There is an alternative to trinitarianism/ non-trinitarianism.

[Randy]

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.

It was about the Son not the Father. A Son who is called God in the NT. To me the honest reading is the Son has the very nature of God the Father by the will of God the Father. Col 1:19 -from the will of another "was pleased".

I know you can't accept any testimony about the Son who was before Mary. We/I know that. I do believe in a Son who is all that the Father is and one through/by God brought into existence the creation as I read. Creation as defined by genesis as well as things in heaven as stated, "thrones and authorities established"

 

[LeviR]

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.

Abraham has a promised son who is not a who.
The who Abraham’s promised son is God?
Abraham’s son is the son of God?

 

[LeviR]

The who who inherits the promises of God is God?

 

[LeviR]

The promised inheritance made to Abraham is realized by Abraham’s son who also gains the inheritance himself and by whom all other sons of Abraham and sons of God also gain the inheritance.

You won’t hear this truth in any Trinitarian church.

 

[Runningman]

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.”

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.

The truth is a thing that Jesus himself had to be taught from God. Yes, Jesus is the truth in a metaphorical sense because he embodies the truth he received from God. He would have had to be taught the truth and then after that he became the truth. It doesn't refer to inherently having the truth in the first place or requiring Jesus to worship the Father for you.

John 8
28Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.

John 8
40But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.

 

[LeviR]

The truth is a thing that Jesus himself had to be taught from God. Yes, Jesus is the truth in a metaphorical sense because he embodies the truth he received from God. He would have had to be taught the truth and then after that he became the truth. It doesn't refer to inherently having the truth in the first place or requiring Jesus to worship the Father for you.

John 8
28Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.

John 8
40But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.

I suppose the Father had to teach Jesus’ human brain some stuff.

 

[LeviR]

The truth is a thing that Jesus himself had to be taught from God. Yes, Jesus is the truth in a metaphorical sense because he embodies the truth he received from God. He would have had to be taught the truth and then after that he became the truth. It doesn't refer to inherently having the truth in the first place or requiring Jesus to worship the Father for you.

John 8
28Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.

John 8
40But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.

Did God have to teach Jesus’ human brain to speak what God taught it?
Why didn’t God use his own mind?

 

[LeviR]

It’s good to ask reasonable questions. It shows you are an intelligent person interested in learning.
I get anathema from Trinitarians for asking questions.

 

[LeviR]

The truth is a thing that Jesus himself had to be taught from God. Yes, Jesus is the truth in a metaphorical sense because he embodies the truth he received from God. He would have had to be taught the truth and then after that he became the truth. It doesn't refer to inherently having the truth in the first place or requiring Jesus to worship the Father for you.

John 8
28Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.

John 8
40But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.

Why didn’t the who who took on flesh teach the what that he took on himself?

 

[Free]

Again, I'm NOT refuting the trinitarian doctrine or the diety of Jesus like Runningman does,

I know; I never said you were. Based on what you had stated, I was explaining why it is necessary to believe in the deity of Christ, which then leads to the Trinity.

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.

For those who lack in-depth study or haven't put much thought into it, sure. But, only the Trinitarian view of God shows that God is love, as John states. If God isn't love, then not only cannot he not be the God of the Bible, but then there wouldn't be salvation either, nor an advocate between God and man, nor one who could help us as we pray. It also shows us just how sinful sin is, so much so that God had to send his only Son to redeem us. It shows us many things.

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,

There is no "identity politics problem." That is the very thing I was addressing, which you seemed to think was an attempt at refuting an argument you weren't making. The point is, Jesus is who he said he is or he is not. Those who believe in a Jesus who is not the biblical Jesus are in eternal trouble, as the verses I gave imply. To call that identity politics is to completely miss the central importance of this issue.

And, no, we're not all children of God:

Joh 1:12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God,
Joh 1:13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. (ESV)

but no trinitarian and unitarian, those are man made identity groups which don't exist in the Scripture.

This, again, completely misses just how important this issue is. Either God is Unitarian or Trinitarian (or something else), but he cannot be both (or all) of those. To get that wrong is to believe in another god.

 

[Free]

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.

Well, you sense incorrectly. Jesus is both truly God and truly man.

Abraham has a promised son who is not a who.
The who Abraham’s promised son is God?
Abraham’s son is the son of God?

The who who inherits the promises of God is God?

The promised inheritance made to Abraham is realized by Abraham’s son who also gains the inheritance himself and by whom all other sons of Abraham and sons of God also gain the inheritance.

You won’t hear this truth in any Trinitarian church.

What are you even talking about? Can you state plainly what your point is?

 

[LeviR]

Well, you sense incorrectly. Jesus is both truly God and truly man.




What are you even talking about? Can you state plainly what your point is?

According to Trinitarianism, the who Jesus is, is not a man. The who Jesus is, is God the Son, they say.
Abraham’s promised son is therefore not the who who inherits the promises.
The thing that inherits the promises is therefore not a who but a what.

 

[Runningman]

Why didn’t the who who took on flesh teach the what that he took on himself?

Yes for sure they will come up with some theories to explain away Jesus being a man who needed to be taught by God.

 

[LeviR]

Yes for sure they will come up with some theories to explain away Jesus being a man who needed to be taught by God.

Who is it that receives the inheritance and promises of God?
If it is Jesus, then the who who receives the promises of God is God Himself, not the son of Abraham.

 

[LeviR]

Yes for sure they will come up with some theories to explain away Jesus being a man who needed to be taught by God.

Do you think the brain that the Father taught things and learned to speak certain things will ever become a person?
They say no.

 

[Free]

According to Trinitarianism, the who Jesus is, is not a man. The who Jesus is, is God the Son, they say.
Abraham’s promised son is therefore not the who who inherits the promises.
The thing that inherits the promises is therefore not a who but a what.

That is blatantly false. Jesus is truly God and truly man.

 

[Free]

Yes for sure they will come up with some theories to explain away Jesus being a man who needed to be taught by God.

I have shown numerous times why this is the case, yet you still have not understood:

A key passage is Phil 2:5-8, which shows that He chose to not appear in his glorious state, so as not to exploit his divine nature for his own ends.

Php 2:5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,
Php 2:6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
Php 2:7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.
Php 2:8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.
Php 2:9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name,
Php 2:10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
Php 2:11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (ESV)

This passage supports the concept called the Economic Trinity--that is, how the Trinity relates to each other in bringing out the salvation and redemption of creation. The Economic Trinity shows the difference in function between the Persons of the Trinity in the plan of redemption. However, a difference in function does not mean a difference in equality or nature.

Some important points to note about this passage:

1. Jesus was in "the form of God." This is supported by John 1:1--" and the Word was God." The NIV has a clearer rendering of what is meant in verse 6: "being in very nature God." The Expositor's Greek Testament and M. R. Vincent (Word Studies in the New Testament) agree. That Paul is referring to the divinity of Christ is without question.
2. He "did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped"; that is, being in the form of God, being equal with the Father, he did not consider that equality something to be "forcefully retained [or held onto]." The meaning is that anything to do with the appearance of his glory as God had to be let go of or veiled in order for the completion of his humiliation, which was necessary for man's salvation. Again, the NIV brings out the meaning a bit better: "did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage."
3. He, being Jesus, emptied himself. It was he who did the emptying. In other words, he had to already exist in order to be able to be “emptied,” and he had to be sufficiently powerful to do it himself. That is, in contrast with his “taking the form of a servant,” he was something else. He had to be something or someone that was capable of emptying himself.
4. In emptying himself, he took on the "form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men"--this is what John 1:14 is speaking of. First, note that Paul is contrasting Jesus's "taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men" with being in the "form of God." Second, the emptying of himself was accomplished by taking on human form. It’s a paradoxical emptying by addition; a limiting or veiling of his glory and power by becoming human. Jesus willingly chose to take the form of a human for the salvation of mankind and, as God Incarnate, still maintained his full deity (since God can never cease to be God) in becoming truly and fully human.
5. Being found in "appearance as a man" (NIV)--as opposed to his having been in "the form of God"--he "humbled himself by becoming obedient." We know that he was truly human, so why would Paul suddenly say that Jesus was "found in appearance as a man"? Would that not imply that he existed previously, supporting verse 6, and indicate he wasn't a man before?

The whole point of this passage is to show the humility of Christ, which we are to have (verses 1-5). There is no greater example of humility that could be conceived than that of God (the Son) coming to earth and taking on the form of one of his creatures.

I have also made the following point before and never received a response (that I can remember). For any who use such arguments as you to deny that Jesus can be truly God in human flesh, if God did come in human flesh, just what should we expect such a person to be like?

 

[LeviR]

That is blatantly false. Jesus is truly God and truly man.

And you say I don’t know the Trinity doctrine. Perhaps it’s you who doesn’t know it.

 

[LeviR]

Yes for sure they will come up with some theories to explain away Jesus being a man who needed to be taught by God.

Trinitarians quote “In him dwells all the fullness of the Deity “ without realizing that that fullness was given to him. They completely ignore that fact and use that verse to prove the God nature.
“For He whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for God does not give the Spirit by measure.The Father loves the Son, and has given all things into His hand.”

Truth ignored.

 

[LeviR]

Yes for sure they will come up with some theories to explain away Jesus being a man who needed to be taught by God.

Sometimes Jesus speaks from his God nature and other times he speaks from his human nature. He has split personality?

It’s much better and true to say that God gives Jesus of His Spirit which allows Jesus to speak God’s words.
Which is probably why Jesus said that the words he spoke were not his own but the Father’s.
That doesn’t cause a split personality. It simply means God has informed Jesus what to say.