely pushed, he merely presented and let the Jews interpretively misunderstand what he was saying. Which gives the impression that most of what he said was not for the Jews, but rather for all the believers through the ages. Christians are Biblical interpreters just as the Jews were. Complete with extra-Biblical ideas and Traditions. It is an exercise in futility to claim to a Christian that I no longer interpret the Bible. They believe that everyone interprets the Bible because they do and the idea of not interpreting is a foreign idea to them. Initially, I would sometimes get upset by the blindness of Christians regarding things that seemed so obvious to me as a non-Trinitarian. Then finally I realized upon a study of John that the Jews were the same way. And that the first century Jews eventually divided into two. Represented today by modern Judaism as one line and Christianity as the other.



One problem I have had with Christians is that due to their practice of interpretation they redefine Biblical words. “Only begotten” is one of those instances. It is one Greek word composed of two. The first part means “alone” implying unique. The second part, “begotten”, means when a person is involved “to be born”. It is easy to see if the how the word is used in the New Testament is followed. That is why I say that Jesus did not initially have a created nature, but was a generated being with a beginning. And if he had a beginning, he can not be God. If memory serves, the Christian answer to that is that Jesus is eternally born or begotten. Which doesn’t really answer the problem since it really makes no sense and is against the meaning and use of the word. It was unreasonable ideas such as this that started me on my quest to understand the Trinity better and eventually to reject it. So then, I agree with the Trinitarians against the Unitarians that Jesus did have an existence prior to his time on earth. But it is not an idea that leads me to think he is God, as it does the Trinitarians.



Regarding Matthew 28:16-20 Actually contains two ideas foundational to Trinitarians. Worship and Baptism. Jesus himself uses the word worship to refer to human acts of reverence toward humans (Matthew 18:26). The instance of Baptism includes the singular name of the three - Father, Son, and Spirit; I can understand the interpretation, but I now realize it is just that, an interpretation. Salvation is not just the result of Jesus. It is a unified affair wherein the Father, the Son, and the Spirit have a part. Note that the name is singular. Referring to this unity of action. Note also the “give”. All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth” Why would a God or person of God need to be “given” power? Why would a God or person of God not already have this power? The fact remains that Jesus says it was given to him. Trinitarians can’t say that this refers to just his human nature. It is nowhere implied as such. And it is against the Trinitarian idea that one can not separate the two natures (Divine and human) of Jesus Christ.



The central purpose of the New Testament is to reveal that the Messiah has come in the person of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. It is no different in these last few verses of Matthew. The center is Jesus Christ. The one name is Jesus, who is the Christ or Messiah, the Son of God (cf., Acts 2:38). For in that one name is eternal life (cf., John 3:14-18). Does that in any way imply that salvation is totally of Jesus Christ alone? Not at all. As is clearly revealed in all of the New Testament, though salvation is in Jesus Christ, salvation is not of Jesus Christ alone (cf., 1Corinthians 1:27-31; Romans 8:1-17). One is baptized into the death of Jesus Christ for a reason (cf., Romans 6:1-7). Does that exclude the work of the Father or of the Holy Ghost? Not according to the New Testament.

 

[Board]

To Hawkman:



Consider that the Holy Spirit is also referred to as the Spirit of Christ (Romans 8:9). Which is something that Trinitarians make a big issue of as being favorable to their view.



I only made that statement as per against the idea of the Unitarians that the Holy Spirit is just the power of God. Which in a sense is really an agreement with the Trinitarian view. The Holy Spirit as the power of God is as eternal as is God. But it says that the Spirit proceeds or goes forth out of God (John 15:26). Where was the Spirit prior to his procession? Or where is he in between processions. Also consider the seven Spirits of God (Revelation 3-5). That would imply more than a Trinity. Of course, Trinitarians interpret these things to not mean what is literally said. I found Witness Lee’s interpretation the most intriguing. The seven-fold intensified Spirit. But then, his view of the Triune God is questionable to most Trinitarians.



The Bible does not say when the Son or the Spirit began. We know that both were present at the creation of the sky and the earth (Genesis 1). But then, consider that neither does it reveal when the angels were created. Apparently it is not necessary that we know many things and thus is unrevealed in the Bible. Just as how it is that the Son is able to hold things together while walking on the earth. Trinitarians can understand that as possible only in the context of a presupposition – the Trinity. No longer believing in the Trinity, I am not afraid to not be able to explain everything. It is enough to know what is revealed. The human need to understand that which is beyond human mentality has led to the errors of Trinitarianism and Evolutionism.



As I evolved into non-Trinitarianism, I began to see many things differently from Trinitarian Christianity. One thing is the idea of progressive revelation. It is an idea that implies that the New Testament does not have it’s source in God. But the New Testament writers always quoted the Old Testament as the basis for what they said. Unlike what some modern Jews have claimed, that the New Testament writers created their own ideas and then tried to interpretively conform the Old testament to fit these ideas. It is the Christians who are guilty of this interpretive practice. The true basis for understanding the New Testament is the Old Testament, not vice versa. Trinitarians read the Bible backwards with their idea of progressive revelation. Once Trinitarianism is seen, it must also be seen in the Old Testament. Which is ludicrous. Because the Old Testament writers and persons obviously did not believe that God is a Trinity. They believed what God revealed to them. One God who is one person, as He Himself said many times. In order for the New Testament to be legitimate Scripture the source of which is God, it has to follow that which is already regarded as legitimate Scripture - the Old Testament. Did God purposefully deceive the Jews by revealing Himself to be something he is not? The ideas of progressive revelation and Trinitarianism imply that the answer is yes. And a God capable of such deceit would be a God created after the image of man. It is how Atheists view God.

 

[Free]

One problem I have had with Christians is that due to their practice of interpretation they redefine Biblical words. “Only begotten” is one of those instances. It is one Greek word composed of two. The first part means “alone” implying unique. The second part, “begotten”, means when a person is involved “to be born”. It is easy to see if the how the word is used in the New Testament is followed. That is why I say that Jesus did not initially have a created nature, but was a generated being with a beginning. And if he had a beginning, he can not be God. If memory serves, the Christian answer to that is that Jesus is eternally born or begotten. Which doesn’t really answer the problem since it really makes no sense and is against the meaning and use of the word. It was unreasonable ideas such as this that started me on my quest to understand the Trinity better and eventually to reject it. So then, I agree with the Trinitarians against the Unitarians that Jesus did have an existence prior to his time on earth. But it is not an idea that leads me to think he is God, as it does the Trinitarians.

The idea of eternal generation or eternal begetting is difficult to comprehend but it is not unreasonable. If Jesus is begotten of the Father and he is the Son of the Father, then he must necessarily be God. Every son is of the same nature as his father. Also, there are numerous passages in the Bible which implicitly or explicitly state Jesus is God. So, if he is God, and he is begotten, the only logical conclusion is that he is eternally begotten. He has always been the Son and the Father has always been a Father.

Regarding Matthew 28:16-20 Actually contains two ideas foundational to Trinitarians. Worship and Baptism. Jesus himself uses the word worship to refer to human acts of reverence toward humans (Matthew 18:26).

Context is always important in determining meaning. While it can mean to show reverence toward another, it is most often used in the context of God, Christ, and false worship of idols or the beast (in Revelation). Matt 18:26 is the only instance I can see where it is possibly used of reverence towards another person without a rebuke, but even then, it is a parable where the king is God. Importantly, the same Greek word, proskuneo, is used in Acts 10:25 and Rev 19:10, 22:8-9:

Act 10:25 When Peter entered, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshiped him.
Act 10:26 But Peter lifted him up, saying, “Stand up; I too am a man.” (ESV)

Rev 19:10 Then I fell down at his feet to worship him, but he said to me, “You must not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your brothers who hold to the testimony of Jesus. Worship God.” For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy. (ESV)

Rev 22:8 I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things. And when I heard and saw them, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who showed them to me,
Rev 22:9 but he said to me, “You must not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your brothers the prophets, and with those who keep the words of this book. Worship God.” (ESV)

The instance of Baptism includes the singular name of the three - Father, Son, and Spirit; I can understand the interpretation, but I now realize it is just that, an interpretation. Salvation is not just the result of Jesus. It is a unified affair wherein the Father, the Son, and the Spirit have a part. Note that the name is singular. Referring to this unity of action.

M. R. Vincent says in his Word Studies in the New Testament:

"The name is not the mere designation, a sense which would give to the baptismal formula merely the force of a charm. The name, as in the Lord's Prayer (“Hallowed be thy name”), is the expression of the sum total of the divine Being: not his designation as God or Lord, but the formula in which all his attributes and characteristics are summed up. It is equivalent to his person."

Note also the “give”. All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth” Why would a God or person of God need to be “given” power? Why would a God or person of God not already have this power? The fact remains that Jesus says it was given to him. Trinitarians can’t say that this refers to just his human nature. It is nowhere implied as such. And it is against the Trinitarian idea that one can not separate the two natures (Divine and human) of Jesus Christ.

Phil 2:5-8 shows why this is the case.

 

[Free]

Consider that the Holy Spirit is also referred to as the Spirit of Christ (Romans 8:9). Which is something that Trinitarians make a big issue of as being favorable to their view.

I don't see how it can't point to the Trinity. That verse calls the Holy Spirit the Spirit of Christ and the Spirit of God. It would be odd if the Holy Spirit, also being the Spirit of God, wasn't eternal given that God is eternal; which would also mean the Spirit if truly God. Similarly, it would be odd that the Holy Spirit isn't also truly God when also called the Spirit of Christ, and Jesus is truly God.

I only made that statement as per against the idea of the Unitarians that the Holy Spirit is just the power of God. Which in a sense is really an agreement with the Trinitarian view. The Holy Spirit as the power of God is as eternal as is God. But it says that the Spirit proceeds or goes forth out of God (John 15:26). Where was the Spirit prior to his procession? Or where is he in between processions. Also consider the seven Spirits of God (Revelation 3-5). That would imply more than a Trinity. Of course, Trinitarians interpret these things to not mean what is literally said. I found Witness Lee’s interpretation the most intriguing. The seven-fold intensified Spirit. But then, his view of the Triune God is questionable to most Trinitarians.

No one really knows what Rev means by the seven Spirits. All is conjecture on that point, so it would be wise to not use it to dispute the Trinity or support the Trinity, especially since when there are numerous clear scriptures in support of the Trinity.

The Bible does not say when the Son or the Spirit began. We know that both were present at the creation of the sky and the earth (Genesis 1).

The grammar of John 1:1--"In the beginning was"--and John 1:2--"He was in the beginning"--are such that when the beginning began, the Word was already in existence; the use of en speaks of absolute existence. That can only mean the Word, the pre-incarnate Son, is eternal and, therefore, truly God. That is then supported by John 1:3.

It is also worth noting that in contrast to en, egeneto is used in John 1:3 to speak of those things that "were made," those things which formerly did not exist but came into being. More significantly, however, it is used in verse 14 of the incarnation, when "the Word became flesh," when the Word entered time.

But then, consider that neither does it reveal when the angels were created. Apparently it is not necessary that we know many things and thus is unrevealed in the Bible. Just as how it is that the Son is able to hold things together while walking on the earth. Trinitarians can understand that as possible only in the context of a presupposition – the Trinity. No longer believing in the Trinity, I am not afraid to not be able to explain everything. It is enough to know what is revealed. The human need to understand that which is beyond human mentality has led to the errors of Trinitarianism and Evolutionism.

That which the Bible has revealed regarding the nature of God is:

1. There is only one God.
2. The Father is God.
3. The Son is God.
4. The Holy Spirit is God.
5. The Father is not the Son nor the Holy Spirit, nor is the Son the Holy Spirit.

The only doctrine that makes sense of all of those is the Trinity.

As I evolved into non-Trinitarianism, I began to see many things differently from Trinitarian Christianity. One thing is the idea of progressive revelation. It is an idea that implies that the New Testament does not have it’s source in God. But the New Testament writers always quoted the Old Testament as the basis for what they said. Unlike what some modern Jews have claimed, that the New Testament writers created their own ideas and then tried to interpretively conform the Old testament to fit these ideas. It is the Christians who are guilty of this interpretive practice. The true basis for understanding the New Testament is the Old Testament, not vice versa. Trinitarians read the Bible backwards with their idea of progressive revelation. Once Trinitarianism is seen, it must also be seen in the Old Testament. Which is ludicrous. Because the Old Testament writers and persons obviously did not believe that God is a Trinity. They believed what God revealed to them. One God who is one person, as He Himself said many times. In order for the New Testament to be legitimate Scripture the source of which is God, it has to follow that which is already regarded as legitimate Scripture - the Old Testament. Did God purposefully deceive the Jews by revealing Himself to be something he is not? The ideas of progressive revelation and Trinitarianism imply that the answer is yes. And a God capable of such deceit would be a God created after the image of man. It is how Atheists view God.

How does progressive revelation imply that the NT "does not have its source in God"? We see progressive revelation clearly in the NT; this is not something that Trinitarians made up. Consider:

Mat 5:21 “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’
Mat 5:22 But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire.
...
Mat 5:27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’
Mat 5:28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
...
Mat 5:31 “It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’
Mat 5:32 But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
Mat 5:33 “Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn.’
Mat 5:34 But I say to you, Do not take an oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God,
Mat 5:35 or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King.
Mat 5:36 And do not take an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black.
Mat 5:37 Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from evil.
Mat 5:38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’
Mat 5:39 But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.
Mat 5:40 And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well.
Mat 5:41 And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.
Mat 5:42 Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you. (ESV)

Mat 13:16 But blessed are your eyes, for they see, and your ears, for they hear.
Mat 13:17 For truly, I say to you, many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it.
...
Mat 13:34 All these things Jesus said to the crowds in parables; indeed, he said nothing to them without a parable.
Mat 13:35 This was to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet: “I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter what has been hidden since the foundation of the world.” (ESV)

Mar 7:19 since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.) (ESV)

Heb 1:1 Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets,
Heb 1:2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. (ESV)

The whole plan that the Messiah was to be crucified, buried, and then resurrected for the salvation of humans and redemption of creation was in the OT (Luke 24:25-27), but wasn't clear. The NT, however, makes it abundantly clear. Also, the numerous quotes by the NT writers show that they are "reinterpreting," or rather, coming to a more complete understanding of, the OT prophecies of the Messiah.

That's just scratching the surface of the ways in which the Bible itself shows progressive revelation.

 

[Randy]

To Hawkman:



Consider that the Holy Spirit is also referred to as the Spirit of Christ (Romans 8:9). Which is something that Trinitarians make a big issue of as being favorable to their view.



I only made that statement as per against the idea of the Unitarians that the Holy Spirit is just the power of God. Which in a sense is really an agreement with the Trinitarian view. The Holy Spirit as the power of God is as eternal as is God. But it says that the Spirit proceeds or goes forth out of God (John 15:26). Where was the Spirit prior to his procession? Or where is he in between processions. Also consider the seven Spirits of God (Revelation 3-5). That would imply more than a Trinity. Of course, Trinitarians interpret these things to not mean what is literally said. I found Witness Lee’s interpretation the most intriguing. The seven-fold intensified Spirit. But then, his view of the Triune God is questionable to most Trinitarians.



The Bible does not say when the Son or the Spirit began. We know that both were present at the creation of the sky and the earth (Genesis 1). But then, consider that neither does it reveal when the angels were created. Apparently it is not necessary that we know many things and thus is unrevealed in the Bible. Just as how it is that the Son is able to hold things together while walking on the earth. Trinitarians can understand that as possible only in the context of a presupposition – the Trinity. No longer believing in the Trinity, I am not afraid to not be able to explain everything. It is enough to know what is revealed. The human need to understand that which is beyond human mentality has led to the errors of Trinitarianism and Evolutionism.



As I evolved into non-Trinitarianism, I began to see many things differently from Trinitarian Christianity. One thing is the idea of progressive revelation. It is an idea that implies that the New Testament does not have it’s source in God. But the New Testament writers always quoted the Old Testament as the basis for what they said. Unlike what some modern Jews have claimed, that the New Testament writers created their own ideas and then tried to interpretively conform the Old testament to fit these ideas. It is the Christians who are guilty of this interpretive practice. The true basis for understanding the New Testament is the Old Testament, not vice versa. Trinitarians read the Bible backwards with their idea of progressive revelation. Once Trinitarianism is seen, it must also be seen in the Old Testament. Which is ludicrous. Because the Old Testament writers and persons obviously did not believe that God is a Trinity. They believed what God revealed to them. One God who is one person, as He Himself said many times. In order for the New Testament to be legitimate Scripture the source of which is God, it has to follow that which is already regarded as legitimate Scripture - the Old Testament. Did God purposefully deceive the Jews by revealing Himself to be something he is not? The ideas of progressive revelation and Trinitarianism imply that the answer is yes. And a God capable of such deceit would be a God created after the image of man. It is how Atheists view God.

Jesus is the only begotten. The Spirit of the Father is not begotten. Jesus stated the Father would send the Spirit in His name. Spirit of Christ. That Spirit in a believer conveys the will and presence of Christ. Christ in us. The praise from God and the test to see if you are in the faith Paul spoke of that is if you belong to Christ.

Fathers promise=>In the last days I will pour out "My Spirit".....

The Fathers own Spirit would have the Fathers nature.

The nature found in the Son was gifted and from the will of another Col 1:19

John is the one who defined Jesus as the "the only begotten Son who was in the Fathers presence" John 1:18 How do you think John defined "only begotten Son"? A Son who is unbegotten?

Jesus is defined as First Born of all creation and that He is before all things. And all those things He was before were made through Him, by Him and for Him. So any beginning would have to be at some point in history before the world began.

Jesus is all that the Father is and in that context He is God. The how is Col 1:19.
Hebrews 1:3

The Father is the he says.

But of the Son he says,

“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever,
and the righteous scepter is the scepter of your kingdom.
9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has anointed you
with the oil of gladness beyond your companions

 

[Board]

The Trinity is a mystery to Trinitarians. They tend to fall back on its apparent mysteriousness regularly. But that doesn’t make it more reasonable. If anything it would make it less reasonable. Because it would mean that God wants us to understand him on our own under our own experience with our own mind. Instead of relying on the “vagueness” of Scripture. The same way Evolution is determined. It’s a matter of whether or not Scripture is regarded as sufficient, and if not, how much more sufficient the knowledge gained by human means apart from Scripture really is. Consider how the modern school system tries to separate science and any reference to religion. Richard Dawkins made such a decision in favor of the human mind in his teens deeming Scripture to be nothing more than human myth in the process. He became insane, eventually fighting against a God he believes does not exist. To the point of thinking that anyone who opposes him is insane or evil. Paranoia at the very least. It is revealing that Dawkins’ form of insanity is regarded as acceptable in current Western culture. Not that 12% of humanity agrees with him and could be as insane as he is. Rather how easily so many can be deceived and/or influenced by an insane man.

The extreme plight of Dawkins shows the true importance of how Scripture is regarded. Not just Scripture as a whole, but any part thereof. The apparently simple exchange of the human thinking of Evolutionism for chapters 1-2 of Genesis leads to the reasonableness of the New Testament being just as mythological. With an inevitable conclusion that Jesus Christ is merely an intelligent Jewish philosopher at most. If he even existed at all at worst.

What Christians fail to see is that it works just as well backwards as forwards. To think that Revelations is conjectural leads one to wonder how much of the rest of Scripture is conjectural. If one also believes that Genesis 1-2 is conjectural the slippery slope is well on its way. Add to that the Trinitarian thinking that reveals the Old Testament God to be conjecture doesn’t leave much of Scripture. Especially as one realizes that Jesus Christ believed in the Old Testament God 400 years prior to the beginning of the development of the Trinitarian God.

 

[tigger 2]

Jesus is the only begotten. The Spirit of the Father is not begotten. Jesus stated the Father would send the Spirit in His name. Spirit of Christ. That Spirit in a believer conveys the will and presence of Christ. Christ in us. The praise from God and the test to see if you are in the faith Paul spoke of that is if you belong to Christ.

Fathers promise=>In the last days I will pour out "My Spirit".....

The Fathers own Spirit would have the Fathers nature.

The nature found in the Son was gifted and from the will of another Col 1:19

John is the one who defined Jesus as the "the only begotten Son who was in the Fathers presence" John 1:18 How do you think John defined "only begotten Son"? A Son who is unbegotten?

Jesus is defined as First Born of all creation and that He is before all things. And all those things He was before were made through Him, by Him and for Him. So any beginning would have to be at some point in history before the world began.

Jesus is all that the Father is and in that context He is God. The how is Col 1:19.
Hebrews 1:3

The Father is the he says.

But of the Son he says,

“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever,
and the righteous scepter is the scepter of your kingdom.
9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has anointed you
with the oil of gladness beyond your companions

Heb. 1:8

It should be noted that some scriptures may have more than one honest translation. The translator will normally choose the one that supports his belief. Nearly all translators today are trinitarians and are translating for a trinitarian audience.

Heb. 1:8 is one of those scriptures. The following excerpt from my personal study (after listing a number of trinitarian Bibles which chose a non-trinitarian translation for Heb. 1:8) discusses it:

In 1971 the UBS published A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament which explained why the committee had chosen certain readings as being correct and rejected others. In choosing the text they believed to be closest to the original manuscript of the book of Hebrews, the UBS committee looked at the very oldest and best manuscripts still in existence today. Several methods helped them decide what is probably the original wording. One, of course, is how many of the very oldest and best manuscripts agree.

Another method is to determine which of the variations were most likely to have been changed by later copyists. For instance, when a NT writer is referring to an OT quotation, he often has it worded slightly differently from the exact quote in the Septuagint (Paul is especially noted for this).

So, if one NT manuscript has an OT scripture quoted exactly as it appears in the Septuagint, and another has a slightly different wording, the manuscript that differs slightly is more likely to have the proper, original wording. (Later copyists strongly tended to “correct” the original NT manuscripts by making their OT quotes conform exactly to the wording in the Septuagint version.)

Another consideration is that later Church copyists would often change the wording of a scripture if it seemed to contradict a teaching of the Roman Church. Therefore, if the wording of an ancient manuscript seems to contradict a later teaching of the Roman Church, it is more likely to have the original wording than another ancient manuscript which (at the same verse) seems to agree with that Church teaching.

Using these criteria, the UBS Committee unanimously agreed with all the wording of Heb. 1:8 except for one word. They agreed that the original writing of Heb. 1:8 should read literally (in the NT Greek): “toward but the son the throne of you the god into the age of the age and the staff of the straightness staff of the kingdom [‘of him’ or ‘of you’].”

It was the very last word of Heb. 1:8 that caused a “considerable degree of doubt” among those textual scholars. This very last word was either the NT Greek word sou (translated into English as “of you” or “your”) or autou (translated “of him” or “his”).

Why is it so important? Because these trinitarian scholars agreed that if autou (“his”) were used here by the author of Hebrews 1:8, then the verse “must be” translated “God is thy throne” and not “thy throne, O God”!![p.663] If, however, sou (“your”) was the original wording, then it could be translated either way. Obviously, then, a trinitarian would strongly prefer the reading of sou.

In discussing this problem the UBS Committee noted that all the very oldest manuscripts (P46 - circa 200 A.D.; Aleph - 4th century; and B - 4th century) all agree that the original wording was “his (autou) kingdom.”

They also noted that later manuscripts which read “your (sou) kingdom” are now in agreement with the corresponding passage in the Greek OT Septuagint! (Remember that the UBS Committee recognizes, as do most Bible scholars, that the NT manuscript that differs slightly from the Septuagint is more likely to be correct than another one which perfectly agrees because copyists strongly tended to deliberately “correct” Septuagint quotes they found in the NT .)

Furthermore, since autou is not repeated near the word in question in this NT manuscript quote of Ps. 45:6, 7, but sou is repeated, before and after, it would have been easy for a copyist to have inadvertently miscopied sou here. Autou, then, is more likely to have been original than sou for more than one reason.

It is also important to realize that all the oldest manuscripts (which were probably written before the full trinity doctrine was officially declared by the Roman Church in 381 A. D. and certainly written well before it was popularly accepted through of the efforts of such men as Augustine in the early 5th century) use the word autou which will not properly allow for the trinitarian-preferred interpretation. Whereas many of the later manuscripts now use the word sou which will allow for the trinitarian-preferred interpretation of Heb. 1:8.

Isn’t it significant that the very earliest manuscript to use the trinitarian-preferred sou is Manuscript A from the 5th century which is shortly after the trinity doctrine was fully and officially declared at the Council of Constantinople in 381 A. D. and during the highly successful efforts of Augustine and others to defend and popularize this newly established “truth” of the Roman Church? (Remember the correlation between new church doctrines and changes in later manuscripts.) - See the HIST study.

So even though there is overwhelming evidence that “his” (autou) was in the original manuscript of Hebrews 1:8 (even the trinitarian scholars who developed the Westcott and Hort text and the Nestle text both use autou at Heb. 1:8), the UBS Committee finally agreed to choose “your” (sou) and label that choice as “having considerable degree of doubt,” anyway!

Why did they bend their own rules of evidence? Because (1) they said there were so many later manuscripts that used sou, and (2) they admitted that they didn’t like what that verse actually said if autou had really been used in the original!

Oh, they did soften the arbitrariness of their choice slightly by labeling it as “having considerable degree of doubt,” but if any honest impartial scholar will examine their own comments on the evidence, he must agree that the UBS Committee’s choice is purely an emotional one and the evidence rules otherwise (as other trinitarian texts noted above admit).

 

[tigger 2]

http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2009/09/heb-18.html

The full study.

 

[Free]

Heb. 1:8

It should be noted that some scriptures may have more than one honest translation. The translator will normally choose the one that supports his belief. Nearly all translators today are trinitarians and are translating for a trinitarian audience.

Heb. 1:8 is one of those scriptures. The following excerpt from my personal study (after listing a number of trinitarian Bibles which chose a non-trinitarian translation for Heb. 1:8) discusses it:

In 1971 the UBS published A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament which explained why the committee had chosen certain readings as being correct and rejected others. In choosing the text they believed to be closest to the original manuscript of the book of Hebrews, the UBS committee looked at the very oldest and best manuscripts still in existence today. Several methods helped them decide what is probably the original wording. One, of course, is how many of the very oldest and best manuscripts agree.

Another method is to determine which of the variations were most likely to have been changed by later copyists. For instance, when a NT writer is referring to an OT quotation, he often has it worded slightly differently from the exact quote in the Septuagint (Paul is especially noted for this).

So, if one NT manuscript has an OT scripture quoted exactly as it appears in the Septuagint, and another has a slightly different wording, the manuscript that differs slightly is more likely to have the proper, original wording. (Later copyists strongly tended to “correct” the original NT manuscripts by making their OT quotes conform exactly to the wording in the Septuagint version.)

Another consideration is that later Church copyists would often change the wording of a scripture if it seemed to contradict a teaching of the Roman Church. Therefore, if the wording of an ancient manuscript seems to contradict a later teaching of the Roman Church, it is more likely to have the original wording than another ancient manuscript which (at the same verse) seems to agree with that Church teaching.

Using these criteria, the UBS Committee unanimously agreed with all the wording of Heb. 1:8 except for one word. They agreed that the original writing of Heb. 1:8 should read literally (in the NT Greek): “toward but the son the throne of you the god into the age of the age and the staff of the straightness staff of the kingdom [‘of him’ or ‘of you’].”

It was the very last word of Heb. 1:8 that caused a “considerable degree of doubt” among those textual scholars. This very last word was either the NT Greek word sou (translated into English as “of you” or “your”) or autou (translated “of him” or “his”).

Why is it so important? Because these trinitarian scholars agreed that if autou (“his”) were used here by the author of Hebrews 1:8, then the verse “must be” translated “God is thy throne” and not “thy throne, O God”!![p.663] If, however, sou (“your”) was the original wording, then it could be translated either way. Obviously, then, a trinitarian would strongly prefer the reading of sou.

In discussing this problem the UBS Committee noted that all the very oldest manuscripts (P46 - circa 200 A.D.; Aleph - 4th century; and B - 4th century) all agree that the original wording was “his (autou) kingdom.”

They also noted that later manuscripts which read “your (sou) kingdom” are now in agreement with the corresponding passage in the Greek OT Septuagint! (Remember that the UBS Committee recognizes, as do most Bible scholars, that the NT manuscript that differs slightly from the Septuagint is more likely to be correct than another one which perfectly agrees because copyists strongly tended to deliberately “correct” Septuagint quotes they found in the NT .)

Furthermore, since autou is not repeated near the word in question in this NT manuscript quote of Ps. 45:6, 7, but sou is repeated, before and after, it would have been easy for a copyist to have inadvertently miscopied sou here. Autou, then, is more likely to have been original than sou for more than one reason.

It is also important to realize that all the oldest manuscripts (which were probably written before the full trinity doctrine was officially declared by the Roman Church in 381 A. D. and certainly written well before it was popularly accepted through of the efforts of such men as Augustine in the early 5th century) use the word autou which will not properly allow for the trinitarian-preferred interpretation. Whereas many of the later manuscripts now use the word sou which will allow for the trinitarian-preferred interpretation of Heb. 1:8.

Isn’t it significant that the very earliest manuscript to use the trinitarian-preferred sou is Manuscript A from the 5th century which is shortly after the trinity doctrine was fully and officially declared at the Council of Constantinople in 381 A. D. and during the highly successful efforts of Augustine and others to defend and popularize this newly established “truth” of the Roman Church? (Remember the correlation between new church doctrines and changes in later manuscripts.) - See the HIST study.

So even though there is overwhelming evidence that “his” (autou) was in the original manuscript of Hebrews 1:8 (even the trinitarian scholars who developed the Westcott and Hort text and the Nestle text both use autou at Heb. 1:8), the UBS Committee finally agreed to choose “your” (sou) and label that choice as “having considerable degree of doubt,” anyway!

Why did they bend their own rules of evidence? Because (1) they said there were so many later manuscripts that used sou, and (2) they admitted that they didn’t like what that verse actually said if autou had really been used in the original!

Oh, they did soften the arbitrariness of their choice slightly by labeling it as “having considerable degree of doubt,” but if any honest impartial scholar will examine their own comments on the evidence, he must agree that the UBS Committee’s choice is purely an emotional one and the evidence rules otherwise (as other trinitarian texts noted above admit).

Don't you think the point is rather moot given what Heb 1:10-12 states? It seems to me that given the writer of Hebrews has the Father applying a passage about Yahweh (Psalm 102:25-27) to the Son, the deity of the Son is made quite clear.

 

[hawkman]

I will give you something to consider for your questions .

The Holy Spirit as the power of God is as eternal as is God. But it says that the Spirit proceeds or goes forth out of God (John 15:26). Where was the Spirit prior to his procession? Or where is he in between processions.

Just as how it is that the Son is able to hold things together while walking on the earth.

Answer to both of the questions .
God is “omnipotent”, “omniscient”, and “omnipresent”.

Now how does that work exactly ? Another mystery for you .
My trust in God is complete .

 

[Randy]

Heb. 1:8

It should be noted that some scriptures may have more than one honest translation. The translator will normally choose the one that supports his belief. Nearly all translators today are trinitarians and are translating for a trinitarian audience.

Heb. 1:8 is one of those scriptures. The following excerpt from my personal study (after listing a number of trinitarian Bibles which chose a non-trinitarian translation for Heb. 1:8) discusses it:

In 1971 the UBS published A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament which explained why the committee had chosen certain readings as being correct and rejected others. In choosing the text they believed to be closest to the original manuscript of the book of Hebrews, the UBS committee looked at the very oldest and best manuscripts still in existence today. Several methods helped them decide what is probably the original wording. One, of course, is how many of the very oldest and best manuscripts agree.

Another method is to determine which of the variations were most likely to have been changed by later copyists. For instance, when a NT writer is referring to an OT quotation, he often has it worded slightly differently from the exact quote in the Septuagint (Paul is especially noted for this).

So, if one NT manuscript has an OT scripture quoted exactly as it appears in the Septuagint, and another has a slightly different wording, the manuscript that differs slightly is more likely to have the proper, original wording. (Later copyists strongly tended to “correct” the original NT manuscripts by making their OT quotes conform exactly to the wording in the Septuagint version.)

Another consideration is that later Church copyists would often change the wording of a scripture if it seemed to contradict a teaching of the Roman Church. Therefore, if the wording of an ancient manuscript seems to contradict a later teaching of the Roman Church, it is more likely to have the original wording than another ancient manuscript which (at the same verse) seems to agree with that Church teaching.

Using these criteria, the UBS Committee unanimously agreed with all the wording of Heb. 1:8 except for one word. They agreed that the original writing of Heb. 1:8 should read literally (in the NT Greek): “toward but the son the throne of you the god into the age of the age and the staff of the straightness staff of the kingdom [‘of him’ or ‘of you’].”

It was the very last word of Heb. 1:8 that caused a “considerable degree of doubt” among those textual scholars. This very last word was either the NT Greek word sou (translated into English as “of you” or “your”) or autou (translated “of him” or “his”).

Why is it so important? Because these trinitarian scholars agreed that if autou (“his”) were used here by the author of Hebrews 1:8, then the verse “must be” translated “God is thy throne” and not “thy throne, O God”!![p.663] If, however, sou (“your”) was the original wording, then it could be translated either way. Obviously, then, a trinitarian would strongly prefer the reading of sou.

In discussing this problem the UBS Committee noted that all the very oldest manuscripts (P46 - circa 200 A.D.; Aleph - 4th century; and B - 4th century) all agree that the original wording was “his (autou) kingdom.”

They also noted that later manuscripts which read “your (sou) kingdom” are now in agreement with the corresponding passage in the Greek OT Septuagint! (Remember that the UBS Committee recognizes, as do most Bible scholars, that the NT manuscript that differs slightly from the Septuagint is more likely to be correct than another one which perfectly agrees because copyists strongly tended to deliberately “correct” Septuagint quotes they found in the NT .)

Furthermore, since autou is not repeated near the word in question in this NT manuscript quote of Ps. 45:6, 7, but sou is repeated, before and after, it would have been easy for a copyist to have inadvertently miscopied sou here. Autou, then, is more likely to have been original than sou for more than one reason.

It is also important to realize that all the oldest manuscripts (which were probably written before the full trinity doctrine was officially declared by the Roman Church in 381 A. D. and certainly written well before it was popularly accepted through of the efforts of such men as Augustine in the early 5th century) use the word autou which will not properly allow for the trinitarian-preferred interpretation. Whereas many of the later manuscripts now use the word sou which will allow for the trinitarian-preferred interpretation of Heb. 1:8.

Isn’t it significant that the very earliest manuscript to use the trinitarian-preferred sou is Manuscript A from the 5th century which is shortly after the trinity doctrine was fully and officially declared at the Council of Constantinople in 381 A. D. and during the highly successful efforts of Augustine and others to defend and popularize this newly established “truth” of the Roman Church? (Remember the correlation between new church doctrines and changes in later manuscripts.) - See the HIST study.

So even though there is overwhelming evidence that “his” (autou) was in the original manuscript of Hebrews 1:8 (even the trinitarian scholars who developed the Westcott and Hort text and the Nestle text both use autou at Heb. 1:8), the UBS Committee finally agreed to choose “your” (sou) and label that choice as “having considerable degree of doubt,” anyway!

Why did they bend their own rules of evidence? Because (1) they said there were so many later manuscripts that used sou, and (2) they admitted that they didn’t like what that verse actually said if autou had really been used in the original!

Oh, they did soften the arbitrariness of their choice slightly by labeling it as “having considerable degree of doubt,” but if any honest impartial scholar will examine their own comments on the evidence, he must agree that the UBS Committee’s choice is purely an emotional one and the evidence rules otherwise (as other trinitarian texts noted above admit).

1. Hebrews 1:8 tn Or possibly, “Your throne is God forever and ever.” This translation is quite doubtful, however, since (1) in the context the Son is being contrasted to the angels and is presented as far better than they. The imagery of God being the Son’s throne would seem to be of God being his authority. If so, in what sense could this not be said of the angels? In what sense is the Son thus contrasted with the angels? (2) The μέν…δέ (men…de) construction that connects v. 7 with v. 8 clearly lays out this contrast: “On the one hand, he says of the angels…on the other hand, he says of the Son.” Thus, although it is grammatically possible that θεός (theos) in v. 8 should be taken as a predicate nominative, the context and the correlative conjunctions are decidedly against it. Hebrews 1:8 is thus a strong affirmation of the deity of Christ.

 

[tigger 2]

Trinitarian translators will almost exclusively translate a scripture with an ambiguous term or phrase in a trinitarian manner. We can see this in translations of John 1:1c. Trinitarian scholars desperately want this clause to end with the translation of "God." And, sure enough you will have a hard time finding a Bible which translates it (or even mentions the existence of) with a grammatically more probable non-trinitarian word.

But we find trinitarians less stringent with Heb. 1:8.

A. Translations of Heb. 1:8 by trinitarians:

“God is your throne” - AT (Dr. Goodspeed)

“God is thy throne” - Mo (Dr. Moffatt)

“God is thy throne” - Mace

"God [is] your throne" - JMNT

“God is your throne” - Byington

"God is your throne" - NSB

“God is your throne” - Dr. Barclay

“God is thy throne” - Dr. Westcott

“God is thy throne” - A.T. Robertson (Alternate translation)

“God is thy throne” - Dr. Young (Alt.)

“God is thy throne” - RSV (Alt.)

“God is your throne” - NRSV (Alt.)

“God is thy throne” - NEB (Alt.)

“Thy throne is God” - ASV (Alt.)

B. Translations of Ps. 45:6 (quoted at Heb. 1:8) by trinitarians:

“Your Divine throne” - RSV

“Your throne is like God’s throne” - NEB

“God is your throne” - Byington

“The kingdom that God has given you” - GNB

“God has enthroned you” - REB

“Your throne is from God” - NJB

“Your throne is a throne of God” - NRSV (Alt.)

“Thy throne is the throne of God” - ASV (Alt.)

These show us the probable meaning.

 

[Free]

Trinitarian translators will almost exclusively translate a scripture with an ambiguous term or phrase in a trinitarian manner. We can see this in translations of John 1:1c. Trinitarian scholars desperately want this clause to end with the translation of "God." And, sure enough you will have a hard time finding a Bible which translates it (or even mentions the existence of) with a grammatically more probable non-trinitarian word. .

It’s the translation that best fits the grammar and context; it’s not because it’s Trinitarian.

 

[Randy]

Heb. 1:8

It should be noted that some scriptures may have more than one honest translation. The translator will normally choose the one that supports his belief. Nearly all translators today are trinitarians and are translating for a trinitarian audience.

Heb. 1:8 is one of those scriptures. The following excerpt from my personal study (after listing a number of trinitarian Bibles which chose a non-trinitarian translation for Heb. 1:8) discusses it:

In 1971 the UBS published A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament which explained why the committee had chosen certain readings as being correct and rejected others. In choosing the text they believed to be closest to the original manuscript of the book of Hebrews, the UBS committee looked at the very oldest and best manuscripts still in existence today. Several methods helped them decide what is probably the original wording. One, of course, is how many of the very oldest and best manuscripts agree.

Another method is to determine which of the variations were most likely to have been changed by later copyists. For instance, when a NT writer is referring to an OT quotation, he often has it worded slightly differently from the exact quote in the Septuagint (Paul is especially noted for this).

So, if one NT manuscript has an OT scripture quoted exactly as it appears in the Septuagint, and another has a slightly different wording, the manuscript that differs slightly is more likely to have the proper, original wording. (Later copyists strongly tended to “correct” the original NT manuscripts by making their OT quotes conform exactly to the wording in the Septuagint version.)

Another consideration is that later Church copyists would often change the wording of a scripture if it seemed to contradict a teaching of the Roman Church. Therefore, if the wording of an ancient manuscript seems to contradict a later teaching of the Roman Church, it is more likely to have the original wording than another ancient manuscript which (at the same verse) seems to agree with that Church teaching.

Using these criteria, the UBS Committee unanimously agreed with all the wording of Heb. 1:8 except for one word. They agreed that the original writing of Heb. 1:8 should read literally (in the NT Greek): “toward but the son the throne of you the god into the age of the age and the staff of the straightness staff of the kingdom [‘of him’ or ‘of you’].”

It was the very last word of Heb. 1:8 that caused a “considerable degree of doubt” among those textual scholars. This very last word was either the NT Greek word sou (translated into English as “of you” or “your”) or autou (translated “of him” or “his”).

Why is it so important? Because these trinitarian scholars agreed that if autou (“his”) were used here by the author of Hebrews 1:8, then the verse “must be” translated “God is thy throne” and not “thy throne, O God”!![p.663] If, however, sou (“your”) was the original wording, then it could be translated either way. Obviously, then, a trinitarian would strongly prefer the reading of sou.

In discussing this problem the UBS Committee noted that all the very oldest manuscripts (P46 - circa 200 A.D.; Aleph - 4th century; and B - 4th century) all agree that the original wording was “his (autou) kingdom.”

They also noted that later manuscripts which read “your (sou) kingdom” are now in agreement with the corresponding passage in the Greek OT Septuagint! (Remember that the UBS Committee recognizes, as do most Bible scholars, that the NT manuscript that differs slightly from the Septuagint is more likely to be correct than another one which perfectly agrees because copyists strongly tended to deliberately “correct” Septuagint quotes they found in the NT .)

Furthermore, since autou is not repeated near the word in question in this NT manuscript quote of Ps. 45:6, 7, but sou is repeated, before and after, it would have been easy for a copyist to have inadvertently miscopied sou here. Autou, then, is more likely to have been original than sou for more than one reason.

It is also important to realize that all the oldest manuscripts (which were probably written before the full trinity doctrine was officially declared by the Roman Church in 381 A. D. and certainly written well before it was popularly accepted through of the efforts of such men as Augustine in the early 5th century) use the word autou which will not properly allow for the trinitarian-preferred interpretation. Whereas many of the later manuscripts now use the word sou which will allow for the trinitarian-preferred interpretation of Heb. 1:8.

Isn’t it significant that the very earliest manuscript to use the trinitarian-preferred sou is Manuscript A from the 5th century which is shortly after the trinity doctrine was fully and officially declared at the Council of Constantinople in 381 A. D. and during the highly successful efforts of Augustine and others to defend and popularize this newly established “truth” of the Roman Church? (Remember the correlation between new church doctrines and changes in later manuscripts.) - See the HIST study.

So even though there is overwhelming evidence that “his” (autou) was in the original manuscript of Hebrews 1:8 (even the trinitarian scholars who developed the Westcott and Hort text and the Nestle text both use autou at Heb. 1:8), the UBS Committee finally agreed to choose “your” (sou) and label that choice as “having considerable degree of doubt,” anyway!

Why did they bend their own rules of evidence? Because (1) they said there were so many later manuscripts that used sou, and (2) they admitted that they didn’t like what that verse actually said if autou had really been used in the original!

Oh, they did soften the arbitrariness of their choice slightly by labeling it as “having considerable degree of doubt,” but if any honest impartial scholar will examine their own comments on the evidence, he must agree that the UBS Committee’s choice is purely an emotional one and the evidence rules otherwise (as other trinitarian texts noted above admit).

"therefore God, Your God...."
His throne is a throne of God which endures forever.

Is Jesus God?
He never dies
Yes, He is all that the Father is.
No, He has always been the Son.

The only begotten like to like Son. Such a being would be a Son and would be God. A begotten God.
Nothing was held back Col 1:19

God's Firstborn and the beginning of the creation of God the Father. Before all other things. All those other things came though the Son.

 

[Free]

Is Jesus God?
He never dies
Yes, He is all that the Father is.
No, He has always been the Son.

Can a woman be pregnant and not pregnant at the same time?

 

[Free]

The Trinity is a mystery to Trinitarians. They tend to fall back on its apparent mysteriousness regularly. But that doesn’t make it more reasonable. If anything it would make it less reasonable. Because it would mean that God wants us to understand him on our own under our own experience with our own mind. Instead of relying on the “vagueness” of Scripture.

The vagueness of scripture and limitations of the finite human mind is precisely why Trinitarians say the Trinity is a mystery, or rather, that it cannot be fully comprehended. Of course, there are things that aren't vague in scripture, such as the five things I listed previously. And those things lead directly to a Trinitarian understanding of God.

Add to that the Trinitarian thinking that reveals the Old Testament God to be conjecture doesn’t leave much of Scripture.

How does Trinitarian thinking reveal "the Old Testament God to be conjecture"?

Especially as one realizes that Jesus Christ believed in the Old Testament God 400 years prior to the beginning of the development of the Trinitarian God.

Would you agree that that is fallaciously begging the question?