There is an alternative to trinitarianism/ non-trinitarianism.

[Carry_Your_Name]

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”.

I don't need an ancient Greek lesson to know that. Jesus is of dual nature (Rom. 1:3-4), both God and man, while God is only of godly nature. He's been anthropomorphized throughout the OT, several times he manifested himself in human forms, known as theophany, but God the Father not a man, neither is God the Spirit, only God the Son is.

 

[LeviR]

I don't need an ancient Greek lesson to know that. Jesus is of dual nature (Rom. 1:3-4), both God and man, while God is only of godly nature. He's been anthropomorphized throughout the OT, several times he manifested himself in human forms, known as theophany, but God the Father not a man, neither is God the Spirit, only God the Son is.

The son was made of the seed of David according to the flesh.

That does not mean the eternal son took on human nature without being mixed with it.

It means the son was made a son of David of the same flesh as David.

And that that son of David became the son of God with power by being raised from the dead.

Jesus was first son of God in weakness of the flesh and then declared son of God in power by resurrection.

 

[LeviR]

I don't need an ancient Greek lesson to know that. Jesus is of dual nature (Rom. 1:3-4), both God and man, while God is only of godly nature. He's been anthropomorphized throughout the OT, several times he manifested himself in human forms, known as theophany, but God the Father not a man, neither is God the Spirit, only God the Son is.

Jesus was going to his Father in heaven so that the Spirit of the Father could be sent from the Father.

Isn’t that interesting.

The Spirit had not yet been sent from the Father in heaven.

Now that’s very interesting indeed when you consider the teaching of the RCC about the nature of God.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

The son was made of the seed of David according to the flesh.

That does not mean the eternal son took on human nature without being mixed with it.

It means the son was made a son of David of the same flesh as David.

And that that son of David became the son of God with power by being raised from the dead.

Jesus was first son of God in weakness of the flesh and then declared son of God in power by resurrection.

Nonetheless he had always been the son of God from womb to tomb. "Son of Man" is more of a prophetic title which he rightly inherited.

The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God. (Lk. 1:35)

 

[LeviR]

Nonetheless he had always been the son of God from womb to tomb. "Son of Man" is more of a prophetic title which he rightly inherited.

The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God. (Lk. 1:35)

If the Holy Spirit is the power of the Highest and is also a distinct person from the Father, one would think the Holy Spirit to be the Father of Jesus.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

If the Holy Spirit is the power of the Highest and is also a distinct person from the Father, one would think the Holy Spirit to be the Father of Jesus.

Yeah, that's why I'm mostly confused about the Holy Spirit, about never about the Father or the Son.

 

[LeviR]

Yeah, that's why I'm mostly confused about the Holy Spirit, about never about the Father or the Son.

it’s because they see personification of the Spirit and decide it’s a person. The Spirit is personified by Jesus as the Advocate or Comforter because the Spirit of the Father would come upon them and act in a way that could be personified.
If they spoke certain things that were by the Holy Spirit it would actually be the Spirit speaking through them. And so can be personified.
But the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. The Father is the person who pours out His Spirit.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

it’s because they see personification of the Spirit and decide it’s a person. The Spirit is personified by Jesus as the Advocate or Comforter because the Spirit of the Father would come upon them and act in a way that could be personified.
If they spoke certain things that were by the Holy Spirit it would actually be the Spirit speaking through them. And so can be personified.
But the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. The Father is the person who pours out His Spirit.

The concept itself is easy to understand and very relatable. When you're at business with your client, you represent your boss and your company, you speak on behalf of your boss and not yourself, your propositions don't come from yourself, but your boss, your job is to faithfull and truthfully convey his message, you're exercising his authority which is delegated to you. But in such a case, there's not a "distinct person" co-equal and co-eternal with my boss.

 

[LeviR]

Yeah, that's why I'm mostly confused about the Holy Spirit, about never about the Father or the Son.

Sin is also personified. If sin is working through your members(flesh) it is likened to a Master. But no one would think sin is a person.

 

[LeviR]

The concept itself is easy to understand and very relatable. When you're at business with your client, you represent your boss and your company, you speak on behalf of your boss and not yourself, your propositions don't come from yourself, but your boss, your job is to faithfull and truthfully convey his message, you're exercising his authority which is delegated to you. But in such a case, there's not a "distinct person" co-equal and co-eternal with my boss.

That’s how I understand Jesus. He is the agent of the Father and represents the Father. That’s why he says he comes in the name of his Father.
It would be like you being sent as an agent of your company. You would represent your company and come in your company’s name. The message you would bring would be your company’s message. You would be associated with the company. And be one with the company.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Sin is also personified. If sin is working through your members(flesh) it is likened to a Master. But no one would think sin is a person.

Well, good angel and evil angel on your shoulders, like Jykell and Hyde, perhaps. That one always feels more real and serious than any other silly trope.

 

[LeviR]

Well, good angel and evil angel on your shoulders, like Jykell and Hyde, perhaps. That one always feels more real and serious than any other silly trope.

The evil angel might be the carnal mind and the good angel the mind of the Spirit.
If you give into the evil angel, the Spirit would be grieved.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

The evil angel might be the carnal mind and the good angel the mind of the Spirit.
If you give into the evil angel, the Spirit would be grieved.

And what grieves me is the constant struggle between the two till my last breath.

Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise. But, as he who was born according to the flesh then persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, even so it is now. Nevertheless what does the Scripture say? “Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.” So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman but of the free. (Gal. 4:28-31)

 

[LeviR]

And what grieves me is the constant struggle between the two till my last breath.

Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise. But, as he who was born according to the flesh then persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, even so it is now. Nevertheless what does the Scripture say? “Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.” So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman but of the free. (Gal. 4:28-31)

Ah, the allegory of Sarah and Hagar and their children Isaac and Ismael.
They represent the old covenant and the new. Sarah, the covenant made with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. And Hagar the covenant made at Mount Sinai.. Hence the free woman, Sarah, and the bondwoman Hagar.
Cast out the old bondwoman, for she shall not be heir according to the promise. But the free woman, she shall be heir.
The bondage of the old covenant as opposed to the liberty of the new. Where the Spirit is, there is liberty.

 

[Dmytro]

No. Your own statements work against you: "The Word was with the Father(God), and the Word was the Father(God)." But that is nonsensical. What is being expressed by John is intimate union and interpersonal relationship between the Word and God. It never makes sense to say that a person is "with" someone and "is" that someone.

I've posted this many times before and I'll post it again:

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (ESV)

Looking at the first clause, "In the beginning" is clearly a reference to Gen 1:1. The word "was" is the Greek, en, which is a form of eimi (I Am), and speaks of continuous action in the past; that is, absolute preexistence before any creation. What that statement means is that when the beginning began, the Word was already in existence, and hence, there was never a time when he did not exist. The very same applies to the Father, who has absolute preexistence.

In the second clause, "and the Word was with God," it is the Greek pros that is translated as "with." But it isn't merely speaking of being together or near. It is in the accusative and expresses “direction towards,” as in relationship and communion, implying intimacy. It is important to note here that in the Greek the article is present, so it literally reads, "the Word was with [the] God." So, God is a reference to someone other than the Word, at a minimum it is a reference to the Father.

When it comes to the last clause, "the Word was God," it is significant that "God" doesn't have the article in the Greek, as it was in the preceding clause. If the article had been present then "Word" and "God" become interchangeable, and they are one and the same, which is the error of Modalism/Oneness theology. But this whole passage is about the logos, who the logos is, not who God is, so John purposely doesn't use the article to avoid equating the two words. Therefore, it can only have a qualitative meaning, that is, that the Word was divine in nature, or deity.

Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with God. (ESV)

We see a repeat of verse 1 with the use of en, pros, and God with the article, reaffirming the timeless preexistence of the Word who was in active, loving relationship with the Father. It makes no sense to say that the Word (the Son) was with the Father for eternity in an intimate, personal relationship, but they are both one and the same person.

The Greek grammar John uses absolutely rules out the Word being the Father. The continual distinction in between the Father and the Son (and the Holy Spirit), and indeed in the rest of the NT, makes no sense if the Father is the Son.

Not to mention that the whole idea of a father being his own son is also completely nonsensical. We are the analogues to God, not the other way around. And, God communicates to us, including about himself, in language that we can understand. If the Father is the Son and the Son is the Father, then that communicates nothing to us about who God is; it is meaningless.

It is also worth pointing out again that a unitarian view of God is deficient and cannot be the God of the Bible. When we look at the nature of God, we see in 1 John 4:8, 16 that "God is love." That is, to say God is love, is to make a statement about his essence, his nature, and not merely the idea that he is loving; He cannot not love.

Look at what Jesus says:

Joh 17:24 Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory that you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world. (ESV)

That is exactly why John says what he does in John 1:1--the Word was in intimate, interpersonal relationship with God. Everything John says about the Son and the Father is based on Jesus's own words.

Looking once again at what Jesus says:

Mar 12:29 Jesus answered, “The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.
Mar 12:30 And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’
Mar 12:31 The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.” (ESV)

Joh 15:13 Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends. (ESV)

So, what then is love? At its fullest, it is both a healthy love of self and an outward expression towards others. We should fully expect then, that if God is love, that his love must have the fullest expression and necessarily includes love of others from before creation of all time and space, from eternity past. However, if God is a monad, then to say that “God is love” means 1) that God loved himself, and 2) that the fullest and proper expression of his love is dependent on creation. This contradicts the statement that “God is love” and leaves His love incomplete and deficient.

When we consider the Trinity, however, it all works. There are three persons each being truly and fully God, equally possessing the full and undivided essence (one being that is God), having been in and intimate and loving relationship and communion for eternity past. Only now we can truly say that God is love. Diversity within the unity.

Hi again! I was too busy with work for some time, but now again am able to comment. Glad to notice you are paying attention to a presence/ absence of definite article when with ‘God’. The corresponding nuances in meaning were completely ignored and not conveyed into translations made by trinitarians. This is why the majority of people too busy in a world, not having courage or even skill to look into Greek, not believing God through Jesus can reveal himself to them personally and blindly relying on those inaccurate and I would say misleading translations simply don't have light and are overwhelmed with what is taught everywhere from every pulpit. Additionally, even thought that there is some reasonable alternative to a mainstream trinitarianism is severely compromised and marginalized with all those JW, LDS and so on, together with trinitarian labels like 'tritheism'. So, you see, it requires a great courage to travel a narrow way between scylla and charybdis of trinitarianism, Arianism, tritheism, JW, unitarianism, LDS and many others while seeking for the truth. If Christ Jesus may himself not lead, there is no hope.

So John 1:1 should be rendered as:

The Word was with the God (The Father. Jesus the Word was with him before everything was created) and the Word was God (Jesus the Word had the same divine attributes as the only true God the Father)
which clearly supports the revelation of God that there are at least two distinct divine beings: God and Jesus his Son (Although you said you don't believe Jesus was before his birth and is the Word).

instead of misleading:
The Word was with God and the Word was God
translated this way to support trinitarianism.

So yeah, we can't rely on the translations we have, must check the presence/ absence of definite article and the most important:
must restore the Sola Scripture approach. Mustn't rely on traditions, on mainstream teaching, mustn't seek guidance here in the world from commentators, theologians and so on, must ask God and Jesus to guide through the Holy Spirit and despise what doesn't come from them.

 

[Dmytro]

I'm now reading the Gospel of John where Jesus mentioned that:

Jerusalem temple was the house of the Father.
John 2:
16 and to those selling the doves he said, `Take these things hence; make not the house of my Father a house of merchandise.'

The Jews were worshipping the Father and Jesus confirmed that
John 4:
21 Jesus saith to her, `Woman, believe me, that there doth come an hour, when neither in this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, shall ye worship the Father;
22 ye worship what ye have not known; we worship what we have known, because the salvation is of the Jews;

This is the Father who is seeking worshipers for himself and he is the one whom the true worshipers will worship
John 4:
23 but, there cometh an hour, and it now is, when the true worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father also doth seek such to worship him;

So here is a question. With that being said, It's obvious for me that:
1. The Father is the only true God and Yahweh of the OT
2. Jesus his eternal divine Son came from the Father to make those who are foreknown and predestined into worshipers to the Father is spirit and truth. So those whom the Father gave to Jesus are supposed to worship him (the Father, not some other god).

I noticed that despite what Jesus said the Father is not worshiped in Christian churches and they even refuse to acknowledge him as an only true God. When they worship God they clearly worship someone else and not the Father. I was also greatly astonished by the fact that some Systematic Theologies even don't have chapter describing the Father, take the Systematic Theology by Wayne Grudem as an example. There is a part for God where the Father is mentioned as a part of the trinity but that's it. That's it!

As for me I'm sure this is an apostasy. And how do you treat the fact that the Father is robbed of worshiping, mentioning and acknowledgement as the only true God? Don't get me wrong, I believe Jesus and the Holy Spirit are divine in the same way the Father is and the OP is not ambiguous on this matter. I'm just looking at different aspects of impact trinitarianism has on mainstream beliefs. And robbing the Father of the worshiping due to him is definitely one of them. My goal isn't simply to judge and blame but rather to shed light and restore what is almost as dead. I want to do Jesus' works in love. So what do you think about this?

 

[Dmytro]

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

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

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.

Yes, that which call itself Christianity is in reality just a bunch of denominations which have lost their focus on Jesus, have abandoned the Father. The ones who really know them are one and cannot be so blind to the truth, so divided, so i would say spiritless. The restoration comes through knowing the Father and the Son. This is what I'm about. The time is short and everybody should raise his weak voice if there is any.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Yes, that which call itself Christianity is in reality just a bunch of denominations which have lost their focus on Jesus, have abandoned the Father. The ones who really know them are one and cannot be so blind to the truth, so divided, so i would say spiritless. The restoration comes through knowing the Father and the Son. This is what I'm about. The time is short and everybody should raise his weak voice if there is any.

That is nothing new. First you've got the great schism between Roman Catholics and Easter Othordox, that split Europe in two camps, not just religiously, but culturally, politically, economically and beyond, even today's Ukraine war and the cold war could be traced back to that east-west schism; then you've got the reformation, in England alone there was a series of civil wars throughout the Stuart period, their focus was on politics, religion was just a facade. This reformation period was known as the "dead church" era, symbolized by Sardis the dead church in Revelation. It has a famous turning point in history, but from God's perspective, it was dead, spiritless, as you said.

 

[Free]

Hi again! I was too busy with work for some time, but now again am able to comment.

No worries.

Glad to notice you are paying attention to a presence/ absence of definite article when with ‘God’. The corresponding nuances in meaning were completely ignored and not conveyed into translations made by trinitarians. This is why the majority of people too busy in a world, not having courage or even skill to look into Greek, not believing God through Jesus can reveal himself to them personally and blindly relying on those inaccurate and I would say misleading translations simply don't have light and are overwhelmed with what is taught everywhere from every pulpit.

Nothing was ignored nor is anything misleading. It's a matter of how things are translated from one language to another, as things don't always translate directly due to a number of reasons. Translating word-for-word can make things almost unreadable, or can simply make the text grammatically incorrect and awkward in the second language.

Additionally, even thought that there is some reasonable alternative to a mainstream trinitarianism is severely compromised and marginalized with all those JW, LDS and so on, together with trinitarian labels like 'tritheism'. So, you see, it requires a great courage to travel a narrow way between scylla and charybdis of trinitarianism, Arianism, tritheism, JW, unitarianism, LDS and many others while seeking for the truth. If Christ Jesus may himself not lead, there is no hope.

So John 1:1 should be rendered as:

The Word was with the God (The Father. Jesus the Word was with him before everything was created) and the Word was God (Jesus the Word had the same divine attributes as the only true God the Father)
which clearly supports the revelation of God that there are at least two distinct divine beings: God and Jesus his Son (Although you said you don't believe Jesus was before his birth and is the Word).

instead of misleading:
The Word was with God and the Word was God
translated this way to support trinitarianism.

First, once again, there is no misleading. There are numerous times in the NT where Theon doesn’t have the article translated, because it makes it awkward in English. We see that in John 1:2 and John 20:28, for example:

Jhn 20:28 Thomas answered him, “My [the] Lord and my [the] God!” (ESV)

Which, according to the Greek ordering of the words is: Answered Thomas and said to him, "The Lord of me and the God of me."

It's all throughout the NT:

Mat 1:23 “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel” (which means, [the] God with us). (ESV)

Mat 3:9 And do not presume to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father,’ for I tell you, [the] God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham. (ESV)

Mat 5:8 “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see [the] God. (ESV)

Mat 5:34 But I say to you, Do not take an oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of [the] God, (ESV)

Mat 6:30 But if [the] God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is alive and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? (ESV)

And on and on.

Second, if, as you say, "Jesus the Word was with him before everything was created," then it necessarily follows that the Word existed for "all eternity past," just as the Father did; that is, he is necessary being. Third, if, as you say, "Jesus the Word had the same divine attributes as the only true God the Father," then it necessarily follows that he is also the only true God. To have the same divine attributes as God means that the Word is also God. It cannot be otherwise.

Fourth, you stated that those statements "clearly supports the revelation of God that there are at least two distinct divine beings: God and Jesus his Son," but the don't, because they can't. There will ever be only one God, Yahweh himself said so in Isaiah 43:10. Both the OT and the NT repeatedly affirm that there is only one God, so there cannot be two distinct divine beings, as that would mean there are two gods. This is why the doctrine of the Trinity correctly states that the Father and the Son are two distinct, divine persons within the one being that is God.

So yeah, we can't rely on the translations we have, must check the presence/ absence of definite article

But, as I have shown, it takes more than just that. This becomes more apparent when we also consider verses such as John 1:6, 12, 13, 18 that Theou and Theon don’t have the article, yet they are clearly talking about the one true God.

and the most important:
must restore the Sola Scripture approach. Mustn't rely on traditions, on mainstream teaching, mustn't seek guidance here in the world from commentators, theologians and so on, must ask God and Jesus to guide through the Holy Spirit and despise what doesn't come from them.

That will almost certainly lead one astray, as that leads to believing one’s own thoughts are from God. We should never just read and try and understand Scripture entirely on our own. Apart from prayer, it is to be done in community because it is community to which Christians are called. We must take into account what others have to say, from the past and the present, and that includes theologians, scholars, commentaries, lexicons, and other books and sources.

God has gifted and given teachers and theologians for the very purpose of teaching us and building up the Church. This is all the more important when koine Greek hasn’t been used for a very long time.

Sola scriptura doesn’t mean we avoid tradition, commentaries, lexicons, and other books and what they teach. It means that the Bible alone is the supreme authority and source for all spiritual truth. But, even then we have to realize that there are numerous translations, in just English alone, and each depends on the meanings of words chosen by the translators. So, we must consult other tools to help us understand.