There is an alternative to trinitarianism/ non-trinitarianism.

[Dmytro]

I call myself a Christian, neither trinitarian nor non-trinitarian because:

• Non-trinitarians. This is true with the ones I had discussions with, they try to undermine trinity concept because simply don't believe Jesus is God by nature. Also they tend not to believe the Holy Spirit is a person. Although some of their arguments make sense pointing out a controversy of trinity doctrine, their motivation is wrong and in my opinion they are just another kind of watchtower society members. Their attitude towards Jesus, the way they dishonour him ignoring clear scriptural and logical arguments looks the same. I consider them wrong and in a dangerous delusion if not even more.
• Trinitarians. Many of them have difficulties acknowledging the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are persons in a common meaning of the word. Others say Jesus and the Farther are the same person and so on and so forth. In my opinion this concept introduces some other being apart from the holy Three who revealed themself to us while making the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit inferior. This is wrong and is a delusion if not even more, but at least they don't deny Jesus and the Holy Spirit so there is some room for a conversation.

I personally stand on this: in both Old and New testament only these three equally divine persons revealed themselves to us:

• Yahweh God, the Father
• Jesus Christ his Son and our Lord
• the Holy Spirit

Not everything is crystal clear to me, there's still a lot to know, but I believe this is how it is supposed to be on the way to knowing the truth. So let's move further from basics and instead of wasting time proving Jesus is God by nature, which is obvious to everyone who is sincere and true, let's better try to think and calmly discuss what, in your opinion, is wrong with this plain and clear belief.

Please, in order not to waste time, do not express your opinions unless agree on basics: the Father is God, Jesus Christ is God by nature, the Holy Spirit is a person and God by nature.

 

[Runningman]

I call myself a Christian, neither trinitarian nor non-trinitarian because:

• Non-trinitarians. This is true with the ones I had discussions with, they try to undermine trinity concept because simply don't believe Jesus is God by nature. Also they tend not to believe the Holy Spirit is a person. Although some of their arguments make sense pointing out a controversy of trinity doctrine, their motivation is wrong and in my opinion they are just another kind of watchtower society members. Their attitude towards Jesus, the way they dishonour him ignoring clear scriptural and logical arguments looks the same. I consider them wrong and in a dangerous delusion if not even more.
• Trinitarians. Many of them have difficulties acknowledging the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are persons in a common meaning of the word. Others say Jesus and the Farther are the same person and so on and so forth. In my opinion this concept introduces some other being apart from the holy Three who revealed themself to us while making the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit inferior. This is wrong and is a delusion if not even more, but at least they don't deny Jesus and the Holy Spirit so there is some room for a conversation.

I personally stand on this: in both Old and New testament only these three equally divine persons revealed themselves to us:

• Yahweh God, the Father
• Jesus Christ his Son and our Lord
• the Holy Spirit

Not everything is crystal clear to me, there's still a lot to know, but I believe this is how it is supposed to be on the way to knowing the truth. So let's move further from basics and instead of wasting time proving Jesus is God by nature, which is obvious to everyone who is sincere and true, let's better try to think and calmly discuss what, in your opinion, is wrong with this plain and clear belief.

Please, in order not to waste time, do not express your opinions unless agree on basics: the Father is God, Jesus Christ is God by nature, the Holy Spirit is a person and God by nature.

Hello Dmytro and thank you for making this thread.

I would like to comment that Christianity is fundamentally divided into either Trinitarianism or non-Trinitarianism. While you say you're neither, you actually seem to believe in one God known as YHWH, the Father while simultaneously saying that others who have the nature of God are also either the God perhaps a god. If I am understanding you correctly it would seem that your beliefs are that God is not exclusively a person named YHWH, but rather God is a thing and/or a nature. In that case, I am not sure if I agree with the titles you've assigned to yourself, but I would guess most, if not all, trins and non-trins will disagree with your general thesis, maybe more so after having taken unnecessary jabs at everyone.

I would love to get some clarification about whether or not you believe that having the nature of God makes someone God or not. It would seem you directly called YHWH the Father God while on the other hand you alluded to the Son and Holy Spirit both being "God by nature." This is what has led me to think you're possibly saying God isn't a single person, but rather God is a nature and therefore an it.


*In my best guess, you sound like a deist and that would make you a non-Trinitarian.

If I may follow up with some questions regarding your beliefs, it would be appreciated.

Will you please define what the nature of God is?​

​

2 Peter 1:4 says we can be sharers in the divine nature. In your view, is this the nature of God? If yes, do people become God or a god if they have the divine nature?​

​

Are there any examples you're aware of where Jesus said, did, or experienced a thought/feeling that meant he isn't God by nature?​

Piggybacking off my previous question, do you believe in the hypostatic union?​

Thank you.

 

[Dmytro]

Hello Dmytro and thank you for making this thread.

I would like to comment that Christianity is fundamentally divided into either Trinitarianism or non-Trinitarianism. While you say you're neither, you actually seem to believe in one God known as YHWH, the Father while simultaneously saying that others who have the nature of God are also either the God perhaps a god. If I am understanding you correctly it would seem that your beliefs are that God is not exclusively a person named YHWH, but rather God is a thing and/or a nature. In that case, I am not sure if I agree with the titles you've assigned to yourself, but I would guess most, if not all, trins and non-trins will disagree with your general thesis, maybe more so after having taken unnecessary jabs at everyone.

I would love to get some clarification about whether or not you believe that having the nature of God makes someone God or not. It would seem you directly called YHWH the Father God while on the other hand you alluded to the Son and Holy Spirit both being "God by nature." This is what has led me to think you're possibly saying God isn't a single person, but rather God is a nature and therefore an it.


*In my best guess, you sound like a deist and that would make you a non-Trinitarian.

If I may follow up with some questions regarding your beliefs, it would be appreciated.

Will you please define what the nature of God is?​

​

2 Peter 1:4 says we can be sharers in the divine nature. In your view, is this the nature of God? If yes, do people become God or a god if they have the divine nature?​

​

Are there any examples you're aware of where Jesus said, did, or experienced a thought/feeling that meant he isn't God by nature?​

Piggybacking off my previous question, do you believe in the hypostatic union?​

Thank you.

Title 'God' properly belongs to Yahweh God, the Father. He is the only true God. Jesus and the Holy Spirit are persons the same as God the Father by their nature. I'm not discussing basics like the deity of Jesus here. So, sorry if I only answer what in my opinion helps to clarify OP.

 

[Runningman]

Title 'God' properly belongs to Yahweh God, the Father. He is the only true God.

Correct.

the Holy Spirit are persons the same as God the Father by their nature.

is the Father holy and Spirit?

I'm not discussing basics like the deity of Jesus here. So, sorry if I only answer what in my opinion helps to clarify OP.

I know. That's why I asked about many other things. You don't have to answer them if you don't want.

 

[Dmytro]

Correct.

is the Father holy and Spirit?

Sorry, didn't quite get you.

 

[Dmytro]

Correct.

is the Father holy and Spirit?


I know. That's why I asked about many other things. You don't have to answer them if you don't want.

Yes. The Father is holy and he's a spirit.

 

[Runningman]

Yes. The Father is holy and he's a spirit.

So calling the Father Holy Spirit is accurate. There aren't two Holy Spirit Gods. Took me a long time to figure that out.

 

[Free]

I call myself a Christian, neither trinitarian nor non-trinitarian because:

• Non-trinitarians. This is true with the ones I had discussions with, they try to undermine trinity concept because simply don't believe Jesus is God by nature. Also they tend not to believe the Holy Spirit is a person. Although some of their arguments make sense pointing out a controversy of trinity doctrine, their motivation is wrong and in my opinion they are just another kind of watchtower society members. Their attitude towards Jesus, the way they dishonour him ignoring clear scriptural and logical arguments looks the same. I consider them wrong and in a dangerous delusion if not even more.

I agree.

• Trinitarians. Many of them have difficulties acknowledging the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are persons in a common meaning of the word. Others say Jesus and the Farther are the same person and so on and so forth. In my opinion this concept introduces some other being apart from the holy Three who revealed themself to us while making the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit inferior. This is wrong and is a delusion if not even more, but at least they don't deny Jesus and the Holy Spirit so there is some room for a conversation.

Anyone who claims to be a Trinitarian but believes the Son and the Father are the same person, is not Trinitarian; that's Modalism/Oneness. Anyone who says any of the three persons is inferior to the other is also not Trinitarian.

It seems that perhaps either you don't have a solid understanding of Trinitarianism or those with whom you have discussed Trinitarianism don't.

I personally stand on this: in both Old and New testament only these three equally divine persons revealed themselves to us:

• Yahweh God, the Father
• Jesus Christ his Son and our Lord
• the Holy Spirit

Not everything is crystal clear to me, there's still a lot to know, but I believe this is how it is supposed to be on the way to knowing the truth. So let's move further from basics and instead of wasting time proving Jesus is God by nature, which is obvious to everyone who is sincere and true, let's better try to think and calmly discuss what, in your opinion, is wrong with this plain and clear belief.

Just one point of clarification: there is no verse or passage in all of Scripture that says Yahweh is only the Father. If the Son is God by nature, and he is, and the Holy Spirit is a person and God by nature, and he is, then it follows that they are also Yahweh, since Yahweh is the name of the one God.

Please, in order not to waste time, do not express your opinions unless agree on basics: the Father is God, Jesus Christ is God by nature, the Holy Spirit is a person and God by nature.

I agree.

 

[Runningman]

Just one point of clarification: there is no verse or passage in all of Scripture that says Yahweh is only the Father.

The Son is not the Father then the Son is not YHWH.

Isaiah 64
8But now, O LORD, You are our Father;
we are the clay, and You are the potter;
we are all the work of Your hand.

 

[Free]

The Son is not the Father then the Son is not YHWH.

Isaiah 64
8But now, O LORD, You are our Father;
we are the clay, and You are the potter;
we are all the work of Your hand.

That is to conflate two different uses of “Father” in Scripture. You are using the same reasoning that Modalists/Oneness use, except they come to a very different conclusion:

Isa 9:6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. (ESV)

They conclude that Jesus is the Father. Clearly, that is not what is meant. It is speaking in general terms, as a benevolent protector. The OT uses “Father” as a metaphor or to describe God as acting as a father towards his people.

And, although the NT use of Father certainly also includes the idea of God as a loving father towards people, it is more than that—Jesus uses Father as a name.

 

[Dmytro]

I agree.


Anyone who claims to be a Trinitarian but believes the Son and the Father are the same person, is not Trinitarian; that's Modalism/Oneness. Anyone who says any of the three persons is inferior to the other is also not Trinitarian.

It seems that perhaps either you don't have a solid understanding of Trinitarianism or those with whom you have discussed Trinitarianism don't.

No, all those are from trinitarian church. And churches are full of people thinking in this way.
See how Oxford dictionary defines 'person':

1 a human being regarded as an individual: the porter was the last person to see her prior to her disappearance | she is a person of astonishing energy. • (in legal or formal contexts) an unspecified individual: each of the persons using unlawful violence is guilty of riot | the entrance fee is £2.00 per person. • [with modifier] an individual characterized by a preference or liking for a specified thing: she's not a cat person. • a character in a play or story: his previous roles in the person of a fallible cop. • an individual's body: I would have publicity photographs on my person at all times. • dated (especially in legal contexts) used euphemistically to refer to a man's genitals.

2 Grammar a category used in the classification of pronouns, possessive determiners, and verb forms, according to whether they indicate the speaker (first person), the addressee (second person), or a third party (third person).

3 Christian theology each of the three modes of being of God, namely the Father, the Son, or the Holy Ghost, who together constitute the Trinity.

In common sense it only applies to humans and not to God, the Son and the Holy Spirit. They, according to Oxford, are 'modes' of Trinity not 'persons'. That's it and all the rest is just a word play and hypocrisy. Trinitarianism doesn't treat them as persons in the same meaning as applied to humans. The outcome is that they are less than persons on behalf of trinity.

The Father is the only true God according to Jesus, the one who we should serve to and worship, but in the Theologies I've checked there is not even chapter about him. Only about trinity as God, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Check for yourself you most probably have one. So trinitarianism dishonours God the Father and although calling the Three persons in reality makes them inferior than persons on behalf of trinity.

Just one point of clarification: there is no verse or passage in all of Scripture that says Yahweh is only the Father.

But when God revealed this name he said it belongs to him and not to many right? And is it a good idea to make assumptions about so important matter basing on what isn't said instead on what is clearly revealed to us?

Psalm 110 A declaration of Yahweh to my lord,
“Sit at my right hand
until I make your enemies your footstool.”

Here Yahweh God talks to adonai who is Jesus, so Jesus and Yahweh clearly are different persons.

If the Son is God by nature, and he is, and the Holy Spirit is a person and God by nature, and he is, then it follows that they are also Yahweh, since Yahweh is the name of the one God.

Yes, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are of the same nature as God. But this by no means necessarily leads to the conclusion that they all are Yahweh... Listen once more, I know this is unusual to hear the first and even the second time: Jesus called the Father the only true God. 'God' is a title in vast majority of NT referring to the Father. This means there are three persons, in the same meaning we humans are persons, coequal in their divine nature:

1. Yahweh God, the Father, the only true God
2. Jesus Christ, his only Son and our Lord
3. The Holy Spirit

I see no one divine except them three.

 

[Free]

No, all those are from trinitarian church. And churches are full of people thinking in this way.

"No" what? I don't understand what you're saying here.

See how Oxford dictionary defines 'person':

1 a human being regarded as an individual: the porter was the last person to see her prior to her disappearance | she is a person of astonishing energy. • (in legal or formal contexts) an unspecified individual: each of the persons using unlawful violence is guilty of riot | the entrance fee is £2.00 per person. • [with modifier] an individual characterized by a preference or liking for a specified thing: she's not a cat person. • a character in a play or story: his previous roles in the person of a fallible cop. • an individual's body: I would have publicity photographs on my person at all times. • dated (especially in legal contexts) used euphemistically to refer to a man's genitals.

2 Grammar a category used in the classification of pronouns, possessive determiners, and verb forms, according to whether they indicate the speaker (first person), the addressee (second person), or a third party (third person).

3 Christian theology each of the three modes of being of God, namely the Father, the Son, or the Holy Ghost, who together constitute the Trinity.

In common sense it only applies to humans and not to God, the Son and the Holy Spirit. They, according to Oxford, are 'modes' of Trinity not 'persons'.

What the Oxford dictionary states is irrelevant as to what the historic, orthodox doctrine of the Trinity states as accepted by Christians throughout the centuries. The use of "person" for God is the closest approximation we have in English. It speaks to the tri-personal nature of God. Take the Athanasian Creed for instance:

1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith;
2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.
3. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;
4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.
5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.
...
19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord;

https://www.ccel.org/creeds/athanasian.creed.html

For the original text, written in the fifth century, see: https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds2.iv.i.iv.html

That's it and all the rest is just a word play and hypocrisy.

What is?

Trinitarianism doesn't treat them as persons in the same meaning as applied to humans.

Of course not, nor should it. Again, it is just an approximation when it comes to the Trinity.

The outcome is that they are less than persons on behalf of trinity.

The outcome is that they are either more than persons or persons in a related but different sense. We are the analogues to God; we are created in His image.

The Father is the only true God according to Jesus, the one who we should serve to and worship,

Jesus's statement does not mean that he is not also truly God. Jesus, as God the Son in human flesh, was upholding monotheism by stating the Father was the only true God, but notice that Jesus said eternal life was to know him as well:

Joh 17:3 And this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. (ESV)

Jesus was cautious about stating who he was and rightfully so, as claiming to be God would have looked like polytheism, although he did imply that he was equal to the Father.

but in the Theologies I've checked there is not even chapter about him. Only about trinity as God, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Check for yourself you most probably have one. So trinitarianism dishonours God the Father and although calling the Three persons in reality makes them inferior than persons on behalf of trinity.

There is no dishonouring the Father in Trinitarianism. It is other views of God that dishonour the Son, by denying his deity, and the Holy Spirit, by denying his deity and "personhood."

But when God revealed this name he said it belongs to him and not to many right? And is it a good idea to make assumptions about so important matter basing on what isn't said instead on what is clearly revealed to us?

Psalm 110 A declaration of Yahweh to my lord,
“Sit at my right hand
until I make your enemies your footstool.”

Here Yahweh God talks to adonai who is Jesus, so Jesus and Yahweh clearly are different persons.

Yes and no. Jesus is two natures in one body, God and man. As God, his preincarnate name would have been Yahweh; as a man his name is Jesus. Yahweh is the name of the one God, who exists as three coequal, coeternal, consubstantial persons.

Yes, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are of the same nature as God. But this by no means necessarily leads to the conclusion that they all are Yahweh...

It must; there is no other conclusion. If they are of the same nature as God, it necessarily follows that they are also Yahweh because there is only one God.

Listen once more, I know this is unusual to hear the first and even the second time: Jesus called the Father the only true God. 'God' is a title in vast majority of NT referring to the Father. This means there are three persons, in the same meaning we humans are persons, coequal in their divine nature:

1. Yahweh God, the Father, the only true God
2. Jesus Christ, his only Son and our Lord
3. The Holy Spirit

I see no one divine except them three.

Apart from saying they "are three persons, in the same meaning we humans are persons," and saying that Yahweh and God refer only to the Father, there is nothing unusual. The problem for your position is that if all three are truly "coequal in their divine nature," then it necessarily follows that all three are the one true God whose name is Yahweh. There is no other conclusion.

 

[Runningman]

No, all those are from trinitarian church. And churches are full of people thinking in this way.
See how Oxford dictionary defines 'person':

1 a human being regarded as an individual: the porter was the last person to see her prior to her disappearance | she is a person of astonishing energy. • (in legal or formal contexts) an unspecified individual: each of the persons using unlawful violence is guilty of riot | the entrance fee is £2.00 per person. • [with modifier] an individual characterized by a preference or liking for a specified thing: she's not a cat person. • a character in a play or story: his previous roles in the person of a fallible cop. • an individual's body: I would have publicity photographs on my person at all times. • dated (especially in legal contexts) used euphemistically to refer to a man's genitals.

2 Grammar a category used in the classification of pronouns, possessive determiners, and verb forms, according to whether they indicate the speaker (first person), the addressee (second person), or a third party (third person).

3 Christian theology each of the three modes of being of God, namely the Father, the Son, or the Holy Ghost, who together constitute the Trinity.

In common sense it only applies to humans and not to God, the Son and the Holy Spirit. They, according to Oxford, are 'modes' of Trinity not 'persons'. That's it and all the rest is just a word play and hypocrisy. Trinitarianism doesn't treat them as persons in the same meaning as applied to humans. The outcome is that they are less than persons on behalf of trinity.

The Father is the only true God according to Jesus, the one who we should serve to and worship, but in the Theologies I've checked there is not even chapter about him. Only about trinity as God, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Check for yourself you most probably have one. So trinitarianism dishonours God the Father and although calling the Three persons in reality makes them inferior than persons on behalf of trinity.

But when God revealed this name he said it belongs to him and not to many right? And is it a good idea to make assumptions about so important matter basing on what isn't said instead on what is clearly revealed to us?

Psalm 110 A declaration of Yahweh to my lord,
“Sit at my right hand
until I make your enemies your footstool.”

Here Yahweh God talks to adonai who is Jesus, so Jesus and Yahweh clearly are different persons.


Yes, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are of the same nature as God. But this by no means necessarily leads to the conclusion that they all are Yahweh... Listen once more, I know this is unusual to hear the first and even the second time: Jesus called the Father the only true God. 'God' is a title in vast majority of NT referring to the Father. This means there are three persons, in the same meaning we humans are persons, coequal in their divine nature:

1. Yahweh God, the Father, the only true God
2. Jesus Christ, his only Son and our Lord
3. The Holy Spirit

I see no one divine except them three.

I actually agree with the bulk majority of this. Not to split hairs, but I would say you're on the right path.

 

[Runningman]

That is to conflate two different uses of “Father” in Scripture. You are using the same reasoning that Modalists/Oneness use, except they come to a very different conclusion:

Isa 9:6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. (ESV)

They conclude that Jesus is the Father. Clearly, that is not what is meant. It is speaking in general terms, as a benevolent protector. The OT uses “Father” as a metaphor or to describe God as acting as a father towards his people.

And, although the NT use of Father certainly also includes the idea of God as a loving father towards people, it is more than that—Jesus uses Father as a name.

The Father is the Father in every sense of the word. While on earth, Jesus said "And do not call anyone on earth your father, for you have one Father, who is in heaven." per Matthew 23:9. If that isn't a denial of Jesus being the Father then I don't know what is. Couldn't be any clearer to me.

Since Jesus is not the Father in Isaiah 9:6 then he isn't the mighty God either. Isaiah 9:6 has thusly been translated a number of other valid ways that maintain scriptural integrity. First hint, Jesus was never called most of those things Isaiah 9:6 said he would be called and, generally speaking, Trinitarians actually deny that Jesus the Son is the Father. Jesus being the Father isn't in Trinitarian school of thought.

 

[Dmytro]

I actually agree with the bulk majority of this. Not to split hairs, but I would say you're on the right path.

Surely I am. But unlike you I make different conclusions. I believe Jesus is divine and the Holy Spirit is a divine person different from the Father. I just don't believe in trinity and consider this doctrine unbiblical.

 

[Runningman]

Surely I am. But unlike you I make different conclusions. I believe Jesus is divine and the Holy Spirit is a divine person different from the Father. I just don't believe in trinity and consider this doctrine unbiblical.

I believe Jesus is divine though. Divine is not equal to the word deity.

 

[Dmytro]

"No" what? I don't understand what you're saying here.


What the Oxford dictionary states is irrelevant as to what the historic, orthodox doctrine of the Trinity states as accepted by Christians throughout the centuries. The use of "person" for God is the closest approximation we have in English. It speaks to the tri-personal nature of God. Take the Athanasian Creed for instance:

1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith;
2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.
3. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;
4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.
5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.
...
19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord;

https://www.ccel.org/creeds/athanasian.creed.html

For the original text, written in the fifth century, see: https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds2.iv.i.iv.html


What is?


Of course not, nor should it. Again, it is just an approximation when it comes to the Trinity.


The outcome is that they are either more than persons or persons in a related but different sense. We are the analogues to God; we are created in His image.


Jesus's statement does not mean that he is not also truly God. Jesus, as God the Son in human flesh, was upholding monotheism by stating the Father was the only true God, but notice that Jesus said eternal life was to know him as well:

Joh 17:3 And this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. (ESV)

Jesus was cautious about stating who he was and rightfully so, as claiming to be God would have looked like polytheism, although he did imply that he was equal to the Father.


There is no dishonouring the Father in Trinitarianism. It is other views of God that dishonour the Son, by denying his deity, and the Holy Spirit, by denying his deity and "personhood."


Yes and no. Jesus is two natures in one body, God and man. As God, his preincarnate name would have been Yahweh; as a man his name is Jesus. Yahweh is the name of the one God, who exists as three coequal, coeternal, consubstantial persons.


It must; there is no other conclusion. If they are of the same nature as God, it necessarily follows that they are also Yahweh because there is only one God.


Apart from saying they "are three persons, in the same meaning we humans are persons," and saying that Yahweh and God refer only to the Father, there is nothing unusual. The problem for your position is that if all three are truly "coequal in their divine nature," then it necessarily follows that all three are the one true God whose name is Yahweh. There is no other conclusion.

To many topics at once, so let's better continue with this one. It seems to be the closest to the OP. You correctly highlighted differences between us and they are extremely important:

• I believe the title 'God' properly belongs to the Father only. This is based on Jesus' words and the usage of 'God' in NT. And since the Father is God he is also Yahweh of the OT. Calling the Son and the Holy Spirit with this name doesn't make sense for me because they've got their own names.
• I, believe they are persons like humans but divine. I don't see such person as trinity in the Bible. The phrase 'all three are the one true God' doesn't make any sense for me because I see only these three divine persons in the Bible:
  • Yahweh God, the Father
  • Jesus, his only Son
  • the Holy Spirit

I see no divine person except these three revealed to us in the Bible.

You said: The problem for your position is that if all three are truly "coequal in their divine nature," then it necessarily follows that all three are the one true God whose name is Yahweh. There is no other conclusion.

I don't see any problems. Divine three can be clearly seen throughout the whole NT. Could you provide at least one reference depicting that 'one true God' different from the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit? And could you explain why you conclusion from the quotation above is so inevitable?

 

[Free]

The Father is the Father in every sense of the word. While on earth, Jesus said "And do not call anyone on earth your father, for you have one Father, who is in heaven." per Matthew 23:9. If that isn't a denial of Jesus being the Father then I don't know what is. Couldn't be any clearer to me.

You’re arguing against something I have never stated. Of course Jesus isn’t the Father; I have consistently stated that a son can never be his own father or vice versa.

Since Jesus is not the Father in Isaiah 9:6 then he isn't the mighty God either.

You’re imposing a meaning of “Father” on that verse that isn’t in view. “Father” is often associated with God being the redeemer of his people, and in that sense Jesus is very much the redeemer.

Isaiah 9:6 has thusly been translated a number of other valid ways that maintain scriptural integrity. First hint, Jesus was never called most of those things Isaiah 9:6 said he would be called

He doesn’t have to have been actually called those things. It’s a matter of him fulfilling those things, and he does.

and, generally speaking, Trinitarians actually deny that Jesus the Son is the Father. Jesus being the Father isn't in Trinitarian school of thought.

Of course it isn’t and I have never stated otherwise.

 

[Free]

To many topics at once, so let's better continue with this one. It seems to be the closest to the OP. You correctly highlighted differences between us and they are extremely important:

• I believe the title 'God' properly belongs to the Father only. This is based on Jesus' words and the usage of 'God' in NT. And since the Father is God he is also Yahweh of the OT. Calling the Son and the Holy Spirit with this name doesn't make sense for me because they've got their own names.

Jesus uses Father as a name.

• I, believe they are persons like humans but divine. I don't see such person as trinity in the Bible. The phrase 'all three are the one true God' doesn't make any sense for me because I see only these three divine persons in the Bible:
  • Yahweh God, the Father
  • Jesus, his only Son
  • the Holy Spirit

I see no divine person except these three revealed to us in the Bible.

Exactly, that is the whole reason the doctrine of the Trinity best takes into account the full biblical revelation. If each of the three persons are divine in the same way, which, as you put it means they are “coequal in their divine nature,” then you have three options:

1. Tri-theism
2. Modalism
3. Trinitarianism.

The first goes against the clear monotheism of Scripture—there is only one true God. The second goes against the clear, consistent distinction between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

That leaves the third as the only logical conclusion. Since there is only one true God and he exists as three coeternal, coequal, consubstantial persons, it follows that the name Yahweh applies to the Son and the Holy Spirit as well.

You said: The problem for your position is that if all three are truly "coequal in their divine nature," then it necessarily follows that all three are the one true God whose name is Yahweh. There is no other conclusion.

I don't see any problems. Divine three can be clearly seen throughout the whole NT. Could you provide at least one reference depicting that 'one true God' different from the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit?

I am not saying that the one true God is different from the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; I am saying they are the one true God. I am stating the doctrine of the Trinity—that there are three coequal, coeternal, consubstantial persons within the one being that is God. In other words, as theologians say, the one true God is tri-personal, and there never was a time when he was not tri-personal.

The problem for your position is that you have to relate the three persons somehow. It will not do to say there are three divine persons that are “coequal in their divine nature,” and leave it at that. There is only one God that has divine nature, so if all three are coequal in divine nature, you have to be able to account for how that works if only one is God.

And could you explain why you conclusion from the quotation above is so inevitable?

I have done so above.

 

[Runningman]

You’re arguing against something I have never stated. Of course Jesus isn’t the Father; I have consistently stated that a son can never be his own father or vice versa.


You’re imposing a meaning of “Father” on that verse that isn’t in view. “Father” is often associated with God being the redeemer of his people, and in that sense Jesus is very much the redeemer.


He doesn’t have to have been actually called those things. It’s a matter of him fulfilling those things, and he does.

Of course it isn’t and I have never stated otherwise.

So you don't agree with how Isaiah 9:6 is translated? I also don't agree with it. I don't agree with it for many reasons, but among them is that the Hebrew words for "mighty God" are not even translated as "mighty God" when they are used elsewhere in the Old Testament. Ezekiel 32:21, for example, proves that Isaiah 9:6's "gib·bō·wr ’êl" (mighty god) is a subjective and dogmatic translation.