There is an alternative to trinitarianism/ non-trinitarianism.

[Runningman]

So what you're saying is that just as we should not worship Mary, we also should not worship Jesus.
We should only worship God Father (as Trinitarians understand it).

Correct. Jesus' teachings about worship were regarding the Father in your Trinity. Jesus' God is the Father. The Father is his and his disciples' God, YHWH, according to Scripture.

So who is Jesus?
Is He a good teacher?
A morally perfect man?

If he was just a man, sent by God even, was He a little crazy to go to the cross for believing He was the Son of God?
Jesus said He would forgive persons at judgment day.
Isn't judging just for God?
Does God need help doing this?

Sorry to hear that's how you feel about Jesus. Many people were offended by a lot of the things he said and consequently left him. No one came to the conclusion that Jesus is God incarnate apparently, for that would be blasphemy. Even Jesus didn't say he was God. You would think that if he was God then he would have no problem coming right out and saying it.

The Bible describes Jesus as a man, a chosen servant of God, who God made both Lord and Christ. God empowered Jesus and anointed him. Jesus is a prophet among many other things.

The Bible says we, too, can be sons of God and daughters of God. We can do the same miracles as Jesus, we can serve God, we can live like Jesus. Are we crazy too?

What did Thomas mean when he called Jesus his God?
Maybe it was added in later on by trinitarians to make their point?

Thomas' statement is misunderstood, seen as confirmation as those who want to see it that way. Why did Jesus not teach any of his disciples he is their God? Why did Jesus plainly state that he and his disciples God is the Father in John 20:17?

In Titus 1:3 it states that God Himself is the Savior.
The OT attests to this: That God is our Savior.

There can't be more than one savior working together? John 3:16,17 says God sent Jesus to save the world through him. God and Jesus work together, that's typically how a master and servant do. Is that one who saves you the savior or also the one who equipped and enabled the savior also the savior?

Is Jesus our Savior?

Yes.

So He was supposed to say.....pray to me too?
Jesus is our mediator .... it's understood that we should pray to Him.

Jesus the mediator and high priest, a man between God and men. (1 Timothy 2:5) Don't begin with all of your reasons, Jesus trust what Jesus said in John 4.

Then what GROUP is left?
A person cannot make up his own Christianity.
It's already been established.
So many times I've repeated this.
What does the YES under your avatar mean??

Christianity is left. Protestants and Catholics, though they attach themselves to Christianity, actually follow very little of what Christianity is about. Sure, they quote Bible verses like any other, but most of the doctrines are wrong. I am not just talking about the Jesus is God doctrine, but this is a big one and why I always address it first.

But yes, IF Jesus is not God,,,then we are all worshipping a man.

But yet, you say He IS a man....

How so? Jesus said worship the Father in spirit and truth. No one ever worships Jesus in spirit and truth nor was commanded to.

Well, RM, here's how I see it.

Either Jesus was God or He was a crazy person.ù
I don't think He was a crazy person.

Who else but a crazy person would make such statement:

Destroy my body and I'll rebuild it in 3 days.
My Kingdom is not of this world.
I lay down my life so that I may take it up again.
This very day you will be with me in paradise.
I do exactly as the Father has commanded me.

Those do not sound like words of a sane man.
Ergo.....He was God.

Prophets sound crazy, but they aren't. Imagine Noah saying there is a flood coming and the giant ark he was building on dry land. He was for sure the hot topic for a long time, laughed at, scoffed, mocked, etc. Until the floods came. Then they took him seriously.

For sure Moses when he was going up to the mountain and came back with tablets of stone and said God wrote on them.

How about Elijah when he said he could control the weather?

Yet when Jesus gave a prophecy regarding his resurrection he's also crazy? John didn't misunderstand him like you seem to be doing.

What did John say in John 2:22? Doesn't saying "after he was raised from the dead" convey the meaning that Someone else raised Jesus? The rest of the Bible says the Father or God or the Spirit of Him raised up Jesus.

22After He was raised from the dead, His disciples remembered that He had said this. Then they believed the Scripture and the word that Jesus had spoken.

 

[Free]

I'll never give up that argument which, from my perspective, isn't an argument. 1 John 1:1-3 plainly calls the word of life an it, a thing, that was revealed to them.

It is an argument and it's based on poor reasoning and an unwillingness to address the Greek, which leads to a untrue conclusion. Willful ignorance has no place in Christianity nor anyone interested in the truth.

There is every reason in the world to believe this is personification. First of all, it's intuitive that a Word isn't an actual person. "Logos" doesn't refer to a person when it is used throughout the Bible except in John 1.

On the contrary, there is every reason to believe it is not personification. Have you actually ever addressed the fact that John writes that the Word was in intimate union and relationship with God? That alone refutes personification. Not to mention that John then writes that the Word was God (in nature). To say a person's word or words are that person or the same nature as that person is nonsense. My words aren't me nor are my words actually human.

Jesus was not involved in creation. I may ask you what you asked me earlier. How many times does the error of your reasoning as it relates to John 1:1-3, 10; 1 Cor 8:6; Col 1:16-17; Heb 1:2, 10-12 have to be pointed out?

There is the vast difference between me asking and you asking. I have actually addressed your arguments and shown how the reasoning is poor. Also, I have used sound reasoning in the above passages. You have so far avoided any sort of refutation of either of those--you haven't shown there to be any error in my reasoning and your saying so doesn't make it true.

Have we not already gone over these and I showed how Jesus isn't the creator? Only God is the creator.

You only claim that Jesus isn't the creator, but you haven't actually shown that to be the case, nor shown how those other passages don't show that Jesus is also the creator.

On this particular point there is no distinction between Jesus and other people when it comes to being filled with the fullness of God.

There absolutely is a difference. It's all in the full context of who Jesus is and the context of what humans are.

So you admit that "the Word" didn't have the words of God, but the word of God had to be given to him and then revealed by Jesus? If so I rest my case. That's essentially my point.

What point? You don't understand Phil 2:5-8 and you never did address the points I gave about it, iirc.

Yes 1 Corinthians 8:6 means Jesus isn't God. So does Ephesians 4:6, John 17:3, among many other explicit examples that identify the Father as the one and only God.

As long as you're clear then that the Father can never be Lord and that Paul then contradicts himself by calling the Father the Lord of lords. You cannot have it both ways, as much as you need to to maintain the appearance of truth for your position.

If the Father is Lord, and he is, then, according to 1 Cor 8:6, the Son can also be God. That is basic logic and sound reasoning. And, the second point I've given before that is also basic logic: If "from whom are all things" speaks of the Father's absolute existence, then it necessarily follows that "through whom are all things" speaks of the Son's absolute existence. Again, basic logic and sound reasoning.

The conclusion is inescapable, which is perhaps why you have never addressed those two points despite the numerous times I've posted them to you. And, again, it's the same logic in John 1:3, Col 1:16-17, and Heb 1:2, which is then supported by 1:10-12, literally showing that the Son is Yahweh and was involved in creation. Basic logic and basic hermeneutics.

So Jesus isn't called the "King of kings and Lord of lords" then. They called Jesus the "Lord of lords and King of kings" to demonstrate distinction from God.

This is a really poor argument and strongly suggests that you are just unwilling to put in serious study, which is likely why you don't believe the Trinity. That is a stretch, to put it mildly; reversing the two titles is absolutely irrelevant. And, you literally quoted Rev 19:4, which is about Jesus:

Rev 19:16 On his robe and on his thigh he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords. (ESV)

Besides, there are at least 2 dozen names and titles Jesus doesn't have in common with God.

Which isn't relevant. Again, this is a poor argument.

 

[Runningman]

It is an argument and it's based on poor reasoning and an unwillingness to address the Greek, which leads to a untrue conclusion. Willful ignorance has no place in Christianity nor anyone interested in the truth.

What do you think the dozens of translators were doing in the miscellaneous versions they translated? Do you realize that people with credentials, experience, and expertise translated the Bible? They're all wrong and you're right?

On the contrary, there is every reason to believe it is not personification. Have you actually ever addressed the fact that John writes that the Word was in intimate union and relationship with God? That alone refutes personification. Not to mention that John then writes that the Word was God (in nature). To say a person's word or words are that person or the same nature as that person is nonsense. My words aren't me nor are my words actually human.

That's about Word being something in God's heart, i.e., in the bosom of the Father (John 1:18) that existed in God's foreknowledge and plan. This should be clear from the reading of John 1:18 that Jesus wasn't literally in God's chest. It's figurative language or do you maintain Jesus pre-existed in God's chest?

There is the vast difference between me asking and you asking. I have actually addressed your arguments and shown how the reasoning is poor. Also, I have used sound reasoning in the above passages. You have so far avoided any sort of refutation of either of those--you haven't shown there to be any error in my reasoning and your saying so doesn't make it true.

I have addressed your argument(s) repeatedly. If you feel there is something that has not been addressed then please bring it up here and I will thoroughly refute it on record so we don't come to this misunderstanding again.

You only claim that Jesus isn't the creator, but you haven't actually shown that to be the case, nor shown how those other passages don't show that Jesus is also the creator.

How about Acts 4:24-27? God is the Creator and Sovereign Lord and Jesus the servant? One is called the Creator and the other isn't. Acts 17:24,25 where the Lord of heaven and earth is God, maker of all things, and is not served by human hands? Isaiah 44:24 YHWH said He created alone and then in Acts 3:13 it says that Jesus is the servant or Son of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Yet, Exodus 3:14,15 says the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in YHWH. That's pretty good proof Jesus isn't the Creator. It would pass in court as proof beyond a reasonable doubt and the common person accepts and understands this easily.

What kind of proof are you looking for exactly? Do you want Jesus to come out and say "I am not the Creator?"

There absolutely is a difference. It's all in the full context of who Jesus is and the context of what humans are.


What point? You don't understand Phil 2:5-8 and you never did address the points I gave about it, iirc.

I have addressed it in the past. Phil. 2:5-8 begins with saying "Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus:" This passage is concerning Paul telling the Philippian people how to have the mind of Jesus. It isn't about Jesus either believing he is God or being God or it would follow that Paul was telling the people of Philippi to believe they are God, which they are not because Jesus isn't.

As long as you're clear then that the Father can never be Lord and that Paul then contradicts himself by calling the Father the Lord of lords. You cannot have it both ways, as much as you need to to maintain the appearance of truth for your position.

The Father is Lord (Matthew 11:25) but when they speak of "one Lord" they are referring to a specific context. They are referring to Jesus being the one Lord of the church, but Jesus isn't the Lord of heaven and earth. There is a divine hierarchy. If it's any consolation, Jesus is right near the top, but not at the top. This is why Jesus is never called the Lord of heaven and earth, Jesus the head of the church, but that the head of Christ himself is actually God. Don't you see Jesus was God's servant? The servant of God isn't the Lord Most High.

If the Father is Lord, and he is, then, according to 1 Cor 8:6, the Son can also be God. That is basic logic and sound reasoning. And, the second point I've given before that is also basic logic: If "from whom are all things" speaks of the Father's absolute existence, then it necessarily follows that "through whom are all things" speaks of the Son's absolute existence. Again, basic logic and sound reasoning.

There are many so-called gods and lords who are not God. Being Lord of the church doesn't necessitate becoming God. (1 Corinthians 8:5)

The conclusion is inescapable, which is perhaps why you have never addressed those two points despite the numerous times I've posted them to you. And, again, it's the same logic in John 1:3, Col 1:16-17, and Heb 1:2, which is then supported by 1:10-12, literally showing that the Son is Yahweh and was involved in creation. Basic logic and basic hermeneutics.

I have addressed all of the points you've brought up at one time or another. Let's do it again because I am putting this on record. If you bring them up again just expect copy and pastes of this post.

John 1:3 - refers to YHWH speaking in creation. See Genesis 1 where there is no one there named the Word saying or doing anything.

Colossians 1:15-20 - Refers to God creating the church through Jesus. There is no precedent for a pre-existent being known as the Word Image of God saying or doing anything in the beginning, let alone creating. The entire context of Colossians 1:15-20 refers to Jesus being the head of the church and God reconciling to Himself the "all things" through Jesus' sacrifice. None of this happened until after Jesus was born.

Hebrew 1:1-2 - says that in these "last days" God spoke through the Son whereas in the past God spoke through the prophets. Since speaking through the Son is not something God did in the past, speaking through the Son is not how God created. The "world" or "universe" were not made in "these last days." Furthermore, the word "world" or "universe" in Hebrews 1:2 literally translates to "ages." Many Bibles place a footnote on this verse for full transparency. It doesn't refer to the physical universe being created.

This is a really poor argument and strongly suggests that you are just unwilling to put in serious study, which is likely why you don't believe the Trinity. That is a stretch, to put it mildly; reversing the two titles is absolutely irrelevant. And, you literally quoted Rev 19:4, which is about Jesus:

Rev 19:16 On his robe and on his thigh he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords. (ESV)

This suggests the stretch you're willing to make to make the Bible say something it actually doesn't in support of your belief system. If you will look closely, it says that was written on him. When God's title is written on someone it means they belong to God, not that they are God.

Revelation 3
12Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.

Which isn't relevant. Again, this is a poor argument.

Singling out some of the one-off names that Jesus has in common with God and use that as something that makes Jesus God (in your opinion) then turning and saying it's "irrelevant" when Jesus doesn't share at least two dozen names with God is a poor argument.

 

[GodsGrace]

Correct. Jesus' teachings about worship were regarding the Father in your Trinity

Not my Trinity RM.
It was actually formulated by minds greater than ours over 2,000 years ago when confronted with a BEING such as was never seen before. Let's see what was believed about Jesus. I told one of my JW friends to learn about the Fathers, but, alas, they're afraid to...but exist they did:

Now may the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the eternal high priest himself, the Son of God Jesus Christ, build you up in faith and truth...and to us with you, and to all those under heaven who will yet believe in our Lord and God Jesus Christ and in his Father who raised him from the dead.1
Polycarp 69-155AD taught by John


Ignatius, who is also Theophorus, unto her which hath been blessed in greatness through the plentitude of God the Father; which hath been foreordained before the ages to be for ever unto abiding and unchangeable glory, united and elect in a true passion, by the will of the Father and of Jesus Christ our God; even unto the church which is in Ephesus [of Asia], worthy of all felicitation: abundant greeting in Christ Jesus and in blameless joy.2

Being as you are imitators of God, once you took on new life through the blood of God you completed perfectly the task so natural to you.3

There is only one physician, who is both flesh and spirit, born and unborn, God in man, true life in death, both from Mary and from God, first subject to suffering and then beyond it, Jesus Christ our Lord.4

For our God, Jesus the Christ, was conceived by Mary according to God’s plan, both from the seed of David and of the Holy Spirit.5

Consequently all magic and every kind of spell were dissolved, the ignorance so characteristic of wickedness vanished, and the ancient kingdom was abolished when God appeared in human form to bring the newness of eternal life.6
Iganatius of Antioch Who coined the word Christian and was a disciple of John

There's more....
but, of course, no amount will suffice for you...
Because you choose to believe doctrine that was INVENTED in the 1800's by a man.

. Jesus' God is the Father. The Father is his and his disciples' God, YHWH, according to Scripture.


Sorry to hear that's how you feel about Jesus. Many people were offended by a lot of the things he said and consequently left him. No one came to the conclusion that Jesus is God incarnate apparently, for that would be blasphemy. Even Jesus didn't say he was God. You would think that if he was God then he would have no problem coming right out and saying it.

Actually, RM, that's how YOU feel about Jesus.
Maybe you missed the point of my post to you.
Either JESUS IS GOD
or
JESUS IS A CRAZY MAN.

Jesus said He was God many times.
Plus, I don't think you know much history about what happened in Jerusalem in about 27AD.
MAYBE, just maybe, Jesus did not WANT to admit to His divinity because He would have liked to get His message out to the population BEFORE He was killed on a cross.

I guess YOU, being smarter than Jesus, would have proclaimed it immediately.
Ergo, you would have ended up on the cross 3 years before your time.

Jesus said to Mary: IT IS NOT YET MY TIME.
Ever wonder what Jesus meant by that?
Maybe you should.
Maybe you should THINK instead of being spoon fed THE TRUTH which you throw aside.
Like pearls.

The Bible describes Jesus as a man, a chosen servant of God, who God made both Lord and Christ. God empowered Jesus and anointed him. Jesus is a prophet among many other things.

As I showed you above....persons taught by the APOSTLES believed Jesus was God.
Should we believe THEM or YOU?
Perhaps you should leave that cult you belong to and come join Christianity since you demand to be known as a Christian.
Perhaps you should start believing what Christians believe?

The Bible says we, too, can be sons of God and daughters of God. We can do the same miracles as Jesus, we can serve God, we can live like Jesus. Are we crazy too?

What miracles have YOU done lately?
Raise any dead persons?
I think you need a commentary written by Christians...not by cultists.

Thomas' statement is misunderstood, seen as confirmation as those who want to see it that way.

Oh. And YOU don't have your very own way of understanding scripture?
Too bad the Christian denominations understand Thomas the correct way.
He was addressing Jesus AS GOD.

You want to discuss John 20:17 after my first post up above?

MY GOD AND YOUR GOD

By nature...the Father is Jesus' father.
By grace....He is our God.

Perhaps you could check a good commentary.
Something I don't care to do.

Why did Jesus not teach any of his disciples he is their God? Why did Jesus plainly state that he and his disciples God is the Father in John 20:17?

So many questions for Jesus.
I already gave you one reason....
you could continue to question Him when you see Him.

There can't be more than one savior working together? John 3:16,17 says God sent Jesus to save the world through him. God and Jesus work together, that's typically how a master and servant do. Is that one who saves you the savior or also the one who equipped and enabled the savior also the savior?

No way RM.
GOD FATHER said HE is the Savior.
Jesus is the Savior.
That means that Jesus is God.
Simple.

Jesus wasn't EQUIPPED.
God doesn't need to be equipped.

Yes.


Jesus the mediator and high priest, a man between God and men. (1 Timothy 2:5) Don't begin with all of your reasons, Jesus trust what Jesus said in John 4.

My reasons are based on those that knew those that knew Jesus.
My reason are based on proper understanding with scripture which is RECONCILED with those that were taught by the Apostles who were taught by Jesus.

Christianity is left. Protestants and Catholics, though they attach themselves to Christianity, actually follow very little of what Christianity is about. Sure, they quote Bible verses like any other, but most of the doctrines are wrong. I am not just talking about the Jesus is God doctrine, but this is a big one and why I always address it first.

It's so nice that only YOU have the truth RM.
All those early Fathers and doctors of the church just didn't even really know what they believed.
It took some guy 1,800 years later to explain it.
Wonderful.

The CC ATTACHING ITSELF to Christianity is an amazing statement.
So this means that you believe in a type of Christianity before the CC?
The CC always existed.

So... let's see...are you a gnostic?
Hmmm. Maybe we're getting somewhere now.

How so? Jesus said worship the Father in spirit and truth. No one ever worships Jesus in spirit and truth nor was commanded to.

Christians are taught to worship Jesus.
If He is just a man....we are idol worshippers.
Thankfully, the early Fathers do not agree with you.

Prophets sound crazy, but they aren't. Imagine Noah saying there is a flood coming and the giant ark he was building on dry land. He was for sure the hot topic for a long time, laughed at, scoffed, mocked, etc. Until the floods came. Then they took him seriously.

For sure Moses when he was going up to the mountain and came back with tablets of stone and said God wrote on them.

How about Elijah when he said he could control the weather?

Yet when Jesus gave a prophecy regarding his resurrection he's also crazy? John didn't misunderstand him like you seem to be doing.

Oh my.

Did those others you mentioned go willing to a cross?
Do we call THEM Saviors?
Surely Jesus must be different in some way?

What did John say in John 2:22? Doesn't saying "after he was raised from the dead" convey the meaning that Someone else raised Jesus? The rest of the Bible says the Father or God or the Spirit of Him raised up Jesus.

John 2:27
Jesus was raised from the dead by BOTH His power
and the Father's power.
Because they are both God and have the same nature and the same will.
Studying some Christian theology would be of great help.
Instead you prefer to spend your time in some cult.

 

[Runningman]

Not my Trinity RM.

The Trinity was literally invented in 325 AD at the Council of Nicaea. This is a historical fact and it isn't debatable. It was certainly not something Jesus or the original Christians believed in or described. The Trinity as explained by your miscellaneous creeds and spokesmen actually exists no where in Scripture. It's not in the Old Testament, not something written about by Jesus' disciples, or something Jesus taught about.

Actually, RM, that's how YOU feel about Jesus.
Maybe you missed the point of my post to you.
Either JESUS IS GOD
or
JESUS IS A CRAZY MAN.

I didn't say that's how I feel about Jesus. You said that about Jesus and your words represent you, not me. It sounds like you want to assign beliefs and feelings to me. I would advise against that since where I have observed you doing is misrepresenting me. Allow me to represent myself with my words and I will expect the same of you and others. This is fair.

Jesus said He was God many times.

Verse?

Plus, I don't think you know much history about what happened in Jerusalem in about 27AD.
MAYBE, just maybe, Jesus did not WANT to admit to His divinity because He would have liked to get His message out to the population BEFORE He was killed on a cross.

Where does the Scripture support your theory?

I guess YOU, being smarter than Jesus, would have proclaimed it immediately.
Ergo, you would have ended up on the cross 3 years before your time.

No, I would have just allowed Jesus to represent himself. Post resurrection Jesus didn't teach anyone he's God either. I guess you'll disagree. Please provide a verse. Would love to see it.

Jesus said to Mary: IT IS NOT YET MY TIME.
Ever wonder what Jesus meant by that?
Maybe you should.
Maybe you should THINK instead of being spoon fed THE TRUTH which you throw aside.
Like pearls.

Here's the truth and it plainly states that Jesus and his disciples' God is the Father. That's it. No mention of a second or third person who are also God.

John 20
17Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

As I showed you above....persons taught by the APOSTLES believed Jesus was God.
Should we believe THEM or YOU?

Believe the apostles who apparently never taught anyone was God. Where did any of them teach that?

Perhaps you should leave that cult you belong to and come join Christianity since you demand to be known as a Christian.
Perhaps you should start believing what Christians believe?

I am not in a cult, I am an actual Christian. It's difficult to actually recognize what one doesn't understand if they don't have the truth to measure it by. If you were completely and utterly deceived, would you recognize it?

What miracles have YOU done lately?

Yes God has performed signs and miracles through me before.

Raise any dead persons?

Paul and Peter did.

I think you need a commentary written by Christians...not by cultists.

Your commentary here doesn't seem very Christian. Do you have any recommendations?

Oh. And YOU don't have your very own way of understanding scripture?

John 17:3, Ephesians 4:6, 1 Corinthians 8:6, directly and explicitly identify the Father as the only true God. We Christians are monotheists so there is just one person who is God as the Bible says. Can you reconcile what Thomas said with what Peter said in Matthew 16:13-20? The answer Peter gave about Jesus being the "the Christ, the Son of the living God" is the answer about Jesus is as revealed by the Father in heaven.

Kindly notice, what Thomas said in John 20:28 is not the same answer as Peter's answer. Therefore, Thomas' bad attitude resulted in him not being blessed as stated by Jesus in verse 29.

You want to discuss John 20:17 after my first post up above?

MY GOD AND YOUR GOD

Yes Jesus' God and his disciples God is the Father.

By nature...the Father is Jesus' father.
By grace....He is our God.

Stop here. Don't add all of your non-Scriptural opinions, commentary, and explanations. Jesus didn't say anything about nature or grace here. God is a person, not a thing like a nature or grace.

Perhaps you could check a good commentary.
Something I don't care to do.

I read Trinitarian commentaries sometimes daily. Believe it or not, some of them actually disagree with you.

So many questions for Jesus.
I already gave you one reason....
you could continue to question Him when you see Him.

You should be asking Jesus these questions if you haven't already. I hope somehow or another he can get an answer through to you.

No way RM.
GOD FATHER said HE is the Savior.
Jesus is the Savior.
That means that Jesus is God.
Simple.

That's not how it works. There can be more than one person doing the saving without them being the same person. For example, the Father is Jesus' savior. Since someone who saves is a savior, then God is Jesus' savior.

Hebrews 5
7Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared;

Jesus wasn't EQUIPPED.
God doesn't need to be equipped.

Did you read all of the bits about all of the power and authority Jesus was "given" in the gospels? Jesus didn't inherently have anything until God anointed and empowered him to do the work God gave him. This all began at Jesus' water baptism.

Acts 10
37That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached; 38How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.

My reasons are based on those that knew those that knew Jesus.
My reason are based on proper understanding with scripture which is RECONCILED with those that were taught by the Apostles who were taught by Jesus.

Then why do your sources contradict Jesus? Shouldn't you find better sources? Don't listen to the "early church fathers" and their creeds so much. Just read the Bible. There is a big difference between them.

It's so nice that only YOU have the truth RM.
All those early Fathers and doctors of the church just didn't even really know what they believed.
It took some guy 1,800 years later to explain it.
Wonderful.

No this isn't new. It's right there in the canonized Bible. Everything I am telling you is in the Bible.

The CC ATTACHING ITSELF to Christianity is an amazing statement.
So this means that you believe in a type of Christianity before the CC?
The CC always existed.

The CC with their miscellaneous idols is Christianity? Do you pray to saints, Mary, or statues?

So... let's see...are you a gnostic?
Hmmm. Maybe we're getting somewhere now.

No I am Christian.

Christians are taught to worship Jesus.

Jesus didn't teach anyone that.

If He is just a man....we are idol worshippers.

We don't worship Jesus, we worship God instead. That's what Jesus taught in John 4.

Thankfully, the early Fathers do not agree with you.

And they don't agree with Jesus either.

Oh my.

Did those others you mentioned go willing to a cross?
Do we call THEM Saviors?
Surely Jesus must be different in some way?

In Genesis 22, Abraham had the faith to sacrifice his own son and his son was willing to comply. They even referred to his son as "the lamb." God stopped him just short of this. This is foreshadowing of the story of Jesus and His God and Father.

John 2:27

Nothing in the Bible says Jesus was raised by his own power. The Bible says the Father raised him from the dead.

1 Thessalonians 1
9For they themselves report what kind of welcome you gave us, and how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God 10and to await His Son from heaven, whom He raised from the dead—Jesus our deliverer from the coming wrath.

 

[Randy]

I believe the Bible is not irrefutable. Using the internal evidence of the Bible no one has been able to prove Jesus is God. It's not possible to do what you're trying to do. I've already been in your shoes. Actually, the indefensibility of the "God Man" theory is a primary reason I could no longer accept it in good conscience before people and God.

Its quite clear in the bible He is before all things and God brought all things into existence through/by Him. That He is the radiance of Gods glory and the imprint Of Gods very being. The image of the invisible God. He is all that the Father is and in that He is God. Its not possible to believe all that is written of Him and do what your doing from the testimony. (a glorified human being whose life began in Mary's womb).

Internal evidence from His words that you can't or won't accept.
"And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began."

This is what I see:
Father return to me the glory I had with you before the world began.

Of course there's much more that has been presented to you but you reject all the testimony about the Son who was before the world began.

If you're trying to refute the bible then that explains the continuous disagreement.

 

[Runningman]

Its quite clear in the bible He is before all things and God brought all things into existence through/by Him. That He is the radiance of Gods glory and the imprint Of Gods very being. The image of the invisible God. He is all that the Father is and in that He is God. Its not possible to believe all that is written of Him and do what your doing from the testimony. (a glorified human being whose life began in Mary's womb).

Let's use Colossians 1:16 and assume it's about creation in the most general sense. In or through Jesus all things were created. That means Jesus isn't the creator and that he isn't God. Doesn't match the context of the Bible where Jesus is never said to be the creator.

1 Corinthians 8:6 says from the one God, the Father, all things came.

Internal evidence from His words that you can't or won't accept.
"And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began."

I believe we have already demonstrated the inconsistency of your interpretation. In your beliefs, Jesus literally pre-existed but when the same thing is said of Jesus' disciples you can't or won't accept that they literally pre-existed. You need to either believe everyone pre-existed or they didn't.

2 Timothy 1
9who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began,

This is what I see:
Father return to me the glory I had with you before the world began.

No. You aren't allowed to adjust the Bible a little bit to better fit your theology. Jesus said " now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began." So do you hold the doctrine that Jesus was stripped of his glory and somehow needed to get it again? Why is that?

Of course there's much more that has been presented to you but you reject all the testimony about the Son who was before the world began.

you're doing that.

If you're trying to refute the bible then that explains the continuous disagreement.

I am trying to get through to you and the other people here about the correct understanding of the Bible. So far I have witnessed almost unanimous skepticism.

 

[Randy]

Let's use Colossians 1:16 and assume it's about creation in the most general sense. In or through Jesus all things were created. That means Jesus isn't the creator and that he isn't God. Doesn't match the context of the Bible where Jesus is never said to be the creator.

1 Corinthians 8:6 says from the one God, the Father, all things came.

I believe we have already demonstrated the inconsistency of your interpretation. In your beliefs, Jesus literally pre-existed but when the same thing is said of Jesus' disciples you can't or won't accept that they literally pre-existed. You need to either believe everyone pre-existed or they didn't.

Its clear to me as its spelled out and is cohesive with John and Hebrews 1. To state otherwise would be "my" interpretation.
For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him

2 Timothy 1
9who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began,

No. You aren't allowed to adjust the Bible a little bit to better fit your theology. Jesus said " now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began." So do you hold the doctrine that Jesus was stripped of his glory and somehow needed to get it again? Why is that?

Again this statement has no bearing on what Jesus declared. "Where He was before"
But we do see Jesus, who was made lower than the angels for a little while

you're doing that.

I am trying to get through to you and the other people here about the correct understanding of the Bible. So far I have witnessed almost unanimous skepticism.

I reading and believing the clear testimony. Not looking for a way of escape to fit a different theology mindset.

 

[Runningman]

Its clear to me as its spelled out and is cohesive with John and Hebrews 1. To state otherwise would be "my" interpretation.
For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him


Again this statement has no bearing on what Jesus declared. "Where He was before"
But we do see Jesus, who was made lower than the angels for a little while

I reading and believing the clear testimony. Not looking for a way of escape to fit a different theology mindset.

It's an interpretation. Saying "all things" in the Bible doesn't normally refer to literally everything in the most general sense. It refers to a specific context. In any case, Colossians 1:16 still says the "all things" were made through him so that means Jesus isn't the creator, but rather the instrument or channel.

 

[Randy]

It's an interpretation. Saying "all things" in the Bible doesn't normally refer to literally everything in the most general sense. It refers to a specific context. In any case, Colossians 1:16 still says the "all things" were made through him so that means Jesus isn't the creator, but rather the instrument or channel.

It means as it states "all things" and if God made all things by Him and through Him and for Him that means He was from the beginning before those things as it also states "He is before all things and that which was from the beginning". It's not possible to believe all that is written of Him and state what you state about Him. That His life and beginning began in Mary's womb.

 

[Runningman]

It means as it states "all things" and if God made all things by Him and through Him and for Him that means He was from the beginning before those things as it also states "He is before all things and that which was from the beginning". It's not possible to believe all that is written of Him and state what you state about Him. That His life and beginning began in Mary's womb.

Here's a question to test your "all things" theory.

Since Paul said, "I can do all things through Christ who gives me strength." Then why didn't he break out of jail instead of writing from jail? He couldn't break out. He couldn't flap his arms and fly like a bird. No one was meant to take that as literally "all things" in the universe. Paul can't be an omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent God and create a new universe. He's speaking about a specific context and Paul actually does this often in his writings. Colossians 1:23, for example, Paul said the gospel had been preached to every creature under heaven and yet that isn't true in the broadest sense.

So what would help your theory A LOT is actually quoting examples of Jesus, or the Word, or Son of God, creating in the beginning in Genesis or anywhere in the OT. Nothing there saying Jesus was doing that.

 

[Randy]

Here's a question to test your "all things" theory.

Since Paul said, "I can do all things through Christ who gives me strength." Then why didn't he break out of jail instead of writing from jail? He couldn't break out. He couldn't flap his arms and fly like a bird. No one was meant to take that as literally "all things" in the universe. Paul can't be an omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent God and create a new universe. He's speaking about a specific context and Paul actually does this often in his writings. Colossians 1:23, for example, Paul said the gospel had been preached to every creature under heaven and yet that isn't true in the broadest sense.

So what would help your theory A LOT is actually quoting examples of Jesus, or the Word, or Son of God, creating in the beginning in Genesis or anywhere in the OT. Nothing there saying Jesus was doing that.

The Apostles teaching should be sufficient for you but Jesus statements, ascending to where He was before, the glory He had with the Father before the world began, and was before Abraham was born shows even if He Himself stated when as the Son of Man God created through Him you wouldn't believe.

Also your reasoning is out of context with what Paul stated in Philippians which really has no bearing in regard to the preeminence or supremacy given to Son in all things. The firstborn of all creation; The beginning of the creation of God; before all things; God made all things through/by/for Him. That eternal life which was with the Father from the beginning.

3956 [e] 13 panta 13 πάντα 13 [For] all things 13 Adj-ANP​

2480 [e] ischyō ἰσχύω I have strength V-PIA-1S​

1722 [e] en ἐν in Prep​

3588 [e] tō τῷ the [One] Art-DMS​

1743 [e] endynamounti ἐνδυναμοῦντί strengthening V-PPA-DMS​

1473 [e] me με . me PPro-A1S​

I rejoiced greatly in the Lord that at last you renewed your concern for me. Indeed, you were concerned, but you had no opportunity to show it. 11I am not saying this because I am in need, for I have learned to be content whatever the circumstances. 12I know what it is to be in need, and I know what it is to have plenty. I have learned the secret of being content in any and every situation, whether well fed or hungry, whether living in plenty or in want. 13I can do all this through him who gives me strength.

 

[Runningman]

The Apostles teaching should be sufficient for you but Jesus statements, ascending to where He was before, the glory He had with the Father before the world began, and was before Abraham was born shows even if He Himself stated when as the Son of Man God created through Him you wouldn't believe.

Also your reasoning is out of context with what Paul stated in Philippians which really has no bearing in regard to the preeminence or supremacy given to Son in all things. The firstborn of all creation; The beginning of the creation of God; before all things; God made all things through/by/for Him. That eternal life which was with the Father from the beginning.

3956 [e] 13 panta 13 πάντα 13 [For] all things 13 Adj-ANP​

2480 [e] ischyō ἰσχύω I have strength V-PIA-1S​

1722 [e] en ἐν in Prep​

3588 [e] tō τῷ the [One] Art-DMS​

1743 [e] endynamounti ἐνδυναμοῦντί strengthening V-PPA-DMS​

1473 [e] me με . me PPro-A1S​

I rejoiced greatly in the Lord that at last you renewed your concern for me. Indeed, you were concerned, but you had no opportunity to show it. 11I am not saying this because I am in need, for I have learned to be content whatever the circumstances. 12I know what it is to be in need, and I know what it is to have plenty. I have learned the secret of being content in any and every situation, whether well fed or hungry, whether living in plenty or in want. 13I can do all this through him who gives me strength.

Ah, so when Paul said he can do "all things" suddenly there is a context of your choosing and all things suddenly doesn't mean literally all things anymore. That's my point exactly - you are doing what I am doing. I see Colossians 1:15-20 as in context of the church, not literally all things. For starters, it actually talks about the church in the context, and secondly it all culminated by his shed blood on the cross. What does the shed blood on the cross do? Makes all people savable... makes them eligible to be in the church.

Lastly, Ephesians 1:22 directly says what I believe: And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Let's use Colossians 1:16 and assume it's about creation in the most general sense. In or through Jesus all things were created. That means Jesus isn't the creator and that he isn't God. Doesn't match the context of the Bible where Jesus is never said to be the creator.

Or let's use John 1:3 and 1:10 in KJV, which read "All things were made BY him" and "the world was made BY him", not in or through him.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

I call myself a Christian, neither trinitarian nor non-trinitarian because:

• Non-trinitarians. This is true with the ones I had discussions with, they try to undermine trinity concept because simply don't believe Jesus is God by nature. Also they tend not to believe the Holy Spirit is a person. Although some of their arguments make sense pointing out a controversy of trinity doctrine, their motivation is wrong and in my opinion they are just another kind of watchtower society members. Their attitude towards Jesus, the way they dishonour him ignoring clear scriptural and logical arguments looks the same. I consider them wrong and in a dangerous delusion if not even more.
• Trinitarians. Many of them have difficulties acknowledging the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are persons in a common meaning of the word. Others say Jesus and the Farther are the same person and so on and so forth. In my opinion this concept introduces some other being apart from the holy Three who revealed themself to us while making the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit inferior. This is wrong and is a delusion if not even more, but at least they don't deny Jesus and the Holy Spirit so there is some room for a conversation.

I personally stand on this: in both Old and New testament only these three equally divine persons revealed themselves to us:

• Yahweh God, the Father
• Jesus Christ his Son and our Lord
• the Holy Spirit

Not everything is crystal clear to me, there's still a lot to know, but I believe this is how it is supposed to be on the way to knowing the truth. So let's move further from basics and instead of wasting time proving Jesus is God by nature, which is obvious to everyone who is sincere and true, let's better try to think and calmly discuss what, in your opinion, is wrong with this plain and clear belief.

Please, in order not to waste time, do not express your opinions unless agree on basics: the Father is God, Jesus Christ is God by nature, the Holy Spirit is a person and God by nature.

Denying Jesus's deity is pretty stupid. Sin doesn't just disappear into the thin air, it must be atoned for; and in order to save humanity from sin, the savior must take our sins upon himself, and only God himself could do that. That's the basis of Christianity - substitutionary atonement. But to be honest, I have a hard time to understand why the Holy Spirit is a distinct person. I've had some debate with other members on this topic, they argued that Jesus the Son lives in our hearts, I insist that Jesus the Son has ascended into heaven, it is the Holy Spirit that lives in our hearts, and I was overruled for presenting a false dichotomy. So let's say Jesus does live in our heart, doesn't that make the Holy Spirit the same person as Jesus? Since we the church is the body of Jesus and Jesus is the head, the body and the head are one, not two. How is the Holy Spirit a distinct person instead of Lord Jesus remotely communicating with me? Like the brain controlling the body through the nervous system?

 

[Randy]

Ah, so when Paul said he can do "all things" suddenly there is a context of your choosing and all things suddenly doesn't mean literally all things anymore. That's my point exactly - you are doing what I am doing. I see Colossians 1:15-20 as in context of the church, not literally all things. For starters, it actually talks about the church in the context, and secondly it all culminated by his shed blood on the cross. What does the shed blood on the cross do? Makes all people savable... makes them eligible to be in the church.

Lastly, Ephesians 1:22 directly says what I believe: And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,

yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

 

[Randy]

Ah, so when Paul said he can do "all things" suddenly there is a context of your choosing and all things suddenly doesn't mean literally all things anymore. That's my point exactly - you are doing what I am doing. I see Colossians 1:15-20 as in context of the church, not literally all things. For starters, it actually talks about the church in the context, and secondly it all culminated by his shed blood on the cross. What does the shed blood on the cross do? Makes all people savable... makes them eligible to be in the church.

Lastly, Ephesians 1:22 directly says what I believe: And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,

I'm sure you believe God created all things. Well He created all those things through the Son.
Its very clear to almost all who proclaim faith in Him. The context of all things. To state otherwise one would have to form their own faith and be known as something other than Christain to set them apart such as Biblical Unitarians.

without him nothing was made
Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word.
The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him.

 

[Runningman]

Or let's use John 1:3 and 1:10 in KJV, which read "All things were made BY him" and "the world was made BY him", not in or through him.

You're just interpreting that to fit your beliefs. Where does it directly say Jesus is the creator anywhere? Besides, the context of John 1 says the true Light is the creator and the true Light isn't Jesus. I believe what you're trying to do is use the closest pronoun to the noun to assume that it's referring to Jesus. That might work in most books, but with the Bible that isn't how it always is.

To clear it up, Jesus isn't YHWH and YHWH was clear He created alone in Isaiah 44:24. Case closed.

 

[Runningman]

yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

Exactly.

John 1:17 says "grace and truth" came through Jesus. Colossians 1:16 says through Jesus. 1 Corinthians 8:6 says through Jesus, but all things from the One God who is the Father. God and Jesus work together. Jesus is His servant. I don't know why everyone wants to argue with me about this.

 

[Runningman]

I'm sure you believe God created all things. Well He created all those things through the Son.
Its very clear to almost all who proclaim faith in Him. The context of all things. To state otherwise one would have to form their own faith and be known as something other than Christain to set them apart such as Biblical Unitarians.

without him nothing was made
Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word.
The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him.

One would have to explain away or disregard most of the Bible to come to the conclusion that Jesus was instrumental in creation though. For starters, only God is the creator, for two Jesus isn't God. Jesus didn't even pre-exist. So the conclusion that Jesus is the creator or that all things were literally made through him doesn't follow coherently from it's premise.

What do you make of all of the proof that Jesus isn't God or the creator? Peter and John said the Sovereign Lord is the Creator in Acts 4:24-27 and that Jesus is just His servant. What now?