Trinitarianism: What Non-Trinitarians Believe

[Drew]

The crux of the matter of your post #85 is that Jesus came to cleanse the Temple for his Father to return to it.

Not quite, or at least I do not understand what you are saying. I am arguing that Jesus coming to the temple is constitutive of the promised return of God to the temple. Thus, Jesus must be understood to "God substance".

I hope to get back to the rest of your post later.

 

[Elijah674]

3 in 1 or 1 in 3. In makes no difference. There is no other. God is not a man, nor is He the son of man. Your bible says so. Yahshua came in the flesh!

Christ was Christ God in Eternity, (the plan was only for/known & Prophesied, (Psalms 1 & Heb. 1) the Pro. PLAN was not consumated until the Birth of Christ as you full well know, huh?? And surely you know that the Word of God/Christ is IMMORTAL with [NO START OR ENDING POINT].

A post or so back did ask about this Eternal Word in Hosea, huh?

I will not carry out my fierce anger, nor will I devastate Ephraim again. For I am God, and not a man— the Holy One among you.

And if you do not know who the Christ/God was?

See Acts 7:38 + 1 Cor. 10:1-4 for Paul not wanting us to be ignorant!

 

[Drew]

I see that is what you say. That is not difficult. You can tell me that 50 times and I will still see what you say but my response to it will be the same. I told you that I believe you are wrong about it. And I asked you if you would care to reason about it giving consideration to the possibility you might be wrong.

It would be foolish of me to think I am above being mistaken. So, of course, I might indeed be mistaken.

I assert you are wrong. I assert your reasoning on those scriptures the way you do is confused thinking.

Can you explain how my material is unclear? If my thinking is indeed "confused", it should be relatively easy for you to provide an example.

I am not taking anyone's side here but God's.

Well, we would all say this.

Begin by proving that there is substance to the idea that those scriptures you use even speak about Jesus being "God substance". You see, to me that is just an expression you have confused yourself with.

You need to engage the actual argument. I have argued, in quite some detail that the things Jesus does, and the things he says make it abundantly clear that He sees Himself set in the role of the YHWH (God) returning to Zion, just as is repeatedly promised in the Old Testament. So when Jesus acts in a way that shows that He sees Himself as doing something "God" promised to do, that is a very powerful statement that He sees Himself as "God in the flesh".

I suspect that will be difficult for you because the temple is Christ's body. But Christ does not see that body as his own apart from it being foremost a precious trust from his Father to him.

I do not understand what you are saying. But I suggest that "temple" argument really only serve to strengthen the argument that Jesus sees Himself as divine. The evidence for this is quite compelling:

1. As my post states, there is an Old Testament prophecy about God, yes God, returning to the temple (if you know the Old Testament, you will know that God abandoned the temple). And that prophecy suggests that it will be "hard to abide that return". So what does Jesus do? He storms into the temple in a rage. Co-incidence? I doubt it. Jesus and all the other Jews would understand the symbolism of going into temple and raising a ruckus - Jesus is setting Himself in the position of God returning to the temple in judgement.

2. The temple was understood by Jews to the place where God's presence is made manifest. So when Jesus talk about Himself as being the true temple, as He does several times, not least with His "if you tear down this temple, I will rebuild it" statement, the meaning will be clear - Jesus is setting Himself in the role of the rightful inhabitant of the temple - something reserved for God. No wonder the Jews wanted to kill Him.

 

[Drew]

I The crux of the matter of your post #85 is that Jesus came to cleanse the Temple for his Father to return to it. But it would be a spiritual fulfillment as seen in Ephesians 2: 18-22.

When Jesus cleared the merchants out of the temple it was said that he was "consumed with zeal for his Father's house". And that is the zeal with which he prepares his bride for the wedding day: Ephesians 5:25 "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish."

You see, the point is God will not dwell in any place unholy. Jesus is about making the temple of God holy for his Father.

I doubt this very much. Jesus action in the temple is decidedly not about "cleansing" it, it is a symbolic act of judgement, declaring the temple and its practices are about to come to an end. The times they are a-changing in God's plan - the age of the physical temple is coming to an end. Jesus becomes the new temple, as do we, in a sense, when the Holy Spirit comes to dwell not in a building on Mount Zion, but in the human person.

I do not have the time to make the arguments right now, but I suggest it is clear - Jesus sees the temple as doomed. In fact He says this clearly in Matthew 24:

Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. 2 “Do you see all these things?†he asked. “Truly I tell you, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.â€

 

[Drew]

And the fact is that your premise that Christ coming as God's right arm to express his Father's power or accomplish the will of his Father on his Father's behalf does not at all show that Christ is God.

I don't think you are following my argument (perhaps the argument is less than clear). The basic argument is this:

1. Having left the temple, and the nation of Israel more broadly, prior to the Babylonian exile, God promises to return. This is all over the place in the Old Testament - I can provide more specific texts if you like.

2. Now Jesus comes along, and as per my argument, He (Jesus) does the very things that God promised to do. That is the case my argument makes.

3. This can only mean one thing - Jesus believes that He is the embodiment of God returning to His people.

I am not making the mistake you think I am making - you think that I am saying that Jesus does "X" and I assume that doing X makes Him God. I am not doing that - since it is God that promised to do X, and since Jesus ends up actually doing X, I believe my conclusion is justified - Jesus sees Himself as God.

The key point, again, is that the things that Jesus does are the very things that God said God would do. So it is not an issue of Jesus "doing what God wants Him to do" - that would not make Him God. So your critique would be correct if it were not for the fact that the things Jesus does are the things that God said He (God) Himself would do.

And please - lighten up on the pontificating about me having tunnel vision. Let's stick to the texts and the relevant arguments and not speculate uncharitably about each other's motives.

 

[Drew]

Your idea of how God returns is unrealistic. Your idea treats God like a mere creature.

I think you are constructing a fundamentally question-begging justification to deny the power of my argument. If, repeat if, my argument successfully shows that Jesus sees Himself as embodying the return of God, then we need to accept that and not protest that we are uncomforable with the idea that God would ever have "human" form - the form of a creature.

You nor anyone can build a temple that actually contains God.

the scriptures are clear - the real presence of God indeed did dwell in the temple:

In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord, high and exalted, seated on a throne; and the train of his robe filled the temple.

Now the glory of the God of Israel went up from above the cherubim, where it had been, and moved to the threshold of the temple.

Then the glory of the LORD departed from over the threshold of the temple and stopped above the cherubim.

5And the Spirit lifted me up and brought me into the inner court; and behold, the glory of the LORD filled the house. 6Then I heard one speaking to me from the house, while a man was standing beside me. 7He said to me, "Son of man, this is the place of My throne and the place of the soles of My feet, where I will dwell among the sons of Israel forever

Behold, I am going to send My messenger, and he will clear the way before Me And the Lord, whom you seek, will suddenly come to His temple;

There is indeed an abundance of evidence - the temple was indeed where the presence of the Lord did indeed appear.

 

[Drew]

There is no need to go beyond what we naturally understand for that is how God communicated it to us. It is vain men that desire it to be something so difficult that they might feel special and privileged to understand it above others abilities. And where it is not vain men, it is men that have been confused by vain men.

Oh please, this is not the schoolyard - let's drop the condescending lecturing.

Besides, you have really not dealt the argument, so you are hardly in a position to do this anyway.

The argument is what it is - Jesus does the very things that God said that God would do. Now unless there is something materially wrong with the argument itself, then we really forced to conclude that Jesus sees Himself as "God fulfilling His promise".

 

[Free]

Now you are resorting to pride. That is typical.

Please, you imply that he is vain or has been taught by vain men and now say that he is resorting to pride, when he has not done so?

Stick to the arguments and do not attack the person.

 

[Free]

Biased as usual.

Don't push your luck. I read what was written by both of you. Your post didn't even address what he had just stated, you decided to go after him without cause.

Just address the arguments.

 

[Drew]

deleted own post

 

[Drew]

Yet more evidence that Jesus sees Himself as the incarnation of Israel's God. On his final journey to Jerusalem, we have this statement from Jesus:

Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling.

Jesus is drawing on this image from the book of Ruth:

"May the LORD reward your work, and your wages be full from the LORD, the God of Israel, under whose wings you have come to seek refuge."

Yet one more time - to add to other examples - we have Jesus setting Himself in the role of Israel's God.

This is Trinitarian theology, understood how it is means to be understood - not in terms of arid conceptual categories, but in terms of the very concrete story of Israel, abandoned by her God, and then looking keenly forward to His return to them.

Jesus is that very return of the living God to the people of Israel.

Let us now consider the implications of Jesus not being the embodiment of the God of Israel, knowing that He was not, and yet going ahead and making the statement that He makes.

Jesus knows the Old Testament inside and out. Would Jesus place Himself in the role of the God of Israel as "mother hen" if He (Jesus) did not believe that He was the embodiment of the God of Israel? Let the reader judge how likely that is. One would need to believe that Jesus has used the “hen with Israel under its wings” metaphor without being aware that this very same metaphor has been used to characterize God in the Old Testament.​

 

[Who Says]

[/FONT]
I doubt this very much. Jesus action in the temple is decidedly not about "cleansing" it, it is a symbolic act of judgement, declaring the temple and its practices are about to come to an end. The times they are a-changing in God's plan - the age of the physical temple is coming to an end. Jesus becomes the new temple, as do we, in a sense, when the Holy Spirit comes to dwell not in a building on Mount Zion, but in the human person.

I do not have the time to make the arguments right now, but I suggest it is clear - Jesus sees the temple as doomed. In fact He says this clearly in Matthew 24:

Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. 2 “Do you see all these things?” he asked. “Truly I tell you, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.”

You went off on a tangent here (so to speak) in seeing one thing that is true (as you are correct about the part you speak) and allowing that one true thing to be evidence to you that the other thing is not true.

Is it possible that there is more than one thing demonstrated by Jesus coming to that physical temple?

What did Jesus demonstrate in the verses of John that I had quoted for you? Did not the very last verse tell you what Jesus was demonstrating?

Here they are again: John 2:13 And the Jews' passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem,
14 And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting:
15 And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables;
16 And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father's house an house of merchandise.
17 And his disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.

What zeal do you imagine that was?

Ought we to not pay attention to what Jesus said whilst he did this?

16 "And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father's house an house of merchandise."


What was Jesus zeal?

Tell me what the temple now is?

Tell me what the New Jerusalem is?

I will listen and you teach me.

 

[Who Says]

Yet more evidence that Jesus sees Himself as the incarnation of Israel's God. On his final journey to Jerusalem, we have this statement from Jesus:​

Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling.​

Jesus is drawing on this image from the book of Ruth:​

"May the LORD reward your work, and your wages be full from the LORD, the God of Israel, under whose wings you have come to seek refuge."​

Yet one more time - to add to other examples - we have Jesus setting Himself in the role of Israel's God.​

This is Trinitarian theology, understood how it is means to be understood - not in terms of arid conceptual categories, but in terms of the very concrete story of Israel, abandoned by her God, and then looking keenly forward to His return to them.​

Jesus is that very return of the living God to the people of Israel.​

Let us now consider the implications of Jesus not being the embodiment of the God of Israel, knowing that He was not, and yet going ahead and making the statement that He makes.​

Jesus knows the Old Testament inside and out. Would Jesus place Himself in the role of the God of Israel as "mother hen" if He (Jesus) did not believe that He was the embodiment of the God of Israel? Let the reader judge how likely that is. One would need to believe that Jesus has used the “hen with Israel under its wings†metaphor without being aware that this very same metaphor has been used to characterize God in the Old Testament.​

What are God's wings?

What does God use to gather his people together?

What one unique Son is the absolute expression of that thing that God uses to hold his people together?

What one unique Son lives to do his Father's will?

 

[Who Says]

Please, you imply that he is vain or has been taught by vain men and now say that he is resorting to pride, when he has not done so?

Stick to the arguments and do not attack the person.

You are very petty Free.

And there is a reason why.

You are quite welcome to judge yourself on me if you desire.

But don't fool yourself, God will judge you if you keep treating me that way.

Look at your own speech to cleanfreak:

http://www.christianforums.net/f17/...tarians-believe-34014/index21.html#post517280

All anyone need do is look at your posts (which I did and copied) to see that you speak bad to people yourself if the rules you are judging my words by are really credible.

You are singling me out clearly due to hate for the words which I speak of God's truth and you will be judged by God for doing so.

So sir act as evil toward me as you wish. I am happy to be of assistance to God in whatever way he chooses to use me, even if that be to judge you.

There is even one post where you totally misunderstood what Drew had said and you spoke badly to him.

I am just glad I am not you.

You are most definitely not qualified to be an Administrator:

http://www.christianforums.net/f17/trinitarianism-what-non-trinitarians-believe-34014/index20.html#post515543

http://www.christianforums.net/f17/trinitarianism-what-non-trinitarians-believe-34014/index20.html#post515544

http://www.christianforums.net/f17/trinitarianism-what-non-trinitarians-believe-34014/index20.html#post515664

http://www.christianforums.net/f17/trinitarianism-what-non-trinitarians-believe-34014/index19.html#post514864

http://www.christianforums.net/f17/trinitarianism-what-non-trinitarians-believe-34014/index19.html#post514865

 

[Eventide]

So what ever happened to taking God at His word..?

IMO the scriptures could not make it more clear that the Lord Jesus Christ is God manifest in the flesh.. that He is the fulness of the Godhead bodily, that He is from everlasting, Has no beginning or end of days.. that God shed His own blood.. etc etc etc..

How can any Christian who has been born again by the incorruptible word of God deny these biblical truths..?

 

[JudaicChristian]

Re: So what ever happened to taking God at His word..?

IMO the scriptures could not make it more clear that the Lord Jesus Christ is God manifest in the flesh.. that He is the fulness of the Godhead bodily, that He is from everlasting, Has no beginning or end of days.. that God shed His own blood.. etc etc etc..

How can any Christian who has been born again by the incorruptible word of God deny these biblical truths..?

You need to purchase for yourself some better study books. For example, the words "God head" are not in the actual scriptures. The term "no beginning" is a contradiction to the Old Testament. And those who say "you will go to Hell if you do not believe in Trinitarianism;" That is not scriptural! You need to know what you are talking about before you instruct others.

 

[Eventide]

Re: So what ever happened to taking God at His word..?

You need to purchase for yourself some better study books.

Why's that, doesn't the living and powerful word of God throughly equip the man of God ?

For example, the words "God head" are not in the actual scriptures. The term "no beginning" is a contradiction to the Old Testament.

Where's faith come in here..? Do the holy scriptures correct you or do you feel the need to correct Him when He speaks in simplicity and in truth..?

And those who say "you will go to Hell if you do not believe in Trinitarianism;" That is not scriptural! You need to know what you are talking about before you instruct others.

Who says that ? I certainly wouldn't.. although denying that God was manifest in the flesh, or that He is the fulness of the Godhead bodily, or that God did not shed His own blood is literally denying the truth of His word..

The man of God lives by every word that proceeds from Him.. not by correcting it in order to hold to some other belief..

 

[Eventide]

Judaic Christian..

Who do YOU say that Jesus is.. ?

Could you be detailed and/or point me in the direction of a post of yours which explains your belief in detail?

 

[Drew]

Re: So what ever happened to taking God at His word..?

You need to purchase for yourself some better study books. For example, the words "God head" are not in the actual scriptures. The term "no beginning" is a contradiction to the Old Testament. And those who say "you will go to Hell if you do not believe in Trinitarianism;" That is not scriptural! You need to know what you are talking about before you instruct others.

I suggest that you need to engage my arguments in posts 85 and 86.

If you want to successfully make your case, how do you think it looks when you ignore detailed, clear arguments that support the "Jesus is God" position? I am not suggesting that such arguments are beyond error, but it is highly suspicious that basically none of those who deny the divinity of Jesus will actually take on those arguments and show where they are mistaken.

 

[Drew]

Is it possible that there is more than one thing demonstrated by Jesus coming to that physical temple?

Yes, it is of course possible.

What did Jesus demonstrate in the verses of John that I had quoted for you? Did not the very last verse tell you what Jesus was demonstrating?

Here they are again: John 2:13 And the Jews' passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem,
14 And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting:
15 And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables;
16 And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father's house an house of merchandise.
17 And his disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.

What zeal do you imagine that was?

Let me re-state my position on the temple. There is indeed a sense in which Jesus is "zealous" for the temple. But, and this is key, this does not mean that He cannot also be symbolically enacting an act of judgement against the temple.

I am not sure why we are talking about this. One of the key reasons to see Jesus as "God in the flesh" is that the Old Testament has this prophecy about, yes, God returning to the deserted temple. And doing so in a manner that will "be hard to withstand"

Then suddenly the Lord you are seeking will come to his temple; the messenger of the covenant, whom you desire, will come,” says the LORD Almighty.
2 But who can endure the day of his coming?

It is no co-incidence that Jesus comes to the temple in a righteous rage. This is precisely how this prophecy is fulfilled: God (in the form of Jesus) is indeed returning to the temple. And, as prophecied, it is decidedly not a pretty sight.

Tell me what the temple now is?

The temple as a building in Jerusalem has been permanently abolished as of the Cross. Jesus becomes the temple:

Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures: “‘The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone; the Lord has done this, and it is marvelous in our eyes’

Obviously, Jesus is saying that He is the rejected stone who, interestingly, now becomes the new temple.

And we believers, through our union with Christ, are also "temples" - the Holy Spirit dwells un us, just as the Spirit of God filled the Jerusalem temple in the Old Testament.

Tell me what the New Jerusalem is?

I believe the "New Jerusalem" denotes what happens in the future when heaven and earth become "fused" and Jesus reigns in person.