Trinitarianism: What Non-Trinitarians Believe

[Elijah674]

God is talking with an EQUAL IMMORTAL PART OF THE UNIFIED GODHEAD. Anything else sounds outside of the TRUTH just posted in part above to me.

God the Holy Spirit INSPIRES Himself as Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost. And two of the Godhead have an IMAGE when desired and are speaking to only one as themselves.. IMMORTAL!1 Tim. 1:15-17 + 1 Tim. 6:16 See Moses in the mount & God with a hand , FACE & hindparts.

Also we are able as man + wife to pro/create as a 'type' of creator only. And how any could find our image created in the likeness of angels asministering 'spirits' comes close to the devils first lie in Gen. 3.But that 'lie' too, is well taught by most today!

NO. The same Immortal [US] is also seen in Gen. 11:7 as only God could change the verse ibid. 1..
'And the [whole EARTH WAS OF ONE LANGUAGE, AND ONE SPEECH.'] (which brings into much other Tower of Babel BABBLING seen today!)

And is this an IMPORTANT DOCTRINE?? Try comprehending the Doctrine Of An Eternal Christ of 2 John 1:9 any other way!

And any other 'teaching', finds one to me skating on thin ice so to speak!

--Elijah

 

[Who Says]

Phillipians 2v 4 Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others.
5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:

The ASV is the more correct exegesis: Philippians 2:5 Have this mind in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6 who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped,
7 but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men;
8 and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, becoming obedient even unto death, yea, the death of the cross.
9 Wherefore also God highly exalted him, and gave unto him the name which is above every name;
10 that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven and things on earth and things under the earth,
11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Philippians 2:6 who <G3739>, being <G5225> in <G1722> the <G9999> form <G3444> of God <G2316>, thought <G2233> it <G9999> not <G3756> robbery <G0725> to <G3588> be <G1511> equal <G2470> with God <G2316>,

We get the wrong impression from how the KJV uses the word "robbery". It is <G0725> and is a verb, it is the commission of the "act of". "harpagmos" -- from 726; plunder (properly concrete): KJV -- robbery.
(Strong's Greek Dictionary)

"Plunder" is an action verb and not a noun. Therefore "robbery" denotes that Christ thought not to act with plunder to become equal to God as did Satan.

<G0726> harpazo -- from a derivative of 138; to seize (in various applications): KJV -- catch (away, up), pluck, pull, take (by force).

You can clearly see they added the word "it" to totally change what was said.

It says that Jesus, "Thought not robbery to be equal to God."

Jesus thought not plundering to be equal to God. Jesus would never plunder God, but Satan tried to, and so did Adam.

But I think I am going to follow JudaicChristian's que on this and take a break from this thread my self. Where we can find no agreement I feel it is wrong to continue. That is just my personal feelings though and I do not mean them as a way to judge what others do.

I would like to also add that I respect this site for allowing mature men to debate this far. On these toughly contested issues there is really no other way to get everthing out so that we at least have to ponder after the discussion has ended. And I respect all of you for speaking what you believe. It is only through such courage that information gets put forward for us to compare.

Thank you all and I love you all.

 

[warhorse]

The ASV is the more correct exegesis: Philippians 2:5 Have this mind in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6 who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped,
7 but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men;
8 and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, becoming obedient even unto death, yea, the death of the cross.
9 Wherefore also God highly exalted him, and gave unto him the name which is above every name;
10 that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven and things on earth and things under the earth,
11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Philippians 2:6 who <G3739>, being <G5225> in <G1722> the <G9999> form <G3444> of God <G2316>, thought <G2233> it <G9999> not <G3756> robbery <G0725> to <G3588> be <G1511> equal <G2470> with God <G2316>,

We get the wrong impression from how the KJV uses the word "robbery". It is <G0725> and is a verb, it is the commission of the "act of". "harpagmos" -- from 726; plunder (properly concrete): KJV -- robbery.
(Strong's Greek Dictionary)

"Plunder" is an action verb and not a noun. Therefore "robbery" denotes that Christ thought not to act with plunder to become equal to God as did Satan.

<G0726> harpazo -- from a derivative of 138; to seize (in various applications): KJV -- catch (away, up), pluck, pull, take (by force).

You can clearly see they added the word "it" to totally change what was said.

It says that Jesus, "Thought not robbery to be equal to God."

Jesus thought not plundering to be equal to God. Jesus would never plunder God, but Satan tried to, and so did Adam.

But I think I am going to follow JudaicChristian's que on this and take a break from this thread my self. Where we can find no agreement I feel it is wrong to continue. That is just my personal feelings though and I do not mean them as a way to judge what others do.

I would like to also add that I respect this site for allowing mature men to debate this far. On these toughly contested issues there is really no other way to get everthing out so that we at least have to ponder after the discussion has ended. And I respect all of you for speaking what you believe. It is only through such courage that information gets put forward for us to compare.

Thank you all and I love you all.

Both versions still show that Jesus existed in the form of God, and then submitted to taking on the form of man, the key here is not the word robbery, or equal, its the evidence of the divinity of Jesus, before birth and before the cross. I use other versions of scripture from time to time as well, but i chose to use the version for which so much has been sacrificed.

 

[4given]

It appears you are dismissing all my explanation in the last post and concentrating in something that is not really relevant to know that we should worship the Only One God, the Father, in the name of the Son, in the spirit.

But I will not tell you the name of the Father, because, even if I give you a scripture that cannot be interpreted and clear as a sunny day. Even if an Angel would come down sent from God to tell you, you would not believe it. You will always have an escape, an interpretation for it. Ears to hear that cannot hear, apparently.

So I will not tell you the name of the Father. If you really wanted to know, you would accept my invitation and pray to God sincerely and with real intent to find out. But you seem to think you already know all the answers. So I will only tell you that Jesus said it. And if you read the Old Testament with attention and the spirit of the Lord, sincerely, you will find it. It is there.

What I have written in my posts is the truth, not because I am saying or that I think I am correct. I am nothing, really. But, I know it is the truth because I have a direct witness from our Father which is in Heaven. It is simple as the snake on the stick. So simple that for some is very hard to accept it. Ask Father in Heaven you will know if 1Cor.8:5-6 is the truth as it is written or not.

If you know the Son you know the Father. But, I assure you that I know the name of the Father. I would not lie, I don't need to. If I told you I really don't think you'd believe it, as you have you mind already set.

Neither I need to win any arguments. I am simply giving you my testimony of these truths. You can accept my invitation and go to the Father an find out for yourself, or you can continue to speculate, never getting to true knowledge. It will be always your opinion.

On a another point. I am confused, I saw another post of yours that you say that Jesus had a beginning. Are you meaning to say that God the Father have begotten the Son in spirit way before this earth was? I like that scripture in Prov 8 very much, it is enlightening.

Have a good one,
mamre

mamre,

I guess, one of the main problems of your Apologetics Ministry where you belong is that you all believe only on your own selves. You want others to be in the same mold as you all are in. You don’t even listen to other’s perspective or point of view. You all think you got the absolute truth… yet, I see that you’re NOT well verse to the things that you are fond of arguing about.

The fact is, I have already mentioned this things to you on several occasions in my posts that… NO man knows the real name of the invisible God Father at this time…. but instead of listening…. you decided to pretend to know better and argue about it... fallaciously…. contrary to what the Scriptures says. Look below...

Revelation 3:12 HIM THAT OVERCOMETH will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: AND I WILL WRITE UPON HIM THE NAME OF MY GOD and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.

Unless of course, you believe that Jesus was just pulling your legs, then, there's nothing more to overcometh in the end, correct? Therefore, there's no need for Jesus to write his Father's name.... because, accourding to what you have been telling us, mamre... you know it already, correct? Of course not!

Rev. 19:12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. v13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

Ephesians 3:14 For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, v15 Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named, .....

As I have said, you can not just argue about the things that you know nothing about. Let me know if I could be more of help. The Son is our God whether you like it or not. And He is worthy of our worship.

No one comes to the Father except thru him.

God Bless

 

[4given]

Of course not. The brightness of the glory of the Son that shinneth in the beginning of creation (Gen.1:3) was the mark of the beginning of time as it relates to the making of our physical world.

God's time is eternal and has no beginning nor end.... while man's time is temporal and will cease to exist when this world is burned.

Next time, do not combine apples and oranges... spiritual and physical....

Nice try but no cigar...

Hebrews 1:3 is specifically relating to the Son's "being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power" At THE TIME THAT "he had by himself purged our sins" and then afterward "sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high".

It is speaking about Jesus in the flesh.

And that is what John also told us: John 1:8 "He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
10 He was in the world, and the world was made ("dia" literally "through") him, and the world knew him not." (KJV)

John 1:14 "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth."

Someone could mistakenly argue that when God said, "Let there come to be light" God had then made Jesus. That would however be stretching the scriptures rather than letting the scriptures unfold themselves to us. Jesus was in existence long before any physical creation, even long before the angels.

Jesus is "the beginning of God's works" or in other words the beginning of all created things. Proverbs 8:22 "The Lord made me as the start of his way, the first of his works in the past." (BBE)

The man Jesus was in the flesh (Colossians 1:15 KJV) "the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature".

..........................

Trying to milk Hebrews chapter one for support of the Trinity literally destroys Paul's theme in not just that chapter but in Paul's entire letter to the Hebrews.

Not only you are way off the left field of our discussion (arguing about the concept of Trinity fallaciously)... but you seem to have the audacity to add more to what the Scripture says in Heb. 1:3 by inserting your made up assumption...... (At THE TIME THAT) to the text to fit your religious speculation.... is that right?

Also, you seem to intentionally perverting the text above (John 1:8) into out of context (which refers to John the Baptist not Jesus) to make it read as if... Jesus was the one being referred to on that specific cited text (John 1:8) therefore, Jesus could not have been the True Light being spoken in John 1:9,..because, according to your presentation Jesus was sent into this world to witness the light, himself. Would that be the case of your intention? Just asking.... tsk... tsk... tsk....

Here's the complete context of the Texts in question (in red color)... let the audience be the judge,

John 1
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
9 That was the TRUE LIGHT, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

Anyway for the sake of other readers, the continuing discussion is about the Light that was spoken in Gen. 1:3... during the creation process - before the world was.

As I have asserted before, it was the brightness of the glory of the Lord who provided the light as spoken in Genesis 1:3 in the beginning (ALPHA) of the creation process... as he will also be the one to provide the light in the end (OMEGA) in the New Jerusalen to come... which there's no need of a sun nor a moon to shine in it... because the Lamb will be the light thereof (literally speaking).

Revelation 21
23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.

in fact, here's what Jesus had to say about it during the time he was praying at the Garden of Gethsemane and spoke the following......

And now, O Father, glorify thou Me with Thine Own Self with the Glory which I had with Thee BEFORE the world was." John 17:5

Glory is Brightness, a Physical Trait. Jesus is speaking of His Physical Brightness which He shared with the Father, Before the world was. Before the world was can only be the 1st Day, since the first World was made on the 2nd Day. Gen 1:6-8.

This is the physical manifestation (Brightness of the Glory of the Lord) which shows that Jesus came forth into this physical world from the invisible realm (spiritual realm) of the Godhead ... when God said, Let there be Light Gen.1:3.

Scripture also documents us that there could not have been anything Made that was Made (formed or fashioned) before Jesus - the True Light that shinneth in heaven in the beginning (Genesis 1:3 & John 1:9-10).

If one believes that In the beginning God created our Heaven BEFORE the 1st Day, then the Words of Jesus would seem to be in error. However, if one believes that the 1st Firmament or Heaven was formed on the 2nd Day, then it would agree with Jesus, and would show that Jesus came into the World Before the 1st Heaven was formed.

 

[JudaicChristian]

Philippians 2:5-7
5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:


That word "equal" could be translated in other words, such as, "equated," or "counted," or "equality." If Jesus states that "The father is greater than I" and refers to his Father in prayer as "You, the only true God." It's kind of obvious that he's not equal to the one who sent him. "God exalted him," he did not exalt himself !

Equal, in what sense ? Equality or Equal is in reference to that which is given. It is not the least bit humble to think of yourself as equal to God.
We are also made in the form of God, but that does not make us equal to God either.
Here is an alternate reading of Philippians 2:6. Who being in the form of God did not think equality with God as obtainable.

 

[TRUTH over TRADITION]

Philippians 2:5-7
5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:


That word "equal" could be translated in other words, such as, "equated," or "counted," or "equality." If Jesus states that "The father is greater than I" and refers to his Father in prayer as "You, the only true God." It's kind of obvious that he's not equal to the one who sent him. "God exalted him," he did not exalt himself !

AMEN!

Equal, in what sense ? Equality or Equal is in reference to that which is given. Jesus even said that we would do the same works that he had done and greater works because he goes unto the Father.

We gotta be careful with Jesus' words here as this statement is NOT likely one that should be apply to any other than the students and apostles to which he was speaking directly to. To place "us" in that statement lacks a scriptural basis and is in a sense no more than wishful thinking.

This would put us on equal footing with Jesus Christ, and we are not God either !

Here is an alternate reading of Philippians 2:6. Who being in the form of God did not think equality with God as obtainable.

As you pointed out, there are alternative translations of Philippians that scholars would tell us is more accurate and true to the message in the original Greek manuscripts. Here's the verse in A Non Ecclesiastical NT:

For you should have this attitude in you that was also in Anointed Jesus: 6 who existed in God's form,

but did not consider plundering to be like God.​

 

[Who Says]

Not only you are way off the left field of our discussion (arguing about the concept of Trinity fallaciously)... but you seem to have the audacity to add more to what the Scripture says in Heb. 1:3 by inserting your made up assumption...... (At THE TIME THAT) to the text to fit your religious speculation.... is that right?

Also, you seem to intentionally perverting the text above (John 1:8) into out of context (which refers to John the Baptist not Jesus) to make it read as if... Jesus was the one being referred to on that specific cited text (John 1:8) therefore, Jesus could not have been the True Light being spoken in John 1:9,..because, according to your presentation Jesus was sent into this world to witness the light, himself. Would that be the case of your intention? Just asking.... tsk... tsk... tsk....

Here's the complete context of the Texts in question (in red color)... let the audience be the judge,

John 1
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
9 That was the TRUE LIGHT, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

Anyway for the sake of other readers, the continuing discussion is about the Light that was spoken in Gen. 1:3... during the creation process - before the world was.

As I have asserted before, it was the brightness of the glory of the Lord who provided the light as spoken in Genesis 1:3 in the beginning (ALPHA) of the creation process... as he will also be the one to provide the light in the end (OMEGA) in the New Jerusalen to come... which there's no need of a sun nor a moon to shine in it... because the Lamb will be the light thereof (literally speaking).

Revelation 21
23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.

in fact, here's what Jesus had to say about it during the time he was praying at the Garden of Gethsemane and spoke the following......

And now, O Father, glorify thou Me with Thine Own Self with the Glory which I had with Thee BEFORE the world was." John 17:5

Glory is Brightness, a Physical Trait. Jesus is speaking of His Physical Brightness which He shared with the Father, Before the world was. Before the world was can only be the 1st Day, since the first World was made on the 2nd Day. Gen 1:6-8.

This is the physical manifestation (Brightness of the Glory of the Lord) which shows that Jesus came forth into this physical world from the invisible realm (spiritual realm) of the Godhead ... when God said, Let there be Light Gen.1:3.

Scripture also documents us that there could not have been anything Made that was Made (formed or fashioned) before Jesus - the True Light that shinneth in heaven in the beginning (Genesis 1:3 & John 1:9-10).

If one believes that In the beginning God created our Heaven BEFORE the 1st Day, then the Words of Jesus would seem to be in error. However, if one believes that the 1st Firmament or Heaven was formed on the 2nd Day, then it would agree with Jesus, and would show that Jesus came into the World Before the 1st Heaven was formed.

You said of me: "you seem to intentionally perverting the text above (John 1:8) into out of context (which refers to John the Baptist not Jesus)" and bla bla bla.

That is OK 4given, I am not offended, but I asumed the reader would know that John 1:8 refers to John the Baptist and that verse 9 speaks of Jesus.

I find it kind of cute that you assessed my quote there in your mind as you did.

In my noting "AT THE TIME THAT" in my statement about Hebrews 1:3 you ought to not conclude that I am saying these things are not also true of the mighty spirit Jesus. I am merely noting at which point Paul is referencing this of Jesus as it pertains to the point Paul there makes. And I am giving all credit to be able and reason this for themselves.

Right now is not a good time for me to continue with proof about what Paul was saying in his letter to the Hebrews but I will do so later, after the needs of this dieing body I wear are attended. This body of flesh is a bit of a nuisance sometimes. It is like having to walk around with a helpless baby attached to me. LOL !!! I don't suppose I am saying there anything others do not also know.

Please do not think I am ignoring other things you have said and I will try to comment on them when I am able.

You said: "No one comes to the Father except thru him."

Ponder that against what I posted in post 161 concerning 1 Corinthians 8:6.

I will return in a bit. For now the baby is calling. This old body of mine thinks only of what it needs.

 

[Who Says]

As you pointed out, there are alternative translations of Philippians that scholars would tell us is more accurate and true to the message in the original Greek manuscripts. Here's the verse in A Non Ecclesiastical NT:

I know this will cause sparks for me to say it but that is not anything new.

You make too much out of Jesus' existing in God's form.

In the entire scriptures there are only two forms given: (1) The form of God which all spirit creatures exist in, and (2) the form of earthly fleshly man.

 

[TRUTH over TRADITION]

I know this will cause sparks for me to say it but that is not anything new.

You make too much out of Jesus' existing in God's form.

In the entire scriptures there are only two forms given: (1) The form of God which all spirit creatures exist in, and (2) the form of earthly fleshly man.

Do I? I think you must be misunderstanding the POV I am putting out. Check out and respond to post 164, that tells where I'm coming from better.

 

[Free]

First, I realize that this topic has always been one to bring out the heat but everyone needs to stick to addressing the arguments and refrain from attacking the person. That is unacceptable and will not be tolerated.

First and foremost, I NEVER said that Jesus is not divine. Jesus GOD the SON. He is coequal with God the Father, but He is NOT the Father. The Father gave Him the power He has (it is in the scriptures).

I have addressed this already and I cannot help but notice that you posted nothing in response. You have previously sated:

"There is no denying that Jesus was the God of the Old Testament, speaking and acting for the Father. He was the God that created everything. But He was not God the Most High, the Father, although He could speak that way as the Father gave Him everything."

"Therefore, there is a God, the Father and another God the Son."

My response was this (all ESV):

Isa 45:5 I am the LORD, and there is no other, besides me there is no God; I equip you, though you do not know me,

Isa 45:6 that people may know, from the rising of the sun and from the west, that there is none besides me; I am the LORD, and there is no other.

Isa 45:18 For thus says the LORD, who created the heavens (he is God!), who formed the earth and made it (he established it; he did not create it empty, he formed it to be inhabited!): "I am the LORD, and there is no other.

Isa 45:21 Declare and present your case; let them take counsel together! Who told this long ago? Who declared it of old? Was it not I, the LORD? And there is no other god besides me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none besides me.

Isa 45:22 "Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other.

Isa 46:9 remember the former things of old; for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me,

Christianity, just like the Judaism from which it emerged, is strictly monotheistic. Any form of polytheism is strictly forbidden in Scripture.




Some things to keep in mind when discussing the Trinity:

Basic definition of the Trinity:

"Within the one Being that is God, there exists eternally three coequal and coeternal persons, namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit." (James R White, The Forgotten Trinity, p 26)

Foundation One: Monotheism: There Is Only One God.
Foundation Two: There Are Three Divine Persons.
Foundation Three: The Persons Are Coequal and Coeternal. (White, p 28)

Ontological vs Economic Trinity:

The Ontological Trinity is the Trinity as it exists in and of itself; that is, how the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit all relate to each other. This is really what the basic definition of the Trinity given above is talking about and to what most people are referring to when they mention the Trinity.

The Economic Trinity is how the Trinity relates to creation. This involves a degree of subordination between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and would be correctly referred to as economic subordination. This is not to be confused with subordinationism, which is the belief that the Son always has been subordinate to the Father, in nature and being. It is very important to note that economic subordination, or a difference in function, does not indicate an inferiority of nature.

The Ontological and Economical ideas of the Trinity need to be defined upfront as most people read verses showing Jesus as being subordinate to the Father and conclude that he can't be God. However, they are really only arguing against the Ontological Trinity while ignoring the Economic Trinity.


Php 2:5 Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
Php 2:6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
Php 2:7 but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.
Php 2:8 And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death— even death on a cross! (NIV)

Points to consider:

1. Jesus was "in very nature God." Pretty self-explanatory.
2. Yet, he "did not consider equality with God something to be grasped," that is, something to be retained or forcibly held on to.
3. He, Jesus, "made himself nothing." (emphasis added) It follows that a) he had the power to make himself nothing, b) if he became nothing, he had been "something," and that something was his "being in very nature God."
4. His being made nothing is further explained as "taking the very nature of a servant," "being made in human likeness" and "being found in appearance as a man." This supports the notion that he had been something, he had been "in very nature God."
5. He "being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death." Again, pretty self-explanatory.

Points 1 and 2 provide some of the reasoning behind the ontological Trinity. Points 2 through 5 support the economic Trinity--Jesus' willing submission to the Father for the redemptive purposes of Creation.

The above understanding of Phil 2:5-8 is in perfect alignment with John 1:1-3, 10, 14 and 18:

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Joh 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him.

Joh 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Joh 1:18 No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known. (ESV)

There is much that can be said about John 1:1-18 but I'll leave it at that for now.

This is further supported by Col 1:15-17:

Col 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
Col 1:16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things were created through him and for him.
Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. (ESV)

I know where any non-trinitarian will get hung up on this passage but one cannot ignore the bolded portions.

 

[Who Says]

Do I? I think you must be misunderstanding the POV I am putting out. Check out and respond to post 164, that tells where I'm coming from better.

It does appear I misunderstood you.

I think I based my conclusion on your seeming to disagree with what JudaicChristian had said. I need to also go back and ponder that more.

Sorry!!!

Yes, I went back and reviewed and determined that I am a fuzzy brain victim.

But I am not in a position to have a cat or a dog to pet. I guess I will just have to settle for petting my fuzzy brain.

 

[Who Says]

First, I realize that this topic has always been one to bring out the heat but everyone needs to stick to addressing the arguments and refrain from attacking the person. That is unacceptable and will not be tolerated.



I have addressed this already and I cannot help but notice that you posted nothing in response. You have previously sated:

"There is no denying that Jesus was the God of the Old Testament, speaking and acting for the Father. He was the God that created everything. But He was not God the Most High, the Father, although He could speak that way as the Father gave Him everything."

"Therefore, there is a God, the Father and another God the Son."

My response was this (all ESV):

Isa 45:5 I am the LORD, and there is no other, besides me there is no God; I equip you, though you do not know me,

Isa 45:6 that people may know, from the rising of the sun and from the west, that there is none besides me; I am the LORD, and there is no other.

Isa 45:18 For thus says the LORD, who created the heavens (he is God!), who formed the earth and made it (he established it; he did not create it empty, he formed it to be inhabited!): "I am the LORD, and there is no other.

Isa 45:21 Declare and present your case; let them take counsel together! Who told this long ago? Who declared it of old? Was it not I, the LORD? And there is no other god besides me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none besides me.

Isa 45:22 "Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other.

Isa 46:9 remember the former things of old; for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me,

Christianity, just like the Judaism from which it emerged, is strictly monotheistic. Any form of polytheism is strictly forbidden in Scripture.




Some things to keep in mind when discussing the Trinity:

Basic definition of the Trinity:

"Within the one Being that is God, there exists eternally three coequal and coeternal persons, namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit." (James R White, The Forgotten Trinity, p 26)

Foundation One: Monotheism: There Is Only One God.
Foundation Two: There Are Three Divine Persons.
Foundation Three: The Persons Are Coequal and Coeternal. (White, p 28)

Ontological vs Economic Trinity:

The Ontological Trinity is the Trinity as it exists in and of itself; that is, how the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit all relate to each other. This is really what the basic definition of the Trinity given above is talking about and to what most people are referring to when they mention the Trinity.

The Economic Trinity is how the Trinity relates to creation. This involves a degree of subordination between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and would be correctly referred to as economic subordination. This is not to be confused with subordinationism, which is the belief that the Son always has been subordinate to the Father, in nature and being. It is very important to note that economic subordination, or a difference in function, does not indicate an inferiority of nature.

The Ontological and Economical ideas of the Trinity need to be defined upfront as most people read verses showing Jesus as being subordinate to the Father and conclude that he can't be God. However, they are really only arguing against the Ontological Trinity while ignoring the Economic Trinity.


Php 2:5 Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
Php 2:6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
Php 2:7 but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.
Php 2:8 And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death— even death on a cross! (NIV)

Points to consider:

1. Jesus was "in very nature God." Pretty self-explanatory.
2. Yet, he "did not consider equality with God something to be grasped," that is, something to be retained or forcibly held on to.
3. He, Jesus, "made himself nothing." (emphasis added) It follows that a) he had the power to make himself nothing, b) if he became nothing, he had been "something," and that something was his "being in very nature God."
4. His being made nothing is further explained as "taking the very nature of a servant," "being made in human likeness" and "being found in appearance as a man." This supports the notion that he had been something, he had been "in very nature God."
5. He "being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death." Again, pretty self-explanatory.

Points 1 and 2 provide some of the reasoning behind the ontological Trinity. Points 2 through 5 support the economic Trinity--Jesus' willing submission to the Father for the redemptive purposes of Creation.

The above understanding of Phil 2:5-8 is in perfect alignment with John 1:1-3, 10, 14 and 18:

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Joh 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him.

Joh 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Joh 1:18 No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known. (ESV)

There is much that can be said about John 1:1-18 but I'll leave it at that for now.

This is further supported by Col 1:15-17:

Col 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
Col 1:16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things were created through him and for him.
Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. (ESV)

I know where any non-trinitarian will get hung up on this passage but one cannot ignore the bolded portions.

I see things quite simply in that if God is before all things then nothing existed with which God could make anything but of himself. And for that reason I see that all things contain God's nature and are meant to function as though an extension of himself. I believe it is only the illusionary thinking of sin that interferes with that process. Yet even sin cannot hide the nature of God that testifies in unspoken words of God's glory emanating from within all things.

And of this Christ is the foremost example.

 

[Free]

I see things quite simply in that if God is before all things then nothing existed with which God could make anything but of himself. And for that reason I see that all things contain God's nature and are meant to function as though an extension of himself. I believe it is only the illusionary thinking of sin that interferes with that process. Yet even sin cannot hide the nature of God that testifies in unspoken words of God's glory emanating from within all things.

And of this Christ is the foremost example.

I don't see how any of this actually addresses my post. Your position is dangerously close to, if not identical to, forms of pantheism or panentheism. It is fallacious to argue that because only God existed at one point, then in order to create, he necessarily had to create of himself.

The traditional, orthodox Christian position is that God created "out of nothing," ex nihilo. Ultimately the question might be unanswerable but we should not base our theology on such presuppositions.

 

[Who Says]

I don't see how any of this actually addresses my post. Your position is dangerously close to, if not identical to, forms of pantheism or panentheism. It is fallacious to argue that because only God existed at one point, then in order to create, he necessarily had to create of himself.

The traditional, orthodox Christian position is that God created "out of nothing," ex nihilo. Ultimately the question might be unanswerable but we should not base our theology on such presuppositions.

Does that change the fact that reasonably God would put his glory into all that he made?

It is the scripture that testifies over and over to all things he made speaking his glory.

Psalms 19:1 ¶<<To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David.>> The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.
2 Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge.
3 There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard.

Surely you can see I did not invent that?

Acts 17:28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

Acts 17:29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.

I did not write that did I?

1 Corinthians 11:7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

 

[Drew]

irst and foremost, I NEVER said that Jesus is not divine. Jesus GOD the SON. He is coequal with God the Father, but He is NOT the Father. The Father gave Him the power He has (it is in the scriptures).

Its possible that I misunderstood you. I tried reading your posts but was not entirely sure I could discern your position. That's no criticism - the Trinity is obviously a complex issue.

The point of my post was that Paul sees Jesus as a distinct person within the general category of "God".

"Paul is not dummy" - This translates to as if you are trying enter Paul's mind. This indicates unequivocally that you are trying to use the scriptures to suit your interpretation thereof.

No. There is nothing in my post to support this assertion of "bias". When I say that Paul is no dummy, I am saying that he is fully aware that he is "re-defining" or "expanding" on the shema.

iPaul is gone a long time ago, all we have is his writings, if you say something like that it means you are making an analysis of what he said. Therefore they are only your conjectures (read interpretation).

Well of course, but we all engage in acts of interpretation - you as much as me. The essence of my post is that seems very unlikely that Paul essentially has re-stated the shema, ascribing the term "God" to the Father, and "Lord" to the Son, without intending to make the point that Jesus is indeed God, but also a distinct person. All I am asking the reader to do is realize the strong likelihood that, in the 1 Corinthians text, Paul is deliberately connecting the Father and the Son to the shema.

irst Hence, the need you have to try to reconcile your preferred scriptures which your presented in this post with 1Cor.8:5-6. Since the scriptures you presented seem to agree with your analysis, then you decided that 1Cor.8:5-6 needs some explanation. However, it is so clear, that there is no need of explanation. You either believe in it or not.

You are obviously simply begging the question here. I provided an actual argument - sayinbg that "its clear" what the text really means is not a valid way to debate the point.

irst As I have stated before, I am not having a take on anything, I simply believe wholeheartedly the scripture 1Cor.8:5-6 as it is stated in the Bible.

This is simply not a valid argument. Everybody says this, but things are not that simple. I suggest the case is compelling that Paul is redefing the shema - opening it up, if you will - to reveal that the God referred to in the shema as "Lord and God" is actually a God with "multiplicity" - the Father takes on the "God" term from the shema, the Son takes on the "Lord" term from the shema.

irst I am not interpreting it. I believe it EXACTLY as it is stated. No take, no interpretations. I believe it word by word. Since it is so clear it doesn't need interpretation, any other scripture of necessity must agree with it. If they don't, either the Bible is contradictory or you are interpreting it in your own way.

Begging the qestion again. Now, to be fair, I have not read all your posts. And perhaps you have provided non-question-begging arguments in those other posts. But in the present post, you are repeatedly begging the question, simply asserting that "its obvious" that the text supports your position.

irst If you don't have a witness of this scripture all you need to do is to ask Father in Heaven sincerely. I give you my testimony that He will answer and reveal the truth of it to you. He did to me.

Again, not a valid debate strategy - anybody can "pray to God and you will that I am right". Trust me, like you I have studied this issue quite extensively. It seems you disagree with what I am saying (although I am actually not sure), but it is not helpful to suggest that I need "pray" so that I will come around to your view.

 

[TRUTH over TRADITION]

Let's take a deeper look at some passages. First, John 1.
(all texts are from A Non Ecclesiastical NT)

In the beginning was the message,
And the message was directed toward God,
And "God" the message was.
The same one was directed toward God in the beginning.
Through it, all things were done.
And without it nothing was done.
What has been done in it was life.
And the life was the Light of humanity.
And the light shone in the darkness.
But the darkness did not understand it.

6 ​

​

It happened that a person whose name was John was sent from God. This one came as a witness, that he might testify about the Light, so that all might trust through him. He was not the Light, but he came to testify about the Light. This was the Light, the True Light which enlightened everyone as it came into creation. In creation he was, and the creation happened through him, and yet the creation did not know him. He went into his own domain, and his own people didn't receive him. But to as many as did receive him, he gave them authority to become the children of God – to those who trust in his name, who were born not of blood, nor out of sexual desire, nor of a man's wishes, but from God. And the message was embodied and lived among us, and we observed its glory: glory like from a father's only son, full of favor and truth. John testified about him, crying out and saying, "This is the one about whom I said, 'The one who comes after me has become before me; because he is my superior.'" Because out of his

fullness, we all received favor on top of favor. For the Torah was given through Moses; the favor and the truth happened through Anointed Jesus.​

18 ​

​

No one has ever seen God. God's unique one, the one who is at the Father's bosom, has related him.
​

Most often when we see this passage we see it using the word, "word", when in actuality the Greek word 'logos' would more accurately be rendered as 'message'. We then must realize the distinct possibility that the beginning of John was written in a poetic way.

Secondly we look at Phil 2.

Each person should not look after his own interests, but also the interests of others. For you should have this attitude in you that was also in Anointed Jesus:

6 ​

​

who existed in God's form,
but did not consider plundering (the Greek literally translates as an act of plunder) to be like God.
On the contrary, he emptied himself,
taking a slave's form,
having become in human likeness and being found in a human scheme.
He humbled himself,
becoming in subjection until death, even the death of the cross.
So, God also lifted him up and freely gave him the name that is above every name, so that in Jesus' name every knee would bow (in the sky, on earth, and underground) and every tongue would acknowledge that the Lord is Anointed Jesus, to Father God's glory.
​

This passage raises the question about forms. What does being in God's form mean and what does being in man's form mean? Though we are not provided specific answers, a cursory evaluation of the entirety of scripture may suggest that God's form is spirit while man's form is flesh. So saying or translating this text as "Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped," is incorrect and flat out deliberate translator bias and deception. Jesus EXISTED in the FORM of God, but was not in his very nature, God. We are not told what the specifics of Jesus' preincarnate forms was, only that there was one.​

 

[TRUTH over TRADITION]

Remember all, that the word, 'god' is a descriptive term and not a name. Anyone or anything that is mighty can correctly be called a god. So when Jesus is referred to as a god, that does not necessarily equate him to the FATHER. It just confirms his own might.

Psalm 82 - GOD stood in the gathering of the gods.

Exodus - GOD made Moses a god unto pharoah.

2 Cor 4 - calls presumably the devil, the god of this age/world.

The next issue is how we describe or define deity. Do we mean spirit being or do we mean the FATHER of all? Who fits into the catagory changes depending on how the word is defined.

 

[Free]

Does that change the fact that reasonably God would put his glory into all that he made?

It is the scripture that testifies over and over to all things he made speaking his glory.

Psalms 19:1 ¶<<To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David.>> The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.
2 Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge.
3 There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard.

Surely you can see I did not invent that?

Acts 17:28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

Acts 17:29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.

I did not write that did I?

1 Corinthians 11:7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

I really don't want to address this as to me it seems off topic. Please show me how your previous post addressed what I had written.

Most often when we see this passage we see it using the word, "word", when in actuality the Greek word 'logos' would more accurately be rendered as 'message'. We then must realize the distinct possibility that the beginning of John was written in a poetic way.

I strongly disagree that logos "would more accurately be rendered as 'message.'" Logos was very significant in the Greek philosophy and thinking of the day. Notice that John also uses "light" in this opening passage. Logos had great significance for the Greeks and Light had/has great significance for the Jews.

Not to mention that the use of "message" and argument to poetry completely misses the context.

This passage raises the question about forms. What does being in God's form mean and what does being in man's form mean? Though we are not provided specific answers, a cursory evaluation of the entirety of scripture may suggest that God's form is spirit while man's form is flesh. So saying or translating this text as "Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped," is incorrect and flat out deliberate translator bias and deception. Jesus EXISTED in the FORM of God, but was not in his very nature, God. We are not told what the specifics of Jesus' preincarnate forms was, only that there was one.

Again, the context clearly indicates that Jesus was God, so the translation of morphe into "being in very nature God," is entirely consistent. And, again, this is entirely consistent with John 1:1-18, Col 1:15-17 and Heb 1:2-3.

 

[JudaicChristian]

Philippians 2:5-7
5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:


That word "equal" could be translated in other words, such as, "equated," or "counted," or "equality." If Jesus states that "The father is greater than I" and refers to his Father in prayer as "You, the only true God." It's kind of obvious that he's not equal to the one who sent him. "God exalted him," he did not exalt himself !

Equal, in what sense ? Equality or Equal is in reference to that which is given. It is not the least bit humble to think of yourself as equal to God.
We are also made in the form of God, but that does not make us equal to God either.
Here is an alternate reading of Philippians 2:6. Who being in the form of God did not think equality with God as obtainable.

"We are also made in the form of God."