There is an alternative to trinitarianism/ non-trinitarianism.

[Carry_Your_Name]

No, it isn't.

Yes it is. Until you face this issue, any theology is just "me-ology".

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.

Yes, because it has everything to do with the division within the church, different groups were appealing to their own authorities.

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

Sir, with respect, the OP correctly called out those identity groups, the first line unequivocally rejected labeling and idenitity politics, I'm the one who's echoing the topic of this thread - being a Christian, not a trinitarian or a "non-trinitarian" - this "trinitarian" vs "non-trinitarian" by and of itself is a false delimma, the most common logical fallacy. I'm the one who exposed these artificial labels, I diagnosed the root cause behind the symptom, you're the one who immediately picked the trinitarian side and defended it with everything you've got in your theological arsenal.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

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.

Yeah, easy for us to say that in retrospect. Hindsight is always 20/20.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

but by extension, that would mean the triune God.

And that "extension" was added by the Nicene council. What they were doing was monopolizing Jesus, nobody could come to God except through them and their doctrine, regardless of whether their doctrine was biblically correct or not. They were playing the Nicolaitans - whom Jesus hated!

 

[Free]

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".

Stop misrepresenting my position or you will be removed from the discussion. If you are (erroneously) going to insist that this is about identity politics, the only sense in which it is is about who Christ is, who he claimed to be. Jesus said he came to bring "a sword," that he came to set people against each other, even members of one's own family. That is what we are discussing, not identity politics.

It has everything to do with Trinity or Trinitarian, because it originated from their decree,

The Creed affirmed--which means it was already believed by Christians--the deity of Jesus, and by extension, the deity of the Holy Spirit. But, there is no formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity.

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.

No, but he implicitly and explicitly claimed to be God, and the Jews tried to kill him for it at least twice, and succeeded in the end. What you don't seem to understand is that the doctrine of the Trinity is at the core of Christianity, by which we understand all else. It is a doctrine that defines Christianity and followers of Christ over against all other worldviews and their adherents. It is divisive because it cannot be otherwise and it has nothing to do with identity politics.

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?

Not at all relevant. They didn't know him, that is what is relevant.

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 1:11 He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him.
Joh 1:12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, (ESV)

Joh 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. (ESV)

Joh 20:31 but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. (ESV)

To believe "in the name of the only Son of God," is to believe in all that he said he is.

From M. R. Vincent's Word Studies in the New Testament, regarding John 1:12:

"Expressing the sum of the qualities which mark the nature or character of a person. To believe in the name of Jesus Christ the Son of God, is to accept as true the revelation contained in that title."

That would necessarily entail his deity.

From Vincent regarding Matt 28:19:

"In the name (εἰς τὸ ὄνομα)

Rev., correctly, “into the name.” Baptizing into the name has a twofold meaning. 1. Unto, denoting object or purpose, as εἰς μετάνοιαν, unto repentance (Mat_3:11); εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν, for the remission of sins (Act_2:38). 2. Into, denoting union or communion with, as Rom_6:3, “baptized into Christ Jesus; into his death;” i.e., we are brought by baptism into fellowship with his death. Baptizing into the name of the Holy Trinity implies a spiritual and mystical union with him. Eἰς, into, is the preposition commonly used with baptize. See Act_8:16; Act_19:3, Act_19:5; 1Co_1:13, 1Co_1:15; 1Co_10:2; Gal_3:27. In Act_2:38, however, Peter says, “Be baptized upon (ἐπὶ) the name of Jesus Christ; and in Act_10:48, he commands Cornelius and his friends to be baptized in (ἐν) the name of the Lord. To be baptized upon the name is to be baptized on the confession of that which the name implies: on the ground of the name; so that the name Jesus, as the contents of the faith and confession, is the ground upon which the becoming baptized rests. In the name (ἐν) has reference to the sphere within which alone true baptism is accomplished. The name is not the mere designation, a sense which would give to the baptismal formula merely the force of a charm. The name, as in the Lord's Prayer (“Hallowed be thy name”), is the expression of the sum total of the divine Being: not his designation as God or Lord, but the formula in which all his attributes and characteristics are summed up. It is equivalent to his person. The finite mind can deal with him only through his name; but his name is of no avail detached from his nature. When one is baptized into the name of the Trinity, he professes to acknowledge and appropriate God in all that he is and in all that he does for man. He recognizes and depends upon God the Father as his Creator and Preserver; receives Jesus Christ as his only Mediator and Redeemer, and his pattern of life; and confesses the Holy Spirit as his Sanctifier and Comforter."

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?

We start with the nature of God and work down to man, not the other way around.

The "specific issue" Paul addressed was not about God's nature, but those parishioners' nature - carnal, spiritually immature.

Of course, which has nothing to do with this discussion.

 

[Free]

And that "extension" was added by the Nicene council. What they were doing was monopolizing Jesus, nobody could come to God except through them and their doctrine, regardless of whether their doctrine was biblically correct or not. They were playing the Nicolaitans - whom Jesus hated!

No, they were summarizing the biblical revelation of God in Christ, over against those who denied the deity of Christ. You don't seem to understand the absolute central importance of this issue.

Jesus is the central figure of the entire Bible, who atoned for the sins of all humans who will ever live, in whose name alone we have salvation. Do you really think that one can just believe whatever they want about Jesus and be saved? Paul didn't think so, so why do you? Why do you argue to what Paul states in one place but then ignore him in other places?

 

[Free]

Yes it is. Until you face this issue, any theology is just "me-ology".

This has nothing to do with the discussion.

Yes, because it has everything to do with the division within the church, different groups were appealing to their own authorities.

It has to do with divisions about specific beliefs--groups were claiming different persons as their head and leader of the Church. That has nothing to do with whether or not Christ is also truly God and God exists in and of himself as three coeternal, coequal, divine persons. Nor the central importance of that doctrine. Please use Scripture properly.

being a Christian, not a trinitarian or a "non-trinitarian" - this "trinitarian" vs "non-trinitarian" by and of itself is a false delimma, the most common logical fallacy.

Prove that it's a false dilemma. By definition, if someone is not a Trinitarian, they are a non-Trinitarian. Rather goes without saying, don't you think?

I'm the one who exposed these artificial labels, I diagnosed the root cause behind the symptom, you're the one who immediately picked the trinitarian side and defended it with everything you've got in your theological arsenal.

You haven't diagnosed anything. You do realize that "Trinitarian" is just a term used to define the summary of God's revelation of himself to us, so that we don't have to continually lay things out, correct? That's why numerous words, including "Christianity" exist; they give another person an immediate summation and approximation of what we believe. Absolutely nothing to do with identity politics.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Stop misrepresenting my position or you will be removed from the discussion. If you are (erroneously) going to insist that this is about identity politics, the only sense in which it is is about who Christ is, who he claimed to be. Jesus said he came to bring "a sword," that he came to set people against each other, even members of one's own family. That is what we are discussing, not identity politics.

Then I'd rather risk misrepresenting you and face the consequence which you threaten to inflict upon me than misrepresenting my Lord and Savior. Jesus came to bring a "sword" within families, tribes and nations, but NOT his own church. Had Jesus not warned that a house divided against itself cannot stand?

The Creed affirmed--which means it was already believed by Christians--the deity of Jesus, and by extension, the deity of the Holy Spirit. But, there is no formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity.

My argument here is never about the Creed itself. Tell me, is this Creed the only access to God - or the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ? I assure you that we both believe in the Creed and the deity of Christ, but beyond that, I also believe that the OP, Mr. Runningman and anybody else with a different theological position are not condemned to hell for eternity, I respect their opinion and their right to free speech.

No, but he implicitly and explicitly claimed to be God, and the Jews tried to kill him for it at least twice, and succeeded in the end. What you don't seem to understand is that the doctrine of the Trinity is at the core of Christianity, by which we understand all else. It is a doctrine that defines Christianity and followers of Christ over against all other worldviews and their adherents.

No sir, the core of Christianity is 1 Cor. 15:3-4 - "Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scripture." Not according to you, me. Runningman or the Nicene council, but to the OT Scripture.

It is divisive because it cannot be otherwise and it has nothing to do with identity politics.

Then tell me what were the "envy, strife, and divisions among you" about in 1 Cor. 13:3, and why did Paul specifically call it out. Just to be clear, I'm not here to disrupt anything or to make any trouble, I'm just seeing the same kind of issue apostle Paul saw in the Corinthian church, and I'm echoing the OP's position.

 

[Free]

Then I'd rather risk misrepresenting you and face the consequence which you threaten to inflict upon me than misrepresenting my Lord and Savior. Jesus came to bring a "sword" within families, tribes and nations, but NOT his own church. Had Jesus not warned that a house divided against itself cannot stand?

That’s begging the question. You’re presuming that everyone in a church is actually saved. Jesus said that mot everyone who says “Lord, Lord” will be saved. We are warned many times about those who are false entering churches and leading others astray.

My argument here is never about the Creed itself. Tell me, is this Creed the only access to God - or the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ?

You’re, again, begging the question by presuming that what one believes about Jesus is not relevant. The Creed summarizes the biblical revelation of Christ; it points us to the biblical Christ so we can know just who it is we are to put our faith in. We absolutely cannot believe whatever we want about him and expect to be saved. Again, I’ve pointed this out with Scripture.

I assure you that we both believe in the Creed and the deity of Christ, but beyond that, I also believe that the OP, Mr. Runningman and anybody else with a different theological position are not condemned to hell for eternity, I respect their opinion and their right to free speech.

I respect everyone’s right to free speech and freedom of belief, but the fact remains that the Bible clearlt lays out that salvation is dependent on who Jesus is and we must believe who he says he is.

No sir, the core of Christianity is 1 Cor. 15:3-4 - "Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scripture." Not according to you, me. Runningman or the Nicene council, but to the OT Scripture.

Again, begging the question. Which Christ?

Then tell me what were the "envy, strife, and divisions among you" about in 1 Cor. 13:3, and why did Paul specifically call it out. Just to be clear, I'm not here to disrupt anything or to make any trouble, I'm just seeing the same kind of issue apostle Paul saw in the Corinthian church, and I'm echoing the OP's position.

Which verse? What Paul was addressing has nothing to do with this discussion. Paul did address this discussion elsewhere, such as 2 Cor 11:4 (“another Jesus”) as I previously pointed out.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

We start with the nature of God and work down to man, not the other way around.

That's not Jesus's perspective - or Paul's:

If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things? (Jn. 3:12)
Be of the same mind toward one another. Do not set your mind on high things, but associate with the humble. Do not be wise in your own opinion.(Rom. 12:16)

Of course, which has nothing to do with this discussion.

It has everything to do with the OP, regardless of your dismissive attitude.

No, they were summarizing the biblical revelation of God in Christ, over against those who denied the deity of Christ. You don't seem to understand the absolute central importance of this issue.

Do I? How about you circle back and check out my debate with Runningman before you draw your conclusion?

Jesus is the central figure of the entire Bible, who atoned for the sins of all humans who will ever live, in whose name alone we have salvation. Do you really think that one can just believe whatever they want about Jesus and be saved? Paul didn't think so, so why do you? Why do you argue to what Paul states in one place but then ignore him in other places?

Paul never ignored Jesus in any place, but nor did he ignore the pressing issues within the early churches, every one of his letter was written in response to certain issues, including this division. In post 740 you emphasized: "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.”What's happening here is repeating history: "I follow trinitarianism"; "I follow unitarianism"; "I follow messianic Judaism"; "I follow my own perception of Christ". My only argument is my observation and acknowledgement of this situation.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

This has nothing to do with the discussion.

The discussion is about an ALTERNATIVE to trinitarianism and non trinitarianism, initiated by the OP whom I respect.

It has to do with divisions about specific beliefs--groups were claiming different persons as their head and leader of the Church. That has nothing to do with whether or not Christ is also truly God and God exists in and of himself as three coeternal, coequal, divine persons. Nor the central importance of that doctrine. Please use Scripture properly.

Then again, enlighten me why that is not identity politics, and why Paul called out the division repeatedly. I don't think any of those groups were openly challenging Jesus's deity.

Prove that it's a false dilemma. By definition, if someone is not a Trinitarian, they are a non-Trinitarian. Rather goes without saying, don't you think?

Ask the OP about that, he proposed the "alternative", not me. I've already told you my position, I believe in the trinity as much as you do, just with a slightly different perspective, mainly under the influence of messianic Judaism.

Absolutely nothing to do with identity politics.

Then how come that you immediately picked the side of trinitarinism, and Runningman immediately picked the side of unitarinism, and you guys bickered on and on, and everybody else picked a side along the way?

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

That’s begging the question. You’re presuming that everyone in a church is actually saved. Jesus said that mot everyone who says “Lord, Lord” will be saved. We are warned many times about those who are false entering churches and leading others astray.

And you're presuming that only the Nicene council owns the truth, everybody else is false. It is written that there're three kinds of tares among the wheat - Cain, Balaam and Korah. The first two are false religions and false doctrines, which are what Jesus was warning about. The third one though has nothing to do with religion or doctrine, but power and control. Korah was not in any disagreement with Moses's teaching, he rebelled against Moses and Aaron for nothing but leadership position, and that's the kind of strife I'm sensing here.

Woe to them! For they have gone in the way of Cain, have run greedily in the error of Balaam for profit, and perished in the rebellion of Korah. (Jude 1:11)

You’re, again, begging the question by presuming that what one believes about Jesus is not relevant. The Creed summarizes the biblical revelation of Christ; it points us to the biblical Christ so we can know just who it is we are to put our faith in. We absolutely cannot believe whatever we want about him and expect to be saved. Again, I’ve pointed this out with Scripture.

And again, I'm opposing not the Creed itself, but the weaponization of it to exclude other people who could otherwise become ripe mission fields.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

I respect everyone’s right to free speech and freedom of belief, but the fact remains that the Bible clearlt lays out that salvation is dependent on who Jesus is and we must believe who he says he is.

Except I never imposed my view of the trinity or other matter on anybody. What irritates me is that to many trinitarians, every issue is like a nail, and the only tool they have is the hammer of trinitarianism, there's nothing else in their tunnel vision, I've met quite a few of such gentlemen on other forums and in real life. If you dare to disagree, to doubt or just present a slightly different understanding of the Trinity, they're instantly riled up as though you poked their G spot, and they throw their books at you with endless lecturing. That turns people away rather than drawing people to Christ. Yes, the bible clearly lays out God's salvation plan through Jesus, but these people have muddied the water. That's Nicolaitanism, putting unnecessary roadblocks on the narrow way to eternal life.

Again, begging the question. Which Christ?

Yeah, which one? I asked the same in post #734, and you brushed it off with a nonchalant "okay". So, you've answered your own question.

Which verse? What Paul was addressing has nothing to do with this discussion. Paul did address this discussion elsewhere, such as 2 Cor 11:4 (“another Jesus”) as I previously pointed out.

1 Cor. 3:3.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

You haven't diagnosed anything. You do realize that "Trinitarian" is just a term used to define the summary of God's revelation of himself to us, so that we don't have to continually lay things out, correct?

God's revelation of himself is described through the vision of apostle John, that's the most authoritative summary as it was written from firsthand eyewitness's perspective. Nothing about trinitarianism is found in this portrait of Jesus.

And please understand that I don't mean to be trolling or "begging any question", I'm pointing out a very inconvenient fact, that whenever you utter the term "trinity", what appears in an average listener's mind is the stereotypical Catholic stained glass version - a topless Santa Claus, a topless hipster and a creepy dove. Even though we intellectually know with absolute certainty that this is not what Trinity means and what it looks like, it still comes up in your subconscious. I'm giving you an honest report and my reason for posting this real revelation of God himself with no ill intention.

Then I turned to see the voice that spoke with me. And having turned I saw seven golden lampstands, and in the midst of the seven lampstands One like the Son of Man, clothed with a garment down to the feet and girded about the chest with a golden band. His head and hair were white like wool, as white as snow, and His eyes like a flame of fire; His feet were like fine brass, as if refined in a furnace, and His voice as the sound of many waters; He had in His right hand seven stars, out of His mouth went a sharp two-edged sword, and His countenance was like the sun shining in its strength. And when I saw Him, I fell at His feet as dead. But He laid His right hand on me, saying to me, “Do not be afraid; I am the First and the Last. I am He who lives, and was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore. Amen. And I have the keys of Hades and of Death. (Rev. 1:12-18)

 

[Runningman]

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.

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

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.

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.

Trinitarians will typically attempt to explain this away using what is known as the hypostatic union doctrine which alleges Jesus is both "fully man and fully God." Two points here, God isn't a man and a man isn't God. The nature of man and God are contradictory, one to another, and are incompatible. Enter the "incomprehensible mystery" safety net that normally comes at the very end of long debates.

In any case, they insist Jesus is a god man or perhaps a demigod even though that doesn't really make sense either. The super powers Jesus had, the Bible says he was anointed and empowered by God and that it was actually God Himself acting through Jesus in Acts 2:22, Acts 4:30, Acts 10:38, etc. To top it all off, the very same things that Jesus himself did others also did.

So there goes the idea of that the miracles Jesus performed being a demi-god exclusive that only he could do. Actually, the sinners who Jesus picked as followers repented, became believers themselves, and did the exact same miracles as Jesus himself.

They will eventually quote Philippians 2:5-11 (normally they will exclude verse 5) as a prooftext for the hypostatic union. It's the only passage that could possibly support it in a sense, but then again Paul says clearly in Philippians 2:5 "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:" In that case, this actually changes the entire meaning of what the Philippians 2:5-11 passage is about. Paul was instructing them how to be Christ like, not how to believe they are themselves God. That's it. And the only one called God in the entire passage is called the Father any way.

Jesus was trying to create a family of fully liberated children of God, forgiven, blessed, empowered, Christ-like. Jesus was not trying to create a following of people who misunderstood him and deified him. It's really amazing that it's possible to do what Jesus did, live how he lived, walk in his steps, judge the world, rule over the nations, inherit all he did, and in the end even receive a crown and sit on his very throne. (Romans 8:17, 1 Corinthians 6:2, 1 Peter 2:21, Revelation 2:26-29, Revelation 3:21)

After reading those verses, with all of the things we can possibly have in common with Jesus, does anyone really think that their point was Jesus was God in the Bible?

 

[Runningman]

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.

A way, truth, and life are things. Think of it like this.. is Jesus literally a loaf of bread from heaven? We intuitively know he isn't actually bread. This is just figurative language to illustrate one of Jesus' talking points. As I already said, the way, truth, and life Jesus had he received from his God and Father.

 

[LeviR]

Trinitarians will typically attempt to explain this away using what is known as the hypostatic union doctrine which alleges Jesus is both "fully man and fully God." Two points here, God isn't a man and a man isn't God. The nature of man and God are contradictory, one to another, and are incompatible. Enter the "incomprehensible mystery" safety net that normally comes at the very end of long debates.

In any case, they insist Jesus is a god man or perhaps a demigod even though that doesn't really make sense either. The super powers Jesus had, the Bible says he was anointed and empowered by God and that it was actually God Himself acting through Jesus in Acts 2:22, Acts 4:30, Acts 10:38, etc. To top it all off, the very same things that Jesus himself did others also did.

So there goes the idea of that the miracles Jesus performed being a demi-god exclusive that only he could do. Actually, the sinners who Jesus picked as followers repented, became believers themselves, and did the exact same miracles as Jesus himself.

They will eventually quote Philippians 2:5-11 (normally they will exclude verse 5) as a prooftext for the hypostatic union. It's the only passage that could possibly support it in a sense, but then again Paul says clearly in Philippians 2:5 "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:" In that case, this actually changes the entire meaning of what the Philippians 2:5-11 passage is about. Paul was instructing them how to be Christ like, not how to believe they are themselves God. That's it. And the only one called God in the entire passage is called the Father any way.

Jesus was trying to create a family of fully liberated children of God, forgiven, blessed, empowered, Christ-like. Jesus was not trying to create a following of people who misunderstood him and deified him. It's really amazing that it's possible to do what Jesus did, live how he lived, walk in his steps, judge the world, rule over the nations, inherit all he did, and in the end even receive a crown and sit on his very throne. (Romans 8:17, 1 Corinthians 6:2, 1 Peter 2:21, Revelation 2:26-29, Revelation 3:21)

After reading those verses, with all of the things we can possibly have in common with Jesus, does anyone really think that their point was Jesus was God in the Bible?

The NIV has really gone afoul in Philippians when they translate morphe as “nature”.
The same word is used in Mark 16:12 and has nothing to do with “having same nature”.
It means how something seems in appearance. It does not mean how something is in nature.
They screwed up big time with that one.
Can you imagine how many people are pointing to that passage to prove Jesus has two natures.

They’re saying “see Jesus is the nature of God and took on the nature of a man“
Wrong!

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

A way, truth, and life are things. Think of it like this.. is Jesus literally a loaf of bread from heaven? We intuitively know he isn't actually bread. This is just figurative language to illustrate one of Jesus' talking points. As I already said, the way, truth, and life Jesus had he received from his God and Father.

You're comparing apple to orange. A loaf of bread is a tangible thing, way, truth and life are intangible concepts. As I already said, Jesus didn't claim that He knew the way, the truth and the life like any other sage or prophet, HE said HE IS the way, the truth and the life.

 

[LeviR]

You're comparing apple to orange. A loaf of bread is a tangible thing, way, truth and life are intangible concepts. As I already said, Jesus didn't claim that He knew the way, the truth and the life like any other sage or prophet, HE said HE IS the way, the truth and the life.

He’s the door too.
The way can mean the road.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

He’s the door too.
The way can mean the road.

Not in that particular context. Not a material road of dirt, cobbles or asphalt, but more like access or method.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Trinitarians will typically attempt to explain this away using what is known as the hypostatic union doctrine which alleges Jesus is both "fully man and fully God." Two points here, God isn't a man and a man isn't God. The nature of man and God are contradictory, one to another, and are incompatible. Enter the "incomprehensible mystery" safety net that normally comes at the very end of long debates.

You're guilty of putting God in a box and setting limits for him, but I won't go after you with more debate on that. As you can see, instead of challenging their precious doctrine and insulting their intelligence, I target their motives and attitudes, because the heart of the problem is always the problem of the heart.