There is an alternative to trinitarianism/ non-trinitarianism.

[LeviR]

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.

In contradiction to what you say, the Scripture says one God and one Lord.
Not “one Lord as three persons.”

 

[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)

Some Biblical Unitarians might suggest that Jesus ascending up where he was before refers to his raising from the dead.
They will point to where Paul speaks of Jesus descending to the lower parts of the earth and then ascending from it.
Jesus would descend into the grave and ascend from it.

The reason this would be somewhat baffling to many of his disciples is because there was much false teaching around. Some Jewish leaders taught that there was no resurrection. Others taught spirits of dead persons.
Plus, they had never seen anyone rise from the dead to never die again.

Either way, Jesus is not referring to going back to somewhere he was before he was born.
A son of man doesn’t go back somewhere he never been. A son of man doesn’t exist before he is born.

 

[Runningman]

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.

And she and the people she preached about Jesus to became believers.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

And she and the people she preached about Jesus to became believers.

So? That proves that she and other Samaritan townsfolk only got to PROPERLY worship God through Jesus the messiah, not through any mountain shrine or the temple in Jerusalem.

 

[Randy]

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.

The Father is my God. Jesus is my Lord. All the fullness of the Fathers Deity dwells/lives/resides in the Son. He is all that the Father is. Because He has the "Fathers" very nature in Him. He is before all things. The Father brought into existence all things through/by/for His Son. The Father is in His Son and the Son is in the Father they are ONE.

I believe scripture fully supports these truths.

You don't believe any of the clear testimony in regard to the Son who was as you think He's a glorified man who began life as a man so of course you can't see any support in scripture. Nobody is able to convince otherwise.

 

[Runningman]

The Father is my God. Jesus is my Lord. All the fullness of the Fathers Deity dwells/lives/resides in the Son. He is all that the Father is. Because He has the "Fathers" very nature in Him. He is before all things. The Father brought into existence all things through/by/for His Son. The Father is in His Son and the Son is in the Father they are ONE.

I believe scripture fully supports these truths.

You don't believe any of the clear testimony in regard to the Son who was as you think He's a glorified man who began life as a man so of course you can't see any support in scripture. Nobody is able to convince otherwise.

Have you quoted Colossians 1 talking about the image of God for several pages? One would be forgiven for believing that you're saying your god is the image of God because that's what it seems like you're saying.

So quick question. You think the nature of God in Jesus is what makes him God?

 

[Runningman]

So? That proves that she and other Samaritan townsfolk only got to PROPERLY worship God through Jesus the messiah, not through any mountain shrine or the temple in Jerusalem.

Spirit and truth worship refers to the opposite of what they were doing in the temple, which had become a den of thieves and a place of merchandise apparently. Jesus already telling people how to do this in his sermons.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Spirit and truth worship refers to the opposite of what they were doing in the temple, which had become a den of thieves and a place of merchandise apparently. Jesus already telling people how to do this in his sermons.

Not to her of any other Samaritans, she met him and heard it for the first time.

 

[Randy]

Have you quoted Colossians 1 talking about the image of God for several pages? One would be forgiven for believing that you're saying your god is the image of God because that's what it seems like you're saying.

So quick question. You think the nature of God in Jesus is what makes him God?

I think the fullness of the "Fathers" Deity dwells/resides/lives in the Son and the Son is the radiance of Gods glory and the imprint of Gods very being. As stated Jesus is all that the Father is and such a being is God.

 

[Runningman]

Not to her of any other Samaritans, she met him and heard it for the first time.

No problem. He let her know just the Father is worshipped.

 

[Runningman]

I think the fullness of the "Fathers" Deity dwells/resides/lives in the Son and the Son is the radiance of Gods glory and the imprint of Gods very being. As stated Jesus is all that the Father is and such a being is God.

So Jesus is the Son of God and that makes him God then when other people are the sons of God it means they aren't God?

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

No problem. He let her know just the Father is worshipped.

Then what are we arguing about? "Worshiping the Father" alone is not enough, it must be done through proper channel. Worshiping the Father through a golden calf is NOT acceptable.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

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 biggest concern I have over trinitarianism is not about the doctrine itself, but the idolatry, tribalism and weaponization that come out of it. The result is good old identity politics, you know, forming an identity around this doctrine and shoving it in other people's faces, anyone who disagrees or doubts is labelled as a heretic and excluded from your trinitarian faction.

Another concern is that, in the way you talk about God in your trinitarian language, the relationship aspect is lost, it is as if the Godhead were a distant study subject, an external entity whose only use for you is to form your group identity, which goes back to my first concern about identity politics. All this diatribe of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and all the scripture references fail to answer one simple question - what does that have to do with me? It doesn't feel enlightening or inspiring, but cold and preachy.

Don't get me wrong, though, I'm no unitarianist or modalist, I agree with the basic theology of the trinity, but from a very different perspective. I remember the first booklet I read about Christianity illustrated the holy trinity in this way: A huge chasm reads "sin", on one side is me and the Holy Spirit, one the other side is God the Father, in between is a bridge that reads Jesus the Son. That shows where we the sinners fit in, and that's what's lacking in your traditional trinitarianist theology.

 

[Free]

The biggest concern I have over trinitarianism is not about the doctrine itself, but the idolatry, tribalism and weaponization that come out of it. The result is good old identity politics, you know, forming an identity around this doctrine and shoving it in other people's faces, anyone who disagrees or doubts is labelled as a heretic and excluded from your trinitarian faction.

Either Jesus is who he said he is or he isn’t. And we, by believing in who he said he is and in his salvific work, have salvation, or we believe a different Jesus and have no salvation.

2Co 11:3 But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ.
2Co 11:4 For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough. (ESV)

Given that Jesus, or rather the Son, is the central figure of the entirety of Scripture, in whose name alone we have salvation, the most important question to answer is: Who do you say that I am?

No one can afford to get this wrong. Either Jesus is the Son of God in human flesh, or there is no salvation.

Another concern is that, in the way you talk about God in your trinitarian language, the relationship aspect is lost, it is as if God is a distant study subject, an external entity whose only use for you is to form your group identity, which fits into my first concern about identity politics. All this diatribe of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and all the scripture references fail to answer one simple question - what does that have to do with me?

Don't get me wrong, though, I'm no unitarianist or modalist, I agree with the basic theology of the trinity, but from a very different perspective. I remember the first booklet I read about Christianity illustrated the holy trinity in this way: A huge chasm reads "sin", on one side is me and the Holy Spirit, one the other side is God the Father, in between is a bridge that reads Jesus the Son. That shows where we the sinners fit in, and that's what's lacking in your traditional trinitarianist theology.

No, that is not at all lacking; we just can’t get past the basics. Besides, you’ve likely only read a fraction of what I have posted on the nature of God.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Either Jesus is who he said he is or he isn’t. And we, by believing in who he said he is and in his salvific work, have salvation, or we believe a different Jesus and have no salvation.

Again, I'm NOT refuting the trinitarian doctrine or the diety of Jesus like Runningman does, all I'm saying is that the doctrine of "God of three persons" itself does not demonstrate any aspect of salvation, the aspects of human sin nature and the need for salvation are lacking. God of triune nature is irrelevant to most people, that's just fancy Christianese that enters in one ear and exits out of the other, but God of salvation is relevant to everyone.

No, that is not at all lacking; we just can’t get past the basics. Besides, you’ve likely only read a fraction of what I have posted on the nature of God.

No sir, we have gotten past the basics, the issue is not the "nature of God", but divisiveness over the trinity doctrine. Don't throw any verses at me if you keep avoiding to address the identity politics problem. We're all children of God made in his image, and we're all sinners in need of his salvation. There are differences between man and woman, gentile and Jews, free and bound, but no trinitarian and unitarian, those are man made identity groups which don't exist in the Scripture.

 

[Randy]

So Jesus is the Son of God and that makes him God then when other people are the sons of God it means they aren't God?

No -I think Hebrews 1 covered that, "about the Son"
Col 1:19 -"In Him the fullness was pleased to dwell"
The only begotten Son who has the Fathers very nature.

 

[Runningman]

No -I think Hebrews 1 covered that, "about the Son"
Col 1:19 -"In Him the fullness was pleased to dwell"
The only begotten Son who has the Fathers very nature.

Hebrews 1 proves Jesus isn't God in numerous ways. God isn't lower than angels. God wasn't created, God wasn't anointed above anyone, God isn't offspring, etc.

 

[Runningman]

Then what are we arguing about? "Worshiping the Father" alone is not enough, it must be done through proper channel. Worshiping the Father through a golden calf is NOT acceptable.

The Bible doesn't say anything about worshipping the Father through anyone. Worshipping the Father is something you can do in spirit and truth.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

The Bible doesn't say anything about worshipping the Father through anyone.

Yes it does, loud and clear in Jn. 14:6 - “ I am the way the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”

Worshipping the Father is something you can do in spirit and truth.

No you can’t, people only worshipped through mountain shrine or the temple, as that Samaritan woman argued. She never worshipped in spirit and truth until she met Jesus.

 

[LeviR]

The Bible doesn't say anything about worshipping the Father through anyone. Worshipping the Father is something you can do in spirit and truth.

If we ask “Who is Jesus Christ?” Trinitarians answer “He is the second person of the Trinity, the Son”

Therefore, the “who” he is not is the son of Abraham.

I sense a false gospel.