There is an alternative to trinitarianism/ non-trinitarianism.

[Consecrated Life]

What does that mean to you?

That Jesus Christ had no beginning.
Having no beginning He could nothing else but God

 

[Runningman]

Jesus’s own word isn’t good enough? Of course, your argument is fallacious.

Example?

No, Heb 1:10-12 clearly has the Father applying Psalm 102:25-27 to the Son. That is the only way that can be understood.

No it doesn't. Observe closely Hebrews 1:10 because it begins with "and." That means it is conjoined to verse 9 where it refers to God anointing the Son. Therefore, Hebrews 1:10 is about the Father being the Creator.

Except that isn’t the context at all. The clear context is the Son’s superiority to the angels. That the Son is God is shown in 1:2-3, 10-12.

Hebrews 1 says nothing about the Son being God. Where did you get that idea?

 

[Runningman]

That Jesus Christ had no beginning.
Having no beginning He could nothing else but God

No. I assume you're referring to the fall of Satan after the 2nd war in heaven. In that case, Revelation 12 says that Satan with his angels were cast to earth after being defeated by Michael. Chronologically, this happens immediately before the beginning of the great tribulation. Now I don't know if you adhere to preterism or futurism, but I believe on good evidence the great tribulation is a future event.

That would mean Jesus didn't witness something in a pre-existent state, but rather had a vision of something future or prophesied of something future. See Revelation 12-13 for a good timeline of Satan's fall.

 

[Runningman]

Fallen angel who kept falling to hell

Interesting. Then why did Paul say this?

Ephesians 6
12For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this world’s darkness, and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.

 

[Runningman]

What is the Ancient Greek word for person?

The philosophical concept of person arose, taking the word "prosopon" (Ancient Greek: πρόσωπον, romanized: prósōpon) from the Greek theatre

“prosopon” in Scripture means “face”. It might be said that everyone with a face is a person.
So, I’m wondering why Jesus, who had a human face would not be a human person.

He for sure had a human face. I agree.

 

[Consecrated Life]

Neither Jesus or the rest of the Bible says Jesus pre-existed.

Runningman ,
Can you name anything in this world , universe , or in heaven that the bible does not specifically mention God creating other than Jesus Christ ?
How do rationalize in your own mind that you believe the most paramount important figure in scripture the Savior of the world, was created by God , yet while God proudly speaks of creating all other things in universe , He mentions not one word of His greatest creation, Jesus ?
Given the context of all other creation be detailed in God's Word , how do explain the absence of any mention of God's greatest creation , Jesus ?
I can't any way I try rationalize such a glaring creation omission in the full context of the scripture.
Tell me how you rationalize such a gaping void in God's Word , and I'll try to rationalize it your way ?
In the context of the entirety of God's creation , earth, man, angels , Lucifer, heaven, hell, universe being boldly & proudly proclaimed in scripture, how do explain the creation of the humanity's one and only Savior not only not being proudly proclaimed by the God the Father , Just a human Father is proud of his newborn son, but not even being mentioned ?

Do you really believe that God considers His creating the stars , to be more worthy of a mention than the moment He created the Savior of humanity ?

Gen 1:16
............ he made the stars also.

 

[Runningman]

Runningman ,
Can you name anything in this world , universe , or in heaven that the bible does not specifically mention God creating other than Jesus Christ ?
How do rationalize in your own mind that you believe the most paramount important figure in scripture the Savior of the world, was created by God , yet while God proudly speaks of creating all other things in universe , He mentions not one word of His greatest creation, Jesus ?
Given the context of all other creation be detailed in God's Word , how do explain the absence of any mention of God's greatest creation , Jesus ?
I can't any way I try rationalize such a glaring creation omission in the full context of the scripture.
Tell me how you rationalize such a gaping void in God's Word , and I'll try to rationalize it your way ?
In the context of the entirety of God's creation , earth, man, angels , Lucifer, heaven, hell, universe being boldly & proudly proclaimed in scripture, how do explain the creation of the humanity's one and only Savior not only not being proudly proclaimed by the God the Father , Just a human Father is proud of his newborn son, but not even being mentioned ?

Do you really believe that God considers His creating the stars , to be more worthy of a mention than the moment He created the Savior of humanity ?

Gen 1:16
............ he made the stars also.

I would ask you how you missed this. Jesus was in fact created.

Let's begin with the fact that God is Himself eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God.

1 Timothy 1​

17Now to the King eternal, immortal, and invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.​

Yet of Jesus, he is the image of the only God and is himself created, i.e., the firstborn over all creation. Firstborn refers to both rank and birth. In other words, Jesus isn't an eternal being.

Colossians 1​

15The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.​

Revelation 3:14 also says Jesus was created:

Revelation 3​

14“And to the angel of the church in Laodicea write: ‘The words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of God’s creation.​

By the above facts alone, Jesus isn't God. You may also see Matthew 11:25 where Jesus called the Father the Lord of heaven and earth while scripture never refers to Jesus as the Lord of heaven and earth. Acts 17:24,25 says the Lord of heaven and earth is God who created all things and is not served by human hands. Jesus had human hands.

Acts 4:24-27 says the Sovereign Lord and Creator of heaven and earth is God while Jesus is His servant.

The Old Testament is rich in information about YHWH being the creator and there is abundant proof YHWH and Jesus are not the same person.

 

[Randy]

Some of your phrases were delight I believe what I see and hear. I see three divine persons and beings. The Father is the only true God. ‘God’ is kind of title. Jesus is God by nature the same as the Father, separate divine being. He, like the Father, always was. I personally prefer ‘monogenes’ to be translated like ‘one and only’ not ‘only begotten’ because Jesus, I believe, wasn’t literally born from the Father. He always was the Son, but was manifested as a Son through the resurrection. The Father shows all he’s going to do to Jesus and Jesus implements that in a perfect way, this is why the Father is well pleased with him. When Jesus was among us he spoke and did only what was revealed to him by the Father so seeing him was like seeing the Father himself. Then Jesus died for us, was raised up from the dead by the Father and snatched to his throne in the heavens and now them two are sitting there. From the Father he sent his Spirit who is at the same time the Spirit of the Father, third divine person, to us to not leave us as orphans, to guide, sanctify us and to give us strength to do his works and even greater than the ones he used to do. The Holy Spirit while being with us and in us conveys Jesus’ will and presence . In this way God the Father, Jesus his Son, the Holy Spirit and the chosen ones are in perfect unity. Hope I answered at least something.

Not really. God is a title? What add's true before the Fathers title but not the Son or the Spirit? There is only ONE God so if its the Fathers title why not the Son and the Spirit? You believe Jesus was the Son but if He is not the Fathers Son whose Son is He? Eternally Begotten means begotten but not made. No beginning. That is was stated so but not really explained as well as true God "from" true God. If one has no beginning how are they "from" another as a Son. The foundation of orthodoxy is mystery. If Jesus had a human soul and a human body as stated in orthdoxy how can all of Him be God.? How did He speak of things He saw and heard in heaven as a witness if He had a human mind? Again something stated so with a foundation of Mystery.

Its stated coeternal; coequal; and the essence of the Father, and therefore as consubstantial with the Father.

But there is a reason one is called the Father.
The patriarch
14For this reason I kneel before the Father, 15from whom every family in heaven and on earth derives its name.
Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[Dmytro]

Neither Jesus or the rest of the Bible says Jesus pre-existed. Likewise, you will either believe it or not.

So I guess there isn't really a doctrine for the pre-existence of Jesus and I am comfortable with that. I don't require Jesus be God for him to be my Lord and Savior.

Here are his direct words. I highlighted for you. Here he says he was with the Father in the glory before the world existed. The Heavenly Father is God, Jesus is his divine Son sharing the same nature with the Father.

“And now, Father, you glorify me at your side with the glory that I had at your side before the world existed.”
‭‭John‬ ‭17‬:‭5‬ ‭LEB‬‬

John 17:5 And now, Father, you glorify me at your side with the glory that I had at your side before the world existed. | Lexham English Bible (LEB) | Download The Bible App Now

And now, Father, you glorify me at your side with the glory that I had at your side before the world existed.

bible.com

 

[Mustard Seed]

Some of your phrases were delight I believe what I see and hear. I see three divine persons and beings. The Father is the only true God. ‘God’ is kind of title. Jesus is God by nature the same as the Father, separate divine being. He, like the Father, always was. I personally prefer ‘monogenes’ to be translated like ‘one and only’ not ‘only begotten’ because Jesus, I believe, wasn’t literally born from the Father. He always was the Son, but was manifested as a Son through the resurrection. The Father shows all he’s going to do to Jesus and Jesus implements that in a perfect way, this is why the Father is well pleased with him. When Jesus was among us he spoke and did only what was revealed to him by the Father so seeing him was like seeing the Father himself. Then Jesus died for us, was raised up from the dead by the Father and snatched to his throne in the heavens and now them two are sitting there. From the Father he sent his Spirit who is at the same time the Spirit of the Father, third divine person, to us to not leave us as orphans, to guide, sanctify us and to give us strength to do his works and even greater than the ones he used to do. The Holy Spirit while being with us and in us conveys Jesus’ will and presence . In this way God the Father, Jesus his Son, the Holy Spirit and the chosen ones are in perfect unity. Hope I answered at least something.

In this quote, you suggest that only the Father is God… I have heard this interpretation before.

How do you reconcile that John’s first chapter says that Jesus was “with God” and “was God”?

 

[Mustard Seed]

Does that mean god saw himself as a person? As one of us?

God looked like us, long before we looked like Him. We were made in God's image. Christ is the "image" of the invisible God. God has always intended relational fellowship with us, starting in Eden. He gave all of His creations Autonomous Individual Libertarian Agency that functions apart from His Will. That is a good thing. However, from that good thing, bad things happened as Satan misused his agency to deceive Eve.

 

[Free]

Neither Jesus or the rest of the Bible says Jesus pre-existed. Likewise, you will either believe it or not.

So I guess there isn't really a doctrine for the pre-existence of Jesus and I am comfortable with that. I don't require Jesus be God for him to be my Lord and Savior.

Jesus said it several times, which is why it was repeated by his followers several times. Jesus has to be truly God or he is no one's Lord or Saviour.

Example?

At this point, after having repeatedly given those verses without you having addressed them, this is really just trolling.

No it doesn't.

It absolutely does, as basic grammar and understanding of context show.

Observe closely Hebrews 1:10 because it begins with "and." That means it is conjoined to verse 9 where it refers to God anointing the Son. Therefore, Hebrews 1:10 is about the Father being the Creator.

No, it doesn't and it isn't.

Heb 1:8 But of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.
Heb 1:9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.”
Heb 1:10 And, “You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands;
Heb 1:11 they will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment,
Heb 1:12 like a robe you will roll them up, like a garment they will be changed. But you are the same, and your years will have no end.”

First, the entire chapter is about Christ and his superiority to the angels. Second, verse 8 is clearly about the Son and along with verse 9, is a single quote from the Psalms:

Psa 45:6 Your throne, O God, is forever and ever. The scepter of your kingdom is a scepter of uprightness;
Psa 45:7 you have loved righteousness and hated wickedness. Therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions;

Third, the "And" of verse 10 can only be referring back to the beginning of verse 8, "But of the Son he says." The rest of verse 10 and to the end of verse 12 is another single quote from the Psalms:

Psa 102:25 Of old you laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands.
Psa 102:26 They will perish, but you will remain; they will all wear out like a garment. You will change them like a robe, and they will pass away,
Psa 102:27 but you are the same, and your years have no end.

Fourth, it makes absolutely no sense grammatically or contextually for the "And" to be referring to verse 9, never mind that it is "about the Father being the Creator." Again, the entire chapter is about the superiority of the Son to the angels, which the quote in verses 8 and 9 shows. To start talking about God in verse 10 would be completely irrelevant and out of place. Additionally, if the Father alone was creator, it would go without saying and be an utterly pointless quote, especially when the whole point is to show the superiority of the Son of God to the angels:

Heb 1:4 having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs.

Then what follows are the proofs:

Heb 1:5 For to which of the angels did God ever say...

Heb 1:6 And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says...

Heb 1:7 Of the angels he says...

Heb 1:8 But of the Son he says...

Heb 1:10 And,...

Heb 1:13 And to which of the angels has he ever said...

It is all about the superiority of the Son to the angels, with the proofs being either about the Son or the angels--because that's the whole point of providing proof--and where verses 8-12 are entirely about the Son.

Hebrews 1 says nothing about the Son being God. Where did you get that idea?

It's right in the context. It simply cannot be otherwise. It's clearly in 1:10-12 and also in 1:2-3.

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.
Heb 1:3 He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, (ESV)

Notice how verses 10-12 fully support verse 2, which goes back to the preexistence of the Son. The writer of Hebrews lied if the Son didn't preexist; it would have been impossible, even for God, to create the world (universe) through the Son if the Son didn't actually exist at that point. And, yet again, that is the same problem you run into with John 1:1-3, 10, 1 Cor 8:6, and Col 1:16-17.

That the Son didn't preexist eternally is a logical impossibility.

(All ESV.)

 

[Free]

This passage alone does away with both tritheism and Arianism:

Joh 12:36 While you have the light, believe in the light, that you may become sons of light.” When Jesus had said these things, he departed and hid himself from them.
Joh 12:37 Though he had done so many signs before them, they still did not believe in him,
Joh 12:38 so that the word spoken by the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled: “Lord, who has believed what he heard from us, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?”
Joh 12:39 Therefore they could not believe. For again Isaiah said,
Joh 12:40 “He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, lest they see with their eyes, and understand with their heart, and turn, and I would heal them.”
Joh 12:41 Isaiah said these things because he saw his glory and spoke of him.
Joh 12:42 Nevertheless, many even of the authorities believed in him, but for fear of the Pharisees they did not confess it, so that they would not be put out of the synagogue; (ESV)

Who is the "him" in this passage?

 

[Mustard Seed]

Jesus said it several times, which is why it was repeated by his followers several times. Jesus has to be truly God or he is no one's Lord or Saviour.

That the Son didn't preexist eternally is a logical impossibility.

I think folks that don't scripturally search it out are sometimes afraid to admit that God is and ALWAYS has been, never not has been... The infinite Being that Lives and Breaths, carrying the appearance of "Humanity", long before He formed Adam from the dust. The Tri is so protected, that people are never explained that, though the Tri is REAL and Genuine, that the UNE matters, too.

And... supporting your first two sentences...

GOD ratified the Old Covenant. When GOD died at Golgotha, the Covenant was fulfilled and just as Hebrews says, the NEW Covenant is the WILL of God towards us. As in, the literal "last will and testament" of God...

Visa Vi.... if it wasn't GOD on the Cross, bleeding His Blood for us, our salvational mechanism is shot and ineffectual. No Atonement. No Propitiation. No destruction of the Accuser of the Brethren's work!

 

[Runningman]

Here are his direct words. I highlighted for you. Here he says he was with the Father in the glory before the world existed. The Heavenly Father is God, Jesus is his divine Son sharing the same nature with the Father.

“And now, Father, you glorify me at your side with the glory that I had at your side before the world existed.”
‭‭John‬ ‭17‬:‭5‬ ‭LEB‬‬

John 17:5 And now, Father, you glorify me at your side with the glory that I had at your side before the world existed. | Lexham English Bible (LEB) | Download The Bible App Now

And now, Father, you glorify me at your side with the glory that I had at your side before the world existed.

bible.com

I believe you're reading a literal pre-existence into John 17:5 rather than Jesus existing in God's foreknowledge, in the logos of God if you will. See, we also have verses like 2 Timothy 1:9 that say God gave us grace before time began, but who ever makes a doctrine about Christians pre-existing their physical life? No one, yet we all seem to agree that in 2 Timothy 1:9 that the grace that was given refers to something in God's foreknowledge.

We can test this, too. There are no examples of you or I pre-existing in the Old Testament, or any other Christian for that matter. There are also no examples of Jesus there either.

So, provided that, why can't this refer to Jesus having glory with God in God's foreknowledge rather than literally? If you want to settle it, just show what Jesus was saying and doing before the world existed using Scripture.

 

[Mustard Seed]

This passage alone does away with both tritheism and Arianism:

Joh 12:36 While you have the light, believe in the light, that you may become sons of light.” When Jesus had said these things, he departed and hid himself from them.
Joh 12:37 Though he had done so many signs before them, they still did not believe in him,
Joh 12:38 so that the word spoken by the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled: “Lord, who has believed what he heard from us, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?”
Joh 12:39 Therefore they could not believe. For again Isaiah said,
Joh 12:40 “He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, lest they see with their eyes, and understand with their heart, and turn, and I would heal them.”
Joh 12:41 Isaiah said these things because he saw his glory and spoke of him.
Joh 12:42 Nevertheless, many even of the authorities believed in him, but for fear of the Pharisees they did not confess it, so that they would not be put out of the synagogue; (ESV)

Who is the "him" in this passage?

Turtullian was around 150 AD and to protect the TriUNE nature of God, He OVER distinguished the TRI to Trinity, while forgetting to re-distinguish to UNE. He was so concerned with the Eternal God Head being known, that He never foresaw that the OVER distinguishment might lead to confusion and more convoluted doctrines.

The true facts are that God is incomprehensible to us. We will never fully understand His mechanisms, long into eternity as we all hang on His every word about matters. Many are afraid to resolve within themselves that its okay to always be in a state of learning.

My two cents on the matter.

 

[Dmytro]

Not really. God is a title?

Kind of. Means ‘Strong, mighty one’ according to Strong.

add's true before the Fathers title but not the Son or the Spirit?
There is only ONE God so if its the Fathers title why not the Son and the Spirit?

In NT in most cases ‘God’ relates to the Father. Just the fact.

You believe Jesus was the Son but if He is not the Fathers Son whose Son is He? Eternally Begotten means begotten but not made. No beginning.

Of course he is the Father’s Son. Agrree.

That is was stated so but not really explained as well as true God "from" true God.

Explanation of this is on trinitarians, sorry

If one has no beginning how are they "from" another as a Son. The foundation of orthodoxy is mystery. If Jesus had a human soul and a human body as stated in orthdoxy how can all of Him be God.? How did He speak of things He saw and heard in heaven as a witness if He had a human mind? Again something stated so with a foundation of Mystery.

I didn’t quite get you

Its stated coeternal; coequal; and the essence of the Father, and therefore as consubstantial with the Father.

But there is a reason one is called the Father.
The patriarch
14For this reason I kneel before the Father, 15from whom every family in heaven and on earth derives its name.
Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[Dmytro]

I believe you're reading a literal pre-existence into John 17:5 rather than Jesus existing in God's foreknowledge, in the logos of God if you will. See, we also have verses like 2 Timothy 1:9 that say God gave us grace before time began, but who ever makes a doctrine about Christians pre-existing their physical life? No one, yet we all seem to agree that in 2 Timothy 1:9 that the grace that was given refers to something in God's foreknowledge.

We can test this, too. There are no examples of you or I pre-existing in the Old Testament, or any other Christian for that matter. There are also no examples of Jesus there either.

So, provided that, why can't this refer to Jesus having glory with God in God's foreknowledge rather than literally? If you want to settle it, just show what Jesus was saying and doing before the world existed using Scripture.

No, that words from John are not about foreknowledge. That’s obvious…

 

[LeviR]

In this quote, you suggest that only the Father is God… I have heard this interpretation before.

How do you reconcile that John’s first chapter says that Jesus was “with God” and “was God”?

John’s first chapter says “the Word was with God” and “the Word was God”.
The Father is the only true God.
That means John is saying “the Word was with the Father” and “the Word was the Father”
If the Word was the Father, then the Father’s Word would be referred to as the Father.
And so it was because the Father is YHWH.

 

[Dmytro]

In this quote, you suggest that only the Father is God… I have heard this interpretation before.

“Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.”
‭‭John‬ ‭17‬:‭3‬ ‭LEB‬‬

John 17:3 Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. | Lexham English Bible (LEB) | Download The Bible App Now

Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

bible.com

How do you reconcile that John’s first chapter says that Jesus was “with God” and “was God”?

First ‘God’ is with definite article and hence reference object, second one is without an article and hence reference attributes of an object. So I believe it should be translated like:

The Word was with God and the Word was God by nature

How could you explain that this nuance in meaning caused by presence or absence of definite article before ‘God’ hasn’t been reflected in English translation?