There is an alternative to trinitarianism/ non-trinitarianism.

[Free]

People get hung up on Jesus’ words and misunderstand them.

When he says he’s the bread of life which comes down from heaven, and they must eat his flesh and drink his blood in order to have life, they get thrown off.
They misunderstand completely. But that’s the purpose. It was to separate them. That’s why he spoke like that.
Now we have people going into buildings every Sunday thinking they are actually eating the literal flesh and blood of Jesus.

They got put off by the requirement to eat his flesh and drink his blood, not that he is the bread of life who came down from heaven.

 

[LeviR]

They got put off by the requirement to eat his flesh and drink his blood, not that he is the bread of life who came down from heaven.

Yes, but the idea that he came down from heaven as if he actually existed there before is as false as the idea of actually eating his flesh and blood in order to have life.
When he said the words he spoke were spirit and life, and the flesh profits nothing, he clarifies what he meant.
It is the words and the spirit that give life.
The words Jesus spoke and the Spirit he was given are what comes down from heaven.
It’s made clear because Jesus said the words he spoke were not his own but the Father’s. And also that the Spirit he was given is the Father’s Spirit.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Fine, but you mentioned the Samaritan woman being a testament to the downfall of Israel. Did you know Samaritans are not Israeli? She was a gentile saying she worshipped Jesus' God when Jesus is Jewish.

Non-Jewish people could convert to Judaism in the Old Covenant, but there were more restrictions placed on them. They obviously couldn't be ethnic Jews, but religiously they could. There were some miscellaneous restrictions depending on the person.

For example, the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:27-40) had had come to Jerusalem to worship, but he was a eunuch and gentile. Therefore, due to Exodus 23:1, he couldn't enter the assembly or congregation due to being a eunuch. He would have probably worshipped somewhere on the mountainside like the ancestors of the Samaritan woman.

Exodus 12
48And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.

Long story short, the Father who Jesus is saying is seeking true worshippers in John 4 is none other than YHWH Himself from the Old Testament.

Samaritans are the descendants of the northern tribes and gentiles, they created their fake religious system to counter Judah’s, they worshipped on that mountain as the Samaritan woman mentioned, and they still identified themselves as children of Israel, otherwise why would she call Jacob father and bring up the history of that well?

 

[WalterandDebbie]

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.

Hi Dmytro, You are correct if you are saying that GOD is a spirit and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth, are you saying this?

Love, Walter And Debbie

 

[LeviR]

It’s like the Bible. The physical Bible profits nothing. It is the words and the Spirit which actually profit.
The Bible on my desk did not come down from heaven, but the words and Spirit which gave them did.
“No man can come to me unless my Father draw them”
The way the Father has drawn men to Christ is by His words and His Spirit.
They read the words and believe them, and are thereby drawn to Christ.

 

[Randy]

Claims to being Spirit led to the truth in a denomination as tremendously fractured as Trinitarianism doesn't carry much weight. There are millions of you who make the same claim and then completely disagree with and contradict each other. If there is a spirit telling you something that contradicts the Bible, and the Bible is for sure the definitive revelation of the Spirit, then you're automatically at the disadvantage.

Yes you keep repeating the same verses, but why have you only settled on just a handful of verses? You literally keep quoting the same ones over and over again and saying you and others are showing me [the truth] over and over, but yet your "truth" doesn't mesh with the entire Bible.

Begin with Genesis 1:1 and preach Jesus to me. Can you do it? I guess not, but I can preach the Father to you using the entire Old Testament. When we get to the prophecies of Jesus, the Messiah, yes we can preach Jesus from there just as Philip did in Acts 8 and others did in the New Testament. Even Jesus only ever referred to the prophecies of himself.

Where are you getting this revelation that not even Jesus or any of the apostles revealed?

Nothing I stated contradicts the testimony. What you state does. Why should we continue this conversation only for you to deny what is clearly written over and over again?

 

[Free]

Yes, but the idea that he came down from heaven as if he actually existed there before is as false as the idea of actually eating his flesh and blood in order to have life.

No, it isn't. He stated several times that he came from heaven, in that one passage alone, but also several other times:

Joh 3:13 No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.

Joh 8:23 He said to them, “You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world.

Joh 13:3 Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he had come from God and was going back to God,

Joh 16:27 for the Father himself loves you, because you have loved me and have believed that I came from God.
Joh 16:28 I came from the Father and have come into the world, and now I am leaving the world and going to the Father.”

And the disciples replied:

Joh 16:30 Now we know that you know all things and do not need anyone to question you; this is why we believe that you came from God.”

Which is why John also states Jesus came from heaven:

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.
...
Joh 1:9 The true light, which gives light to everyone, was coming into the world.
Joh 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him.
...
Joh 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Joh 3:31 He who comes from above is above all. He who is of the earth belongs to the earth and speaks in an earthly way. He who comes from heaven is above all.

(All ESV)

When he said the words he spoke were spirit and life, and the flesh profits nothing, he clarifies what he meant.
It is the words and the spirit that give life.
The words Jesus spoke and the Spirit he was given are what comes down from heaven.
It’s made clear because Jesus said the words he spoke were not his own but the Father’s. And also that the Spirit he was given is the Father’s Spirit.

Except that Jesus was unequivocal in his claim to literally have come down from heaven. The manna came down from heaven, just as Jesus came down from heaven; that was rather his point, except that he is the eternal life giving bread.

Why have you or no other anti-Trinitarian tried to address THIS post? I'll copy and paste for ease:

Joh 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed. (ESV)

But, what did Yahweh say?

Isa 48:11 For my own sake, for my own sake, I do it, for how should my name be profaned? My glory I will not give to another. (ESV)

Is Jesus contradicting what Yahweh said? Let's first look at something John said:

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. (ESV)

Who does John say Isaiah saw in "his glory and spoke of him"? Clearly, John is meaning that Isaiah saw the glory of Jesus, or rather, the Son. Looking at the context of what Isaiah was talking about:

Isa 6:1 In the year that King Uzziah died I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up; and the train of his robe filled the temple.
Isa 6:2 Above him stood the seraphim. Each had six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew.
Isa 6:3 And one called to another and said: “Holy, holy, holy is the LORD of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory!”
Isa 6:4 And the foundations of the thresholds shook at the voice of him who called, and the house was filled with smoke.
Isa 6:5 And I said: “Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts!”
…
Isa 6:8 And I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?” Then I said, “Here I am! Send me.”
Isa 6:9 And he said, “Go, and say to this people: “‘Keep on hearing, but do not understand; keep on seeing, but do not perceive.’
Isa 6:10 Make the heart of this people dull, and their ears heavy, and blind their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed.” (ESV)

So, who did Isaiah actually see? He saw Yahweh in all his glory. Once again, John supports what he said in John 1:1--that the Word was in intimate, interpersonal relationship with God for all eternity past, meaning that the Word is also God in nature.

Throughout the entire book of John, from beginning to end, there is one consistent message about who Jesus, the Son of God, is--God in human flesh, both truly man and truly God, who, in becoming flesh subjected himself to the will of the Father for our salvation and the redemption of creation.

 

[LeviR]

No, it isn't. He stated several times that he came from heaven, in that one passage alone, but also several other times:

Joh 3:13 No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.

Joh 8:23 He said to them, “You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world.

Joh 13:3 Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he had come from God and was going back to God,

Joh 16:27 for the Father himself loves you, because you have loved me and have believed that I came from God.
Joh 16:28 I came from the Father and have come into the world, and now I am leaving the world and going to the Father.”

And the disciples replied:

Joh 16:30 Now we know that you know all things and do not need anyone to question you; this is why we believe that you came from God.”

Which is why John also states Jesus came from heaven:

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.
...
Joh 1:9 The true light, which gives light to everyone, was coming into the world.
Joh 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him.
...
Joh 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Joh 3:31 He who comes from above is above all. He who is of the earth belongs to the earth and speaks in an earthly way. He who comes from heaven is above all.

(All ESV)


Except that Jesus was unequivocal in his claim to literally have come down from heaven. The manna came down from heaven, just as Jesus came down from heaven; that was rather his point, except that he is the eternal life giving bread.

Why have you or no other anti-Trinitarian tried to address THIS post? I'll copy and paste for ease:

Joh 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed. (ESV)

But, what did Yahweh say?

Isa 48:11 For my own sake, for my own sake, I do it, for how should my name be profaned? My glory I will not give to another. (ESV)

Is Jesus contradicting what Yahweh said? Let's first look at something John said:

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. (ESV)

Who does John say Isaiah saw in "his glory and spoke of him"? Clearly, John is meaning that Isaiah saw the glory of Jesus, or rather, the Son. Looking at the context of what Isaiah was talking about:

Isa 6:1 In the year that King Uzziah died I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up; and the train of his robe filled the temple.
Isa 6:2 Above him stood the seraphim. Each had six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew.
Isa 6:3 And one called to another and said: “Holy, holy, holy is the LORD of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory!”
Isa 6:4 And the foundations of the thresholds shook at the voice of him who called, and the house was filled with smoke.
Isa 6:5 And I said: “Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts!”
…
Isa 6:8 And I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?” Then I said, “Here I am! Send me.”
Isa 6:9 And he said, “Go, and say to this people: “‘Keep on hearing, but do not understand; keep on seeing, but do not perceive.’
Isa 6:10 Make the heart of this people dull, and their ears heavy, and blind their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed.” (ESV)

So, who did Isaiah actually see? He saw Yahweh in all his glory. Once again, John supports what he said in John 1:1--that the Word was in intimate, interpersonal relationship with God for all eternity past, meaning that the Word is also God in nature.

Throughout the entire book of John, from beginning to end, there is one consistent message about who Jesus, the Son of God, is--God in human flesh, both truly man and truly God, who, in becoming flesh subjected himself to the will of the Father for our salvation and the redemption of creation.

I don’t consider myself “anti-Trinitarian” but rather pro-Truth.

Unless you believe you are to actually eat the literal flesh and blood of Jesus, then you ought to see what he was saying as a parable.
The RCC doesn’t see the parable, so they made up a doctrine they call “transubstantiation”.

The Jews murmured because Jesus said he had come down from heaven.
As I showed previously, and as the context reveals, Jesus explained that “no man can come to me unless my Father in heaven draw him”.
The way the Father draws men to Christ is by the Scriptures.
Have they not learned? Have they not heard?
“Everyone who has heard and learned of the Father comes to me”
It is by the prophets. By Moses and the prophets which speak of Christ is how they learn of Christ.

As it is therefore a parable, it ought be understood that it is not Jesus himself that came down from heaven, but the words and spirit which are truth and give life.

 

[LeviR]

Joh 3:31 He who comes from above is above all. He who is of the earth belongs to the earth and speaks in an earthly way. He who comes from heaven is above all.

Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world”. Because his kingdom comes from above and is above all.
The increase that Jesus promotes is the increase of the kingdom of God which comes from above and is not of this world.

 

[LeviR]

Joh 13:3 Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he had come from God and was going back to God (NAS)

“Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into His hands, and that He had come from God and was going to God,” John 3:13 NKJV

Need to be careful of the Trinitarians bias ADDED to the truth.
Some think they have the liberty to ADD what they want. That’s a no-no.

 

[LeviR]

Joh 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed. (ESV)

There is a biblical principle that Jesus told his own disciples before they were to be dragged, as he was, into the court.

Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves. Therefore be wise as serpents and harmless as doves.

Mat 10:17 - “But beware of men, for they will deliver you up to councils and scourge you in their synagogues.

Mat 10:18 - “You will be brought before governors and kings for My sake, as a testimony to them and to the Gentiles.

Mat 10:19 - “But when they deliver you up, do not worry about how or what you should speak. For it will be given to you in that hour what you should speak;

Mat 10:20 - “for it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you.

The glory of the Father comes from His spirit. When Jesus was given the full measure of that Spirit, it was veiled by the flesh.
That glory of the Spirit was seen briefly with the transfiguration.
It will be seen again when Jesus returns in his kingdom.
Those are the words of the Spirit speaking for Jesus.

Joh 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed. (ESV)

 

[Runningman]

Nothing I stated contradicts the testimony. What you state does. Why should we continue this conversation only for you to deny what is clearly written over and over again?

I haven't seen one thing you've said in harmony with scripture as a whole. You basically have a man and/or image of God as your god.

 

[Runningman]

Samaritans are the descendants of the northern tribes and gentiles, they created their fake religious system to counter Judah’s, they worshipped on that mountain as the Samaritan woman mentioned, and they still identified themselves as children of Israel, otherwise why would she call Jacob father and bring up the history of that well?

Yet Jesus plainly affirmed she is a worshipper of the Father.

John 4
20Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship. 21Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Yet Jesus plainly affirmed she is a worshipper of the Father.

No he didn’t. This woman brought up a theological argument - where’s the right place to worship, this mountain or Jerusalem? Samaritans worship on the mountain, Jews at the temple In Jerusalem. Jesus told her neither, true worshipers worship in spirit and in truth. He didn’t affirm anything that woman said.

 

[Runningman]

No he didn’t. This woman brought up a theological argument - where’s the right place to worship, this mountain or Jerusalem? Samaritans worship on the mountain, Jews at the temple In Jerusalem. Jesus told her neither, true worshipers worship in spirit and in truth. He didn’t affirm anything that woman said.

Isaiah said otherwise. That's why I said Jesus affirmed what she said. He basically said it doesn't make a difference where she worship. The place of worship has no bearing on spirit and truth. In the context she is a believer in the coming Messiah (John 4:25) so I don't see any evidence from the passage that Jesus saw this as an argument from her.

Isaiah 56
6Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant;

7Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people.

8The Lord GOD which gathereth the outcasts of Israel saith, Yet will I gather others to him, beside those that are gathered unto him.

 

[LeviR]

Isaiah said otherwise. That's why I said Jesus affirmed what she said. He basically said it doesn't make a difference where she worship. The place of worship has no bearing on spirit and truth. In the context she is a believer in the coming Messiah (John 4:25) so I don't see any evidence from the passage that Jesus saw this as an argument from her.

Isaiah 56
6Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant;

7Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people.

8The Lord GOD which gathereth the outcasts of Israel saith, Yet will I gather others to him, beside those that are gathered unto him.

The topic of the discussion with the Samaritan woman was of salvation and the type of worship God seeks from His own.
“God is spirit and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth”
As God is spiritual, and pure, and holy, and true, He seeks that type of worship.

What Jesus is not saying is that God is incorporeal and immaterial and that’s why He seeks worship. No.

Is something “immaterial” deserving of worship over something material?
Then why is Jesus worshipped?

 

[Free]

I don’t consider myself “anti-Trinitarian” but rather pro-Truth.

A person cannot be anti-Trinitarian and pro-Truth; those are mutually exclusive. That is perhaps why you still won’t address the rest of my post, despite hinting at it twice and providing the full answer twice.

Unless you believe you are to actually eat the literal flesh and blood of Jesus, then you ought to see what he was saying as a parable.
The RCC doesn’t see the parable, so they made up a doctrine they call “transubstantiation”.

The Jews murmured because Jesus said he had come down from heaven.
As I showed previously, and as the context reveals, Jesus explained that “no man can come to me unless my Father in heaven draw him”.
The way the Father draws men to Christ is by the Scriptures.
Have they not learned? Have they not heard?
“Everyone who has heard and learned of the Father comes to me”
It is by the prophets. By Moses and the prophets which speak of Christ is how they learn of Christ.

As it is therefore a parable, it ought be understood that it is not Jesus himself that came down from heaven, but the words and spirit which are truth and give life.

Let's look at the context. The background was what happened in John 6:1-15, the feeding of the 5,000. It is the next day when the conversation starts with literal bread, because the people had eaten their "fill of the loaves" the previous day. Jesus, however, tells them to "not work for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you" (v. 27). That work is to "believe in him whom [God] has sent" (v. 29).

The people then ask for a sign, despite Jesus just having fed 5,000 from five loaves and two fish. They appeal to Moses providing "manna in the wilderness" (v. 31). Jesus refutes the argument by showing that it was God who gave the manna from heaven and he has now given something even greater from heaven, Jesus himself.

The whole point is that the manna that came from heaven was provided by God, just as the Son is the true bread that came from heaven and was provided by God, for eternal life instead of just mere, temporary, physical sustenance. Jesus says no less than five times, from verses 33-58, that he is "the bread that came down from heaven" (v. 58). While he is figuratively bread, he is literally life and literally came down from heaven.

These are clear claims to have come down from heaven, as is then seen once more in verse 62:

Joh 6:62 Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? (ESV)

So, Jesus states five times that he came down from heaven and then finishes by mentioning "ascending to where he was before." Where was he "before" that he would ascend to? Heaven.

As for the Father drawing people, it isn't necessarily or only through the OT, although it can include that; it's a spiritual work--showing a person the state of their heart; conviction of sin; the need for a Saviour; etc.:

Joh 6:64 But there are some of you who do not believe.” (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.)
Joh 6:65 And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.” (ESV)

It will also be through his work on the cross:

Joh 12:32 And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.” (ESV)

 

[LeviR]

A person cannot be anti-Trinitarian and pro-Truth; those are mutually exclusive. That is perhaps why you still won’t address the rest of my post, despite hinting at it twice and providing the full answer twice.


Let's look at the context. The background was what happened in John 6:1-15, the feeding of the 5,000. It is the next day when the conversation starts with literal bread, because the people had eaten their "fill of the loaves" the previous day. Jesus, however, tells them to "not work for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you" (v. 27). That work is to "believe in him whom [God] has sent" (v. 29).

The people then ask for a sign, despite Jesus just having fed 5,000 from five loaves and two fish. They appeal to Moses providing "manna in the wilderness" (v. 31). Jesus refutes the argument by showing that it was God who gave the manna from heaven and he has now given something even greater from heaven, Jesus himself.

The whole point is that the manna that came from heaven was provided by God, just as the Son is the true bread that came from heaven and was provided by God, for eternal life instead of just mere, temporary, physical sustenance. Jesus says no less than five times, from verses 33-58, that he is "the bread that came down from heaven" (v. 58). While he is figuratively bread, he is literally life and literally came down from heaven.

These are clear claims to have come down from heaven, as is then seen once more in verse 62:

Joh 6:62 Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? (ESV)

So, Jesus states five times that he came down from heaven and then finishes by mentioning "ascending to where he was before." Where was he "before" that he would ascend to? Heaven.

As for the Father drawing people, it isn't necessarily or only through the OT, although it can include that; it's a spiritual work--showing a person the state of their heart; conviction of sin; the need for a Saviour; etc.:

Joh 6:64 But there are some of you who do not believe.” (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.)
Joh 6:65 And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.” (ESV)

It will also be through his work on the cross:

Joh 12:32 And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.” (ESV)

The context uses figurative or parabolic language in order to teach that Jesus is the resurrection and the life.
As always, Jesus preaches eternal life, the resurrection of the dead and the kingdom of God. It is for that purpose he says he was sent.
And as always, he preaches it in parables.
The figurative language is the bread that comes down from heaven and the eating of his flesh and blood.
If you choose to take the figurative language literally that’s up to you. I don’t. The RCC does.

Suppose it were true that Jesus, as the second person of the Trinity, had actually come down from heaven to enter Mary’s womb and be born. And if he were Almighty God and the Creator of all things, then life would exist already within himself.
The ability to give eternal life would be in his own power.

If that were true than the life (eternal)that exists within the Father need not be GIVEN to the son by the Father so that the son may have it also, and the power of it to give to others.
And unless the son had died and been raised again from the dead that life could be GIVEN to no one else through Christ.

When did Jesus ascend to the Father where he was before?
Well, the first time he ascended was after he rose from the dead when he was seen only by Mary.
The second time he ascended was after he spent 40 days being seen by over 500 persons(faces).

 

[brother Paul]

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.

One Ousia in three Hypostasis. The one and only YHVH is the Father, IS the Word/Son, and IS the Holy Spirit. One Lord as three persons. That is Trinitarianism and we must not confuse the order. The One as three and the three in Unity.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Isaiah said otherwise. That's why I said Jesus affirmed what she said. He basically said it doesn't make a difference where she worship. The place of worship has no bearing on spirit and truth. In the context she is a believer in the coming Messiah (John 4:25) so I don't see any evidence from the passage that Jesus saw this as an argument from her.

That WAS an argument because Jesus told her to go fetch her husband, that made her embarrassed, given the fact that she “had had five husbands,” and the current man was not her husband. She didn’t wanna continue the talk about her live life, so she brought up this topic of “where to worship” as a distraction, that’s the context. The evidence is the change of topic.