There is an alternative to trinitarianism/ non-trinitarianism.

[Runningman]

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!

Yes that's true. That point alone also changes everything. The Septuagint also uses morphe in regards to the outward visual appearance. One of the appalling and shamelessly dishonest things I've noticed is that some Trinitarian lexicons actually say the word form refers to the nature or essence rather than the external appearance. Then that's another problem because we would have to deal with the fact Paul is preaching to people about how to be God. As you can see, it's quickly getting absurd when we assume the Bible using their words and definitions.

Also, in Mark 16:12 Jesus had a nature that changed then. Hey wait a sec, I thought God's nature never changed. That's one of the serious errors that can arise from fiddling with a few choice words here and there; it creates all sorts of heresies.

 

[Runningman]

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.

People also say Jesus is a word and light, too. Those are things he has, not things he literally is. They aren't even things unique to Jesus either. He told his disciples that they, too, are the light of the world in Matthew 5:14.

Jesus also said "Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? " In John 10:34-36.

What do you suppose Jesus' point was about those gods to whom the Logos of God came is?

 

[Runningman]

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.

If only good intentions and unintentionally misunderstanding something were enough. I suppose we wouldn't need to discuss anything, but one way or another shouldn't we all seek the truth with both the heart and mind?

 

[Free]

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

I know what the discussion was that was initiated by the OP. My response was to your claim that this was identity politics, to which I responded that that has nothing to do with it. Besides, the OP promoted tritheism as the "alternative" which is no alternative at all; that's not even in the realm of possibility.

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.

Please me how that response addresses what I said, which was:

"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."

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.

You stated: "this "trinitarian" vs "non-trinitarian" by and of itself is a false delimma, the most common logical fallacy."

I responded: "Prove that it's a false dilemma. By definition, if someone is not a Trinitarian, they are a non-Trinitarian."

Why did you completely avoid that and try to put the onus on the OP for your claim? You need to prove that Trinitarianism vs non-Trinitarianism is a false dilemma.

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?

It has nothing to do with identity politics. It has everything to do with what God reveals of himself in Scripture. You do understand that believers are commanded to refute false doctrine and teach only correct doctrine, yes? This is all the more important when it comes to a central issue, one of first order importance.

 

[Free]

And you're presuming that only the Nicene council owns the truth, everybody else is false.

No. Please read what I write. The Nicene Council affirmed what was already believed at large among churches. That Jesus was believed to be God in human flesh can be seen, outside of Scripture, in early second century writings.

It is written that there're three kinds of tares among the wheat - Cain, Balaam and Korah.

Where is that written?

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.

Well, your sense is incorrect. This is about truth. What we think of God is the most important thing about us. If we get God wrong, nothing else matters.

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)

And, what is the context?

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.

I don't think you're really understanding what is going on here.

 

[Free]

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.

Okay. So, if salvation is dependent on putting one's faith in the biblical Jesus, how is showing who the biblical Jesus is to those who deny the biblical Jesus, "putting unnecessary roadblocks on the narrow way to eternal life"? How is addressing those who are entrenched in a false view of Christ and God "putting unnecessary roadblocks on the narrow way to eternal life"?

And, please, this is a Christian site. If you want to make a point, please do so without sexual references.

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.

I brushed it off because you made the same point I made instead of addressing what I stated. I know how to answer my own question.

I stated: "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."

You replied: '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."'

I responded: "Again, begging the question. Which Christ?"

But you didn't address that. My point clearly is that while you say 1 Cor 15:3-4 is "the core of Christianity"--yes, it is also central--that doesn't address the issue of who Jesus is. If one believes Jesus to be someone or something other than what he is revealed to be, then 1 Cor 15:3-4 is useless to such a one. The deity of Jesus and by extension the Trinity, are the absolute center of all else.

1 Cor. 3:3.

Okay, but what does that have to do with a discussion about the nature of God and Jesus? As I stated, this is something that divides followers of Christ from non-followers of Christ. Paul was addressing issues within a specific church, among followers of Christ.

 

[LeviR]

Yes that's true. That point alone also changes everything. The Septuagint also uses morphe in regards to the outward visual appearance. One of the appalling and shamelessly dishonest things I've noticed is that some Trinitarian lexicons actually say the word form refers to the nature or essence rather than the external appearance. Then that's another problem because we would have to deal with the fact Paul is preaching to people about how to be God. As you can see, it's quickly getting absurd when we assume the Bible using their words and definitions.

Also, in Mark 16:12 Jesus had a nature that changed then. Hey wait a sec, I thought God's nature never changed. That's one of the serious errors that can arise from fiddling with a few choice words here and there; it creates all sorts of heresies.

John 1:4, "In Him was life, and the life was the light of men."

Jhn 5:26 - “For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself,

One thing we can say for certain, is that John 5:26 specifically says “the son”, he was given to have life in himself.
We can also say for certain that John 1:4 specifically says “the word”, which in Him was life.

The son was given to have life in himself, but the word had life in him from the beginning.
Since the Father has always had life in Himself, the word is referring to the Father.

 

[Runningman]

John 1:4, "In Him was life, and the life was the light of men."

Jhn 5:26 - “For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself,

One thing we can say for certain, is that John 5:26 specifically says “the son”, he was given to have life in himself.
We can also say for certain that John 1:4 specifically says “the word”, which in Him was life.

The son was given to have life in himself, but the word had life in him from the beginning.
Since the Father has always had life in Himself, the word is referring to the Father.

Completely agree. I have been harping on those same points for months now and barely anyone has seemed to be aware of this until just now when you mentioned it. Do you think 1 John 1:1-4 basically says the same thing, that the Word of Life is the eternal life that was with the Father and was manifested? Yet Jesus was clear he got his life from the Father.

 

[LeviR]

Completely agree. I have been harping on those same points for months now and barely anyone has seemed to be aware of this until just now when you mentioned it. Do you think 1 John 1:1-4 basically says the same thing, that the Word of Life is the eternal life that was with the Father and was manifested? Yet Jesus was clear he got his life from the Father.

Certainly it was. The Word of life is the same Word that “in Him was life. It refers to the life in the Father that was given to the son. The eternal life that exists in the Father was given to the son, and the son made known that life when he showed himself to his disciples after he rose from the dead.

 

[LeviR]

Completely agree. I have been harping on those same points for months now and barely anyone has seemed to be aware of this until just now when you mentioned it. Do you think 1 John 1:1-4 basically says the same thing, that the Word of Life is the eternal life that was with the Father and was manifested? Yet Jesus was clear he got his life from the Father.

Another thing, it says the Word became or was made flesh. It doesn’t speak as Trinitarians do, who say the eternal son took upon himself another nature that was not mixed with his God nature.

 

[LeviR]

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

Here’s something you might want to investigate.

The central doctrine of the Trinity is that the Son is of the same substance or essence as the Father.
Although the word to describe this teaching is not found in the Bible, it is a combination of the Greek words homo and ousia. It means
“same substance”.
The word ousia is found in the Bible and referred to all the stuff that the prodigal son wasted. The substance referred to the stuff he was given and then wasted away. Not to “nature”. He didn’t waste away his nature.

Here’s the funny part. Trinitarians say the son is of the same nature as the Father. But that’s not what homo-ousia means.
If you wanted to say “same nature” it would be homo-physis and not homo-ousia.

The reason they say “same nature” is because of the faulty interpretation of the word morphe. That word does not mean “same nature”.

 

[LeviR]

Before Nicaea I. The word homoousios(ὁμοούσιος), traditionally translated into English by "consubstantial," (one in being) was an everyday word in the Greek language with the meaning "of the same kind of stuff as." It had been used technically, however, in the vocabulary of Gnosticism. Thus, in the system of valentinus, Truth emanates from the substance of Mind and is consubstantial with it. Christian writers at Alexandria adopted the word to express the eternal origin of the Son from the Father. https://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/homoousios

When the Greeks would use the word homoosios it meant “same stuff”. But not same nature.
However, in the vocabulary of Gnosticism the word was used to express emanation of something from another thing. As the idea that emanated from another idea was of the same substance.
The doctrine of Trinity took the Gnostic idea and used it to express how the son could be of the same substance as the Father.

It’s not a Biblical doctrine. It’s a doctrine drawn from Gnostic ideas.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

If only good intentions and unintentionally misunderstanding something were enough. I suppose we wouldn't need to discuss anything, but one way or another shouldn't we all seek the truth with both the heart and mind?

Yes, of course, I’m really sick and tired of all this in-fighting over basic tenets such as the Trinity while the world is in total catastrophe. It feels like burying our heads in the sand.

 

[LeviR]

Here’s an interesting read:

The doctrine of the Trinity deviates from the Nicene Creed.

E.g., while the Creed describes Father and Son as one single hypostasis (Person), the Doctrine teaches three distinct hypostases.

revelationbyjesuschrist.com

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

I know what the discussion was that was initiated by the OP. My response was to your claim that this was identity politics, to which I responded that that has nothing to do with it. Besides, the OP promoted tritheism as the "alternative" which is no alternative at all; that's not even in the realm of possibility.

If identity politics has nothing to do with this discussion, please stop labeling yourself or other people. As long as you label yourself a Trinitarian above everything else and impose your “co-eternal persons” doctrine on others, you’re playing identity politics.

Please me how that response addresses what I said,

We’re having a similar “division about specific beliefs” like the Corinthian church, Paul chose to address it, you choose to pretend it doesn’t exist, it’s only about God’s nature. I’m telling you, God’s nature is irrelevant unless we face our own nature - reflected in those “specific beliefs,” because each one has their own specific belief through which to see God and fathom the nature of God.

Why did you completely avoid that and try to put the onus on the OP for your claim? You need to prove that Trinitarianism vs non-Trinitarianism is a false dilemma.

You need to prove how this is not just another way of saying “you’re either with me or against me”. There’s the holy Trinity in the Bible, but there’s no “trinitarian-“ism”, that’s a man-made philosophy originated from the Nicene council.

 

[Runningman]

Yes, of course, I’m really sick and tired of all this in-fighting over basic tenets such as the Trinity while the world is in total catastrophe. It feels like burying our heads in the sand.

Yes I know, I plan to begin my campaign of getting back into preaching the New Covenant soon. It's so easy to get consumed by these Trinitarian debates though. For one they are interesting to me and I think they're important.

 

[Runningman]

Certainly it was. The Word of life is the same Word that “in Him was life. It refers to the life in the Father that was given to the son. The eternal life that exists in the Father was given to the son, and the son made known that life when he showed himself to his disciples after he rose from the dead.

Another thing, it says the Word became or was made flesh. It doesn’t speak as Trinitarians do, who say the eternal son took upon himself another nature that was not mixed with his God nature.

But, atleast to me, the context seems to refer to the beginning of... the church. What else would it be. The Son said he was granted to have life. The question is, when was the Son given life? There are some clues. John 1:9 says the true Light was coming into the world who gives light to all men and then John 1:30 says Jesus is a man. So the true Light seems to be God who gave light (life) to Jesus. The context seems to say this didn't happen until Jesus' water baptism. While John doesn't directly say it, based on Matthew 3:16,17 the water baptism fits right into somewhere in John 1:29-32. So Jesus didn't get life until his anointing and empowerment of the Holy Spirit when he was about 30 years old?

 

[LeviR]

But, atleast to me, the context seems to refer to the beginning of... the church. What else would it be. The Son said he was granted to have life. The question is, when was the Son given life? There are some clues. John 1:9 says the true Light was coming into the world who gives light to all men and then John 1:30 says Jesus is a man. So the true Light seems to be God who gave light (life) to Jesus. The context seems to say this didn't happen until Jesus' water baptism. While John doesn't directly say it, based on Matthew 3:16,17 the water baptism fits right into somewhere in John 1:29-32. So Jesus didn't get life until his anointing and empowerment of the Holy Spirit when he was about 30 years old?

One can said to possess eternal life as in faith and a hope. Just as one can possess the promises in faith and hope.
But hope remains hope until it is realized.
Jesus could possess the word of life and be the word of life and pass it on but it becomes manifest when the hope is realized by resurrection.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

It has nothing to do with identity politics. It has everything to do with what God reveals of himself in Scripture.

And yet all I've seen is you guys revealing yourselves in this discussion.

You do understand that believers are commanded to refute false doctrine and teach only correct doctrine, yes? This is all the more important when it comes to a central issue, one of first order importance.

I understand one critical element which you don't seem to understand, which is priority when it comes to what believers are "commanded" to do. All disciples are commanded to love one another, by which they may be recognized as the Lord's disciples; meanwhile, only bishops ordained by God to oversee the church has the authority to "refute false doctrines".

A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.”(Jn. 15:34-35)

As I urged you when I went into Macedonia—remain in Ephesus that you may charge some that they teach no other doctrine, nor give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which cause disputes rather than godly edification which is in faith. (1 Tim. 1:3-4)

No. Please read what I write. The Nicene Council affirmed what was already believed at large among churches. That Jesus was believed to be God in human flesh can be seen, outside of Scripture, in early second century writings.

So? There's no dispute over the deity of Jesus between you and me, what I'm against is the politicization and weaponization of the doctrine to form their own identity and exclude others. Please read what I write as well.

Where is that written?

And, what is the context?

Why don't you tell me, sir. My bible's title for this section reads "Old and New Apostates."

Well, your sense is incorrect. This is about truth. What we think of God is the most important thing about us. If we get God wrong, nothing else matters.

Then once again, humble ourselves and see who WE are first before any futile attempt to figure out who God is, because we all see God and read His word through the lens of our own nature, whether you admit it or not.

I don't think you're really understanding what is going on here.

I understand perfectly, you don't. "You shall not take your Lord's name in vain." What I'm seeing here is taking the Lord's name in vain to feed each one's own ego.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Okay. So, if salvation is dependent on putting one's faith in the biblical Jesus, how is showing who the biblical Jesus is to those who deny the biblical Jesus, "putting unnecessary roadblocks on the narrow way to eternal life"? How is addressing those who are entrenched in a false view of Christ and God "putting unnecessary roadblocks on the narrow way to eternal life"?

Who gets to decide what is biblical Jesus and what is not? The bible? There're two sides of Jesus in the bible - son of Joseph, a suffering servant and son of David, a conquering king. These two sides of him are foreshadowed in the stories of Joseph and David, specifically prophecied in Is. 53 and 63. Son of Joseph was fufilled in His first coming, Son of David will be fulfilled in His second coming. Again, I'm NOT refuting the trinity doctrine, but I don't see any of these in it, in regard of showing who the "biblical Jesus" is.

And, please, this is a Christian site. If you want to make a point, please do so without sexual references.

Then stop talking and behaving like a Nicolaitan as I've described.

But you didn't address that. My point clearly is that while you say 1 Cor 15:3-4 is "the core of Christianity"--yes, it is also central--that doesn't address the issue of who Jesus is. If one believes Jesus to be someone or something other than what he is revealed to be, then 1 Cor 15:3-4 is useless to such a one. The deity of Jesus and by extension the Trinity, are the absolute center of all else.

Which Jesus? See the above paragraph. 1 Cor 15:3-4 shows how is that REVELANT to us - it's NOT about who Jesus is, but how Jesus is unique and WHY we need Jesus. That's the real absolute center of all else, above "The deity of Jesus and by extension the Trinity", because you fail to understand the de facto politheism among the general population. if you preach the deity of Jesus only and build your whole sermon around it, then from their point of view, Jesus is just a new deity among many, they'll add Jesus onto their own pantheon, that was the situation Paul encountered in Athens, see Acts 17:16-34; then there're the muslims, Jews and other monotheists such as Mr. Runningman, you give them the wrong impression of "Tritheism" as though you created a three-headed new idol, even though we both know that's a huge misunderstanding, and that's why Jesus is "folly" to the Greeks and a "stumbling block" to the Jews. Paul understood his audience and their own obstables.

Okay, but what does that have to do with a discussion about the nature of God and Jesus? As I stated, this is something that divides followers of Christ from non-followers of Christ. Paul was addressing issues within a specific church, among followers of Christ.

And so am I addressing the same issues which you repeatedly ignore. And frankly, within the discussion of trinity, what I'm more interested is the personhood of the Holy Spirit, how is the Holy Spirit a distinct person instead of the power of God or the presence of Jesus like a friend's presence on Zoom or Facetime. I wanna get out of this rabbit whole and explore some new territory.