There is an alternative to trinitarianism/ non-trinitarianism.

[Carry_Your_Name]

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.

You just invented that “metaphorical sense”. Other prophets and wages, as those in the OT such as Moses, knew the truth, they were taught by God; Jesus IS the truth, nobody taught him, he taught truth to others with authority.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

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.

The deity of Christ expose the falsehood of other pagan beliefs and leads believers into enternal life, not Trinity doctrine in a trinity church along with a trinity view.

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.

God's love is expressed through men, first through Jesus, then his people. If you've never experienced love, you won't know what love is, and you'd never love anybody. That's why love must be experienced, not studied. Love cannot be encapsulated and taught in a seminary school or an ivory tower.

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

Who're qualified as "we"? Where exactly in these verses says only trinitarians are true believers while all other people with other labels are false?

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.

You're the one who completely dismisses the issue of identity politics with no idea of its dire consequences. From your first post in this thread you dove right in with these labels, that's why I called you out. Such divisiveness over doctrines is nothing new, Paul recognized it and specifically addressed it at the beginning of his letters to the Corinthian church, he never shied away from it and hid behind a theological facade like you do, he didn't pretend "there's no identity politics problem", so forgive me for following his example.

Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. For it has been declared to me concerning you, my brethren, by those of Chloe’s household, that there are contentions among you. Now I say this, that each of you says, “I am of Paul,” or “I am of Apollos,” or “I am of Cephas,” or “I am of Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? (1 Cor. 1:10-13)

Where there are envy, strife, and divisions among you, are you not carnal and behaving like mere men? For when one says, “I am of Paul,” and another, “I am of Apollos,” are you not carnal? Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers through whom you believed, as the Lord gave to each one? (1 Cor. 3:3-5)

 

[LeviR]

The deity of Christ expose the falsehood of other pagan beliefs and leads believers into enternal life, not Trinity doctrine in a trinity church along with a trinity view.

Did Jesus’ human brain know that his God was a Trinity?
It seems not. Because his human brain said that his God was his Father.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Did Jesus’ human brain know that his God was a Trinity?
It seems not. Because his human brain said that his God was his Father.

Jesus was guided by the Holy Spirit, he didn’t act with his own brain. He yielded to the Father’s will, not his own.

 

[LeviR]

Jesus was guided by the Holy Spirit, he didn’t act with his own brain. He yielded to the Father’s will, not his own.

Was it his human side guided by the Holy Spirit or his God side?

 

[LeviR]

I was thinking it was the man Jesus who was guided by the Holy Spirit.

 

[LeviR]

Jesus was guided by the Holy Spirit, he didn’t act with his own brain. He yielded to the Father’s will, not his own.

Jesus yielded himself to his Father’s will, not the will of his human brain or flesh. Makes sense.
Because to yield to a fleshly mind or other fleshly desires wouldn’t be too good for him.
So it wouldn’t be God the Son yielding to the will of God the Father, because their wills would be one.

 

[LeviR]

Hard to image how an Almighty God could struggle with Himself by taking on human flesh. As if it might be some kind of challenge for Him.
Sorry, but the God I know could have no such weakness.

 

[Free]

The deity of Christ expose the falsehood of other pagan beliefs and leads believers into enternal life, not Trinity doctrine in a trinity church along with a trinity view.

The Trinity does so just as much, if not more so. It is at the heart of the Christian concept of God.

God's love is expressed through men, first through Jesus, then his people. If you've never experienced love, you won't know what love is, and you'd never love anybody. That's why love must be experienced, not studied. Love cannot be encapsulated and taught in a seminary school or an ivory tower.

Okay, but that doesn't really address my point.

Who're qualified as "we"? Where exactly in these verses says only trinitarians are true believers while all other people with other labels are false?

Clearly the true believers are those who believe in the God of the Bible, as he has revealed himself. At a minimum, it is those who believe in the deity of Jesus, but by extension, that would mean the triune God.

You're the one who completely dismisses the issue of identity politics with no idea of its dire consequences. From your first post in this thread you dove right in with these labels, that's why I called you out. Such divisiveness over doctrines is nothing new, Paul recognized it and specifically addressed it at the beginning of his letters to the Corinthian church, he never shied away from it and hid behind a theological facade like you do, he didn't pretend "there's no identity politics problem", so forgive me for following his example.

Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. For it has been declared to me concerning you, my brethren, by those of Chloe’s household, that there are contentions among you. Now I say this, that each of you says, “I am of Paul,” or “I am of Apollos,” or “I am of Cephas,” or “I am of Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? (1 Cor. 1:10-13)

Where there are envy, strife, and divisions among you, are you not carnal and behaving like mere men? For when one says, “I am of Paul,” and another, “I am of Apollos,” are you not carnal? Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers through whom you believed, as the Lord gave to each one? (1 Cor. 3:3-5)

Identity politics has nothing to do with this discussion; your examples are false analogies and misuses of Scripture. You even quote Paul asking 'or “I follow Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?' However, as soon as one says "I follow Christ," we must look at what Jesus asked: “But who do you say that I am?” (Matt 16:15). And, the answer is what we are pursuing. Is such a person following the Jesus of Scripture?

Not a single one of us is arguing in any sense "I am of Paul" or "I am of Apollos." We are all arguing "I follow Christ," yet have irreconcilably different ideas of who Jesus is. If you want to claim to follow Paul's example, then actually follow his example. Paul claimed Jesus was truly God and truly man, with salvation resting on that belief, and that there were other Jesus's being proclaimed.

Rom 10:9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
Rom 10:10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.
Rom 10:11 For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.”
Rom 10:12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him.
Rom 10:13 For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” (ESV)

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)

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Was it his human side guided by the Holy Spirit or his God side?

Holy Spirit is God’s presence on earth, it’s not another split personality.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Jesus yielded himself to his Father’s will, not the will of his human brain or flesh. Makes sense.
Because to yield to a fleshly mind or other fleshly desires wouldn’t be too good for him.
So it wouldn’t be God the Son yielding to the will of God the Father, because their wills would be one.

Yet the Father and the Son are two distinct persons, God is no ventriloquist playing puppet, the Son is always obedient to the Father.

 

[LeviR]

Yet the Father and the Son are two distinct persons, God is no ventriloquist playing puppet, the Son is always obedient to the Father.

I’m only going by what Jesus himself said.
His words were the Father’s.
His works were the Father’s
The Spirit was the Father’s
His names are the Father’s
The Children were the Father’s
The kingdom was the Father’s
The commandments were the Father’s
The authority was the Father’s
The judgments were the Father’s
The promises were the Father’s

Am I missing anything?

 

[LeviR]

I’m only going by what Jesus himself said.
His words were the Father’s.
His works were the Father’s
The Spirit was the Father’s
His names are the Father’s
The Children were the Father’s
The kingdom was the Father’s
The commandments were the Father’s
The authority was the Father’s
The judgments were the Father’s
The promises were the Father’s

Am I missing anything?

He gets a great inheritance.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Identity politics has nothing to do with this discussion; your examples are false analogies and misuses of Scripture.

Identity politics has everything to do with this discussion as long as you cling to the label “trinitarian”. Any discussion on God’s nature is just a facade, just the emperor’s new clothes. I identify myself as a child of God, my doctrines, my church or my pastor didn’t die to atone my sins, Christ did.

You even quote Paul asking 'or “I follow Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?' However, as soon as one says "I follow Christ," we must look at what Jesus asked: “But who do you say that I am?” (Matt 16:15). And, the answer is what we are pursuing. Is such a person following the Jesus of Scripture?

Yes, is such a person following the Jesus of the Scripture? Or a hipster Jesus? A socialist Jesus? A self help guru Jesus? A stained glass window Jesus? Mel Gibson’s Jesus? The chosen series Jesus? You know, Jesus himself warned that many false prophets will rise in HIS name, and we’re caught in the thick of it, right?

Actually, I often use this verse to counter other’s “appeal to authority” fallacy. They often question me in a condescending tone - “what does God’s Word say?” That’s not what Jesus asked. He didn’t ask Peter what the OT scripture says he is, he asked who Peter says he is, which was Peter’s own opinion based on his understanding and experience!

Not a single one of us is arguing in any sense "I am of Paul" or "I am of Apollos." We are all arguing "I follow Christ," yet have irreconcilably different ideas of who Jesus is. If you want to claim to follow Paul's example, then actually follow his example. Paul claimed Jesus was truly God and truly man, with salvation resting on that belief, and that there were other Jesus's being proclaimed.

But as long as you cling to the trinitarian doctrine, you’re effectively declaring “I’m of the Nicene Council”, nothing new under the sun. Again, I’m not refuting the Trinity doctrine, but it is a fact that it was created to draw a line between friends and foes, to exclude Jews, Gnosticists and other outside groups who don’t submit to them. All those people in the Corinthian church followed Christ too, but apparently through different sources, hence those different names. Paul didn’t pick a side, he didn’t lecture on them with any Scriptures, he didn’t accuse them of “completely missing the point,” he didn’t redirect them to discussion of God’s nature; he called out the real issue - division among them, and he addressed it, that’s Paul’s example.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Am I missing anything?

Yes. Why didn't the Father do it Himself? Why didn't He just holler from the sky, as He did at Jesus's baptism and transfiguration? Why must he do it through Jesus in human form? And not a king or a priest, not anybody of prestige, nobility or extraordinary physique, but a lowly carpenter from Nazerath?

 

[Free]

Identity politics has everything to do with this discussion as long as you cling to the label “trinitarian”.

No, it has nothing to do with it.

Any discussion on God’s nature is just a facade, just the emperor’s new clothes. I identify myself as a child of God, my doctrines, my church or my pastor didn’t die to atone my sins, Christ did.

What makes you a child of God? Who is God? Who is Christ? On what basis does his sacrifice atone for your sins?

And what does your church or pastor have to with anything?

Yes, is such a person following the Jesus of the Scripture? Or a hipster Jesus? A socialist Jesus? A self help guru Jesus? A stained glass window Jesus? Mel Gibson’s Jesus? The chosen series Jesus? You know, Jesus himself warned that many false prophets will rise in HIS name, and we’re caught in the thick of it, right?

Actually, I often use this verse to counter other’s “appeal to authority” fallacy. They often question me in a condescending tone - “what does God’s Word say?” That’s not what Jesus asked. He didn’t ask Peter what the OT scripture says he is, he asked who Peter says he is, which was Peter’s own opinion based on his understanding and experience!

Okay.

But as long as you cling to the trinitarian doctrine, you’re effectively declaring “I’m of the Nicene Council”, nothing new under the sun. Again, I’m not refuting the Trinity doctrine, but it is a fact that it was created to draw a line between friends and foes, to exclude Jews, Gnosticists and other outside groups who don’t submit to them.

No, the Nicene Council has nothing to do with the use of Trinity or Trinitarian. It has everything to do with the deity of Jesus which, yes, draws a line, as any true doctrine of Christ necessarily will. It goes back to understanding that salvation depends on believing in and putting one’s faith in the biblical Christ.

All those people in the Corinthian church followed Christ too, but apparently through different sources, hence those different names. Paul didn’t pick a side, he didn’t lecture on them with any Scriptures, he didn’t accuse them of “completely missing the point,” he didn’t redirect them to discussion of God’s nature; he called out the real issue - division among them, and he addressed it, that’s Paul’s example.

None of that is relevant to this discussion, which is about the nature of God. Paul was addressing specific issues in the Corinthian church, in the course of which he happened to imply something about God’s nature.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Identity politics has nothing to do with this discussion; your examples are false analogies and misuses of Scripture. You even quote Paul asking 'or “I follow Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?' However, as soon as one says "I follow Christ," we must look at what Jesus asked: “But who do you say that I am?” (Matt 16:15). And, the answer is what we are pursuing. Is such a person following the Jesus of Scripture?

Not a single one of us is arguing in any sense "I am of Paul" or "I am of Apollos." We are all arguing "I follow Christ," yet have irreconcilably different ideas of who Jesus is. If you want to claim to follow Paul's example, then actually follow his example. Paul claimed Jesus was truly God and truly man, with salvation resting on that belief, and that there were other Jesus's being proclaimed.

We have irreconcilably different ideas of who Jesus because we were exposed to different first impressions of Jesus through different sources, and that's the exact same situation in the Corinthian church. Neither Paul nor Cephas nor Apollo was exalting themselves as Christ, it was their listeners who formed their own identities, and they weaponized their own version of Christ against other people, as though they owned the intellectual property of Christ while others were all committing copyright infringement. In other words, yes, they all read the same Scripture, they all operated in the name of Jesus, but one group claimed they own the correct interpretation of the Scripture and thus the correct nature of Christ through the lens of their interpretation, everybody else who disagreed with them or just slightly deviated with alternative wording is a heretic. That's how the Roman Catholic church has been operating till this day, and that's how we end up with all these different denominations - just replace Paul, Cephas, Apollos with Calvin, Wesley and Luther. Everybody could write a book about the nature of Christ, and yet everybody sees what they want to see - their own projection. If that's not identity politics, I don't know what is.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

No, it has nothing to do with it.

It has everything to do with it, and you're just avoiding it, you're intentionally turning a blind eye on the real motive and root cause behind this squabble about "God's nature".

No, the Nicene Council has nothing to do with the use of Trinity or Trinitarian. It has everything to do with the deity of Jesus which, yes, draws a line, as any true doctrine of Christ necessarily will. It goes back to understanding that salvation depends on believing in and putting one’s faith in the biblical Christ.

It has everything to do with Trinity or Trinitarian, because it originated from their decree, and the purpose of which was to establish their own authority. Neither did the biblical Christ preach "God of three persons", nor did he weaponize it against any group. Did he criticize any Pharisee or Sadducee for not being a trinitarian? Being incorrect on certain OT doctrines? Or their corruption and hypocrisy? Which woe in Matt. 23 has anything to do with a doctrine?

None of that is relevant to this discussion, which is about the nature of God. Paul was addressing specific issues in the Corinthian church, in the course of which he happened to imply something about God’s nature.

If you don't even understand the nature of man and you don't even bother to address it, how can you get a handle on the nature of God? The "specific issue" Paul addressed was not about God's nature, but those parishioners' nature - carnal, spiritually immature.

 

[LeviR]

Yes. Why didn't the Father do it Himself? Why didn't He just holler from the sky, as He did at Jesus's baptism and transfiguration? Why must he do it through Jesus in human form? And not a king or a priest, not anybody of prestige, nobility or extraordinary physique, but a lowly carpenter from Nazerath?

Jesus is all of those. He was made King, High Priest, Prophet, Savior and Physician and Lord of all.
He was made all those things.
He was meek and poor but rich in faith.

 

[Free]

We have irreconcilably different ideas of who Jesus because we were exposed to different first impressions of Jesus through different sources, and that's the exact same situation in the Corinthian church.

No, it isn't.

Neither Paul nor Cephas nor Apollo was exalting themselves as Christ, it was their listeners who formed their own identities, and they weaponized their own version of Christ against other people, as though they owned the intellectual property of Christ while others were all committing copyright infringement. In other words, yes, they all read the same Scripture, they all operated in the name of Jesus, but one group claimed they own the correct interpretation of the Scripture and thus the correct nature of Christ through the lens of their interpretation, everybody else who disagreed with them or just slightly deviated with alternative wording is a heretic.

Interesting how I can find none of that in 1 Cor. Please go back and look at what you even quoted:

1Co 1:12 What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.”
1Co 1:13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? (ESV)

It appears to be about who is head and leader of the church. It has nothing to do with the nature of Christ.

That's how the Roman Catholic church has been operating till this day, and that's how we end up with all these different denominations - just replace Paul, Cephas, Apollos with Calvin, Wesley and Luther. Everybody could write a book about the nature of Christ, and yet everybody sees what they want to see - their own projection. If that's not identity politics, I don't know what is.

What does this have to do with anything? Please keep this thread on topic.