Unique, Not Only-Begotten

[Free]

What Thomas said isn't explicit enough to mean he was referring to Jesus as his God, i.e., Thomas didn't say "You are my God."

Which is relevant, how?

This is easy to test. If someone looked at you and said, "My lord and my God!" Would you think they were attempting to deify you? I think most people would interpret that as an exclamation or perhaps even a prayer to God. I certainly wouldn't think someone was calling me God. Since Jesus is a man who never claimed to be God, then it follows that isn't how Jesus would have interpretted Thomas' words.

That is a weak argument that completely ignores the context. Again, "Answered Thomas and said to him the Lord of me and the God of me." That is what the Greek states. Jesus is clearly addressing Jesus and only Jesus by calling him his Lord and his God.

Once again, context is vital. Jesus suddenly appeared among the disciples and repeated Thomas's words back to him, despite not having been present when Thomas said them. Notice the similarities at the beginning of John's gospel:

Joh 1:48 Nathanael said to him, “How do you know me?” Jesus answered him, “Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you.”
Joh 1:49 Nathanael answered him, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!”
Joh 1:50 Jesus answered him, “Because I said to you, ‘I saw you under the fig tree,’ do you believe? You will see greater things than these.” (ESV)

Notice in both instances that 1) Jesus knew something he could otherwise not have known, 2) when that is revealed to Nathanael and Thomas, both have a similar exclamation, 3) Jesus's response is very similar.

What is significant is that while Nathanael called Jesus the Son of God and King of Israel at the beginning of his ministry, at the end Thomas goes further and calls Jesus his Lord and his God. So, there has been a progression in the disciples' understanding of who Jesus is.

Seems that the context favors the interpretation that since Jesus was resurrected and had holes in his body, when Thomas finally saw him, he was shocked and, for lack of words, simply said "My lord and my God." The context isn't about Jesus being God.

No, it isn't a statement of shock. There is no evidence--grammatical, contextual, or otherwise--to suggest it is anything but a simple, straightforward declaration of Jesus's lordship and deity. Besides, if it's the case that it was merely shock, then you should at least be consistent and say that Thomas didn't believe Jesus was his Lord either, especially since Thomas didn't say "You are my Lord," according to your previous argument. Both your arguments fall short.

There is one and one reason only to deny the clear and plain meaning of what Thomas said, that Jesus is his Lord and his God.

Jesus rebuked Thomas by saying that only those who believe without seeing are the blessed ones. That's a criticism of Thomas' doubting heart. It is widely known, even among secular folk, that Thomas is a doubter.

I've dealt with this and pointed out that your argument is fallacious. You're reading into the text something that isn't there.

According to scripture Jesus never sinned so Jesus being a blasphemer isn't a Biblical concept. Not sure how you came to that conclusion.

Of course Jesus didn't sin; that has nothing to do with what I stated. You're not following the argument.

You stated: "Either Thomas didn't mean explicitly what you seem to think he said or he was a lone wolf. No one echoed Thomas' words, not even Jesus."

My reply was that "if Thomas was a lone wolf," that is, not even Jesus though he was God, then "that would make Jesus a blasphemer if he wasn't actually God." That is the logical outworking of your position.

Thanks for sharing that persons' opinion, but I prefer Jesus' words about his Father and God are also our Father and God.

Yeah, why do experts' opinions really matter anyway, right?

Jesus said the Father is his God. John 17:3 says the Father is the only true God. I am a Christian so I have the same God as Jesus.

I've dealt with this. It would be great if you would stop posting this argument until you deal with the rebuttal I've provided. If you do not have the right Jesus, you do not have the right Father, the right God.

The verses that allegedly speak of Jesus' deity are not explicit. What is an example of Jesus being God?

I've given several. Why is this a constant thing with you anti-Trinitarians? I post numerous verses showing that Jesus is God, which you all ignore, and then ask for verses which show that Jesus is God. Like I said, I didn't make all those posts just for fun.

I see that Trinitarianism relies on tradition, assumption, and projection to superimpose their beliefs over the Bible, but when compared to what the Bible explicitly says, it fails completely to match up.

You have proven nothing, at all. The overwhelming evidence straight from the Bible is that Jesus is truly God, being both God and man. That is why the deity of Jesus has been an enduring, core doctrine of the faith from the very beginning that all intellectually capable true believers believe.

 

[Free]

Actually four nominatives in the phrase ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου, plus two possessives and one και. If there was one entity, the kai would be unnecessary. You are reading into the text, sir.

I'm certainly not going to take your opinion on Greek grammar as being true. There is nothing in the grammar or context to suggest anything but Thomas's realization and belief that Jesus is his Lord and his God.

 

[Free]

The context is regarding the church. It's not literally "all things" or literally "everything."

Ephesians 1
22And God put everything under His feet and made Him head over everything for the church, 23which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all.



Jesus is only Lord to those who obey him. The context is about the church. God is the creator. I hope that helps.

Is this a serious argument that is meant to refute Col 1:16-17?

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)

"All things" can only mean absolutely everything that has come into existence. Even the NWT realizes this and falsely (and inconsistently) inserts "other" into the text at all three instances to make it say "all other things," meaning everything but the Son.

Paul's language is exhaustive. The only meaning is that Jesus is the creator and means of creation. This is perfectly consistent with John 1:1-3, 1 Cor 8:6, Heb 1:2, and Heb 1:10-12.

 

[7thMoon]

I'm certainly not going to take your opinion on Greek grammar as being true. There is nothing in the grammar or context to suggest anything but Thomas's realization and belief that Jesus is his Lord and his God.

It was not an opinion. If you are right the doubling of μου was unnecessary and it should be more like this: μου κυριος και θεος.

 

[Runningman]

TRinitarians rely on the bible.

I would say Trinitarianism is a theology decorated with Bible verses, but not scripture. That isn't the same as relying on the Bible. Unitarianism relies on the Bible, i.e., They believe in One God known as the Father and the Bible explicitly says that. Trinitarianism believes in three persons who are God. The way Trinitarianism survives is by stringing together verses divorced from the context and redefining words to produce an interpretation, though not explicitly stated. Big difference.

Please reply only to the topic at hand.

Thank you, but I am doing that. Some of the replies I am getting tend to wander around to different ideas and I am trying to reply to all of them.

 

[Runningman]

Which is relevant, how?

That's relevant because the topic you and I are discussing are Thomas' words.

That is a weak argument that completely ignores the context. Again, "Answered Thomas and said to him the Lord of me and the God of me." That is what the Greek states. Jesus is clearly addressing Jesus and only Jesus by calling him his Lord and his God.

Jesus isn't the God of Thomas.

Jesus said the God of Thomas is The Father.

John 20
17“Do not cling to Me,” Jesus said, “for I have not yet ascended to the Father. But go and tell My brothers, ‘I am ascending to My Father and your Father, to My God and your God.’ ”

Once again, context is vital. Jesus suddenly appeared among the disciples and repeated Thomas's words back to him, despite not having been present when Thomas said them. Notice the similarities at the beginning of John's gospel

I would defer you to my previous point about Jesus directly contradicting Thomas. Thomas' God is the only true God, the Father.

Joh 1:48 Nathanael said to him, “How do you know me?” Jesus answered him, “Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you.”
Joh 1:49 Nathanael answered him, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!”
Joh 1:50 Jesus answered him, “Because I said to you, ‘I saw you under the fig tree,’ do you believe? You will see greater things than these.” (ESV)

Jesus had a vision.

Notice in both instances that 1) Jesus knew something he could otherwise not have known, 2) when that is revealed to Nathanael and Thomas, both have a similar exclamation, 3) Jesus's response is very similar.

That's what happens in visions. They can be revelatory and others who are not Jesus had them too.

What is significant is that while Nathanael called Jesus the Son of God and King of Israel at the beginning of his ministry, at the end Thomas goes further and calls Jesus his Lord and his God. So, there has been a progression in the disciples' understanding of who Jesus is.

Nathaniel correctly stated he is the Son of God, not that he is God.

No, it isn't a statement of shock. There is no evidence--grammatical, contextual, or otherwise--to suggest it is anything but a simple, straightforward declaration of Jesus's lordship and deity. Besides, if it's the case that it was merely shock, then you should at least be consistent and say that Thomas didn't believe Jesus was his Lord either, especially since Thomas didn't say "You are my Lord," according to your previous argument. Both your arguments fall short.

It's a statement of shock. I think I finally found what I needed at this point to remove all doubt of entertaining the idea Thomas somehow thought Jesus was God. Your premise has been debunked by a previous point I made with John 20:17.

Of course Jesus didn't sin; that has nothing to do with what I stated. You're not following the argument.

You stated: "Either Thomas didn't mean explicitly what you seem to think he said or he was a lone wolf. No one echoed Thomas' words, not even Jesus."

My reply was that "if Thomas was a lone wolf," that is, not even Jesus though he was God, then "that would make Jesus a blasphemer if he wasn't actually God." That is the logical outworking of your position.

Jesus is not Thomas' God and Jesus isn't a blasphemer is my point. I don't think we should entertain that possibility.

Yeah, why do experts' opinions really matter anyway, right?

How about what Jesus said trumps the so called experts.

I've dealt with this. It would be great if you would stop posting this argument until you deal with the rebuttal I've provided. If you do not have the right Jesus, you do not have the right Father, the right God.

Ditto.

I've given several. Why is this a constant thing with you anti-Trinitarians? I post numerous verses showing that Jesus is God,

You've done nothing of the sort. I have barely even attempted to make any points. I have simply been letting you lead the way.

which you all ignore, and then ask for verses which show that Jesus is God. Like I said, I didn't make all those posts just for fun.

I dont make these posts for fun either.

You have proven nothing, at all. The overwhelming evidence straight from the Bible is that Jesus is truly God,

You have proved nothing. Jesus didn't even say he is God. So far you have provided circumstantial evidence and your opinion on what it means. Nothing explicit.

being both God and man.

Not according to scripture.

That is why the deity of Jesus has been an enduring, core doctrine of the faith from the very beginning that all intellectually capable true believers believe.

Lies have been perpetuating from the beginning. The longevity of your belief means nothing. Unitarianism came before Trinitarianism.

 

[Runningman]

Is this a serious argument that is meant to refute Col 1:16-17?

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)

"All things" can only mean absolutely everything that has come into existence. Even the NWT realizes this and falsely (and inconsistently) inserts "other" into the text at all three instances to make it say "all other things," meaning everything but the Son.

Paul's language is exhaustive. The only meaning is that Jesus is the creator and means of creation. This is perfectly consistent with John 1:1-3, 1 Cor 8:6, Heb 1:2, and Heb 1:10-12.

Verse 20 of Colossians 1 said none of it was accomplished until the cross. The context takes place after Jesus was born, not before. This refers to "all things" in a limited sense in reference to the church. Jesus is our high priest and mediator before God in heaven and earth.

Colossians 1
20and through Him to reconcile to Himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through the blood of His cross.

 

[GodsGrace]

That's relevant because the topic you and I are discussing are Thomas' words.


Jesus isn't the God of Thomas.

Jesus said the God of Thomas is The Father.

John 20
17“Do not cling to Me,” Jesus said, “for I have not yet ascended to the Father. But go and tell My brothers, ‘I am ascending to My Father and your Father, to My God and your God.’ ”

I would defer you to my previous point about Jesus directly contradicting Thomas. Thomas' God is the only true God, the Father.


Jesus had a vision.


That's what happens in visions. They can be revelatory and others who are not Jesus had them too.


Nathaniel correctly stated he is the Son of God, not that he is God.


It's a statement of shock. I think I finally found what I needed at this point to remove all doubt of entertaining the idea Thomas somehow thought Jesus was God. Your premise has been debunked by a previous point I made with John 20:17.


Jesus is not Thomas' God and Jesus isn't a blasphemer is my point. I don't think we should entertain that possibility.


How about what Jesus said trumps the so called experts.


Ditto.


You've done nothing of the sort. I have barely even attempted to make any points. I have simply been letting you lead the way.


I dont make these posts for fun either.


You have proved nothing. Jesus didn't even say he is God. So far you have provided circumstantial evidence and your opinion on what it means. Nothing explicit.


Not according to scripture.


Lies have been perpetuating from the beginning. The longevity of your belief means nothing. Unitarianism came before Trinitarianism.

What is unitarianism?
Does this faith system allow you to make up your own doctrine?
Your own beliefs?
Or do they have set beliefs that you can trust?

You keep saying that Trinitarians believe there is one God in 3 Persons.
It's not like that.

There are 3 persons in ONE GOD.

Can you confirm that you understand the difference?

 

[Free]

It was not an opinion. If you are right the doubling of μου was unnecessary and it should be more like this: μου κυριος και θεος.

It is an opinion until you can provide scholarly support.

 

[GodsGrace]

Verse 20 of Colossians 1 said none of it was accomplished until the cross. The context takes place after Jesus was born, not before. This refers to "all things" in a limited sense in reference to the church. Jesus is our high priest and mediator before God in heaven and earth.

Colossians 1
20and through Him to reconcile to Himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through the blood of His cross.

The other member is referring to Colossians 1:16

You're quoting Colossiand 1:20.

Is 1:16 uncomfortable for you?
It states that Jesus created everything.

Colossians 1:16
For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities-- all things have been created through Him and for Him.

I believe that, maybe, you have trouble with the bible because your denomination encourages you to believe whatever you want to believe.

1. the main heresy denying the divinity of Christ, originating with the Alexandrian priest Arius ( c. 250– c. 336). Arianism maintained that the son of God was created by the Father and was therefore neither coeternal nor consubstantial with the Father.
   
   
   Arianism (Koine Greek: Ἀρειανισμός, Areianismós)[1] is a Christological doctrine considered heretical by all mainstream branches of Christianity.[
   Accept it at least.
   
   
   
   
   source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism
   
   
   
   
   Your beliefs are heretical RM.

 

[Free]

Yes

Yes, what? You know of a son that isn't the same nature as his father? Where?

and a son is not his own father.

Ah. This shows a serious error in your understanding of Trinitarianism. That statement is a refutation of Modalism and Oneness, both of which hold to unitarian views of God. It is not at all applicable to Trinitarianism.

It was a deflection.

In your opinion.

Jesus was called good then attributed goodness to God. Jesus diverted attention away from himself. Jesus distanced himself from being inherently good or God. This is called a denial.

We can do an exercise by simply using different examples:

Why do you call me good? No one is good—except John alone.
Why do you call me cool? No one is cool—except Jane alone.
Why do you call me nice? No one is nice—except Jeff alone.
Why do you call me sweet? No one is sweet—except Jess alone.

If you called someone good and they said "Why do you call me good? No one is good—except X person alone." Then you would know they weren't claiming to be the person they were deferring to. Why do you make an exception for Jesus? Can you prove Jesus is inherently good?

There is much more to what I said than what you are addressing.

Unitarian is the name of a theology, but I don't claim the word is in the Bible. It's described in the Bible. We believe in One God, the Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ, His only begotten Son. I can quote explicit declarations of all of this from the Bible. Trinitarianism can't do this.

These are the types of things that cause you to lose credibility.

First, Trinitarianism is the name of a theology. Second, I explicitly said that "God the Son" isn't in the Bible. Third, I explicitly said that the foundations of the Trinity are throughout the Bible, including that Jesus claims to be God and is referred to and understood as being God.

I was using your exact same reasoning to show that your argument is fallacious.

Additionally, you cannot quote anything that explicitly or directly states that God is unitarian, because there is no verse saying such. I have stated that more than once and you have yet to provide anything. I have also given numerous passages supporting the deity of Christ, and by extension the Trinity, but you have left the majority unaddressed.

Once again, the disciples are also called the light of the world in Matt 5:14. Jesus is also called the light of the world. Jesus and his disciples are men, yes? Well, in John 1:9 it says the True Light gives light to men. Then that means Jesus isn't the True Light since the context says "he was in the world" then later it says Jesus "came from above."

Wow. Just wow. Your reasoning here isn't sound either. To equate Jesus being a man with his disciples being men, is to fallaciously beg the question. You're completely ignoring the context of John's prologue which shows that Jesus is God in nature; much more than just a mere man. That is the entire point of John's prologue.

I think the confusion regarding this is because many Bibles mistranslate John 1. There are good reasons to view the "Word" as something personified or a characteristic of God, but not actually God Himself.

Prove it. Use the Greek and prove it. Two of you claim John 1 (verse 1?) is mistranslated but have not proven that to be the case. The only legitimate understanding of the Word is that he is a "person" that is God in nature, equal to the Father, but not the Father. That is all from John 1:1.

The true Light is God, not Jesus. I like Revelation 21:23 because it shows that God is a greater light than Jesus. God can light a city, but the Lamb is a lamp; lamps do not light an entire city. Then Revelation 22:5 says they don't need a lamp anymore because God will light the city. This refers to the Lordship of Jesus coming to an end as 1 Corinthians 15:24-28 says.

In context, the true light in John 1 can only be Jesus. Again, that is the only legitimate understanding. Please stop referring to other passages which have no relevance, such as those in Rev; it only confuses the issue. John 1:9-10 stand on their own as referring only to the Son.

To keep these posts more concise and easier to follow I am just going to begin cutting off the parts where we start going in circles.

You seem to be only cutting out the parts you don't like, those which are too difficult for your position to take into account.

 

[GodsGrace]

Yes, what? You know of a son that isn't the same nature as his father? Where?


Ah. This shows a serious error in your understanding of Trinitarianism. That statement is a refutation of Modalism and Oneness, both of which hold to unitarian views of God. It is not at all applicable to Trinitarianism.


In your opinion.


There is much more to what I said than what you are addressing.


These are the types of things that cause you to lose credibility.

First, Trinitarianism is the name of a theology. Second, I explicitly said that "God the Son" isn't in the Bible. Third, I explicitly said that the foundations of the Trinity are throughout the Bible, including that Jesus claims to be God and is referred to and understood as being God.

I was using your exact same reasoning to show that your argument is fallacious.

Additionally, you cannot quote anything that explicitly or directly states that God is unitarian, because there is no verse saying such. I have stated that more than once and you have yet to provide anything. I have also given numerous passages supporting the deity of Christ, and by extension the Trinity, but you have left the majority unaddressed.


Wow. Just wow. Your reasoning here isn't sound either. To equate Jesus being a man with his disciples being me, is to fallaciously beg the question. You're completely ignoring the context of John's prologue which shows that Jesus is God in nature; much more than just a mere man. That is the entire point of John's prologue.


Prove it. Use the Greek and prove it. Two of you claim John 1 (verse 1?) is mistranslated but have not proven that to be the case. The only legitimate understanding of the Word is that he is a "person" that is God in nature, equal to the Father, but not the Father. That is all from John 1:1.


In context, the true light in John 1 can only be Jesus. Again, that is the only legitimate understanding. Please stop referring to other passages which have no relevance, such as those in Rev; it only confuses the issue. John 1:9-10 stand on their own as referring only to the Son.


You seem to be only cutting out the parts you don't like, those which are too difficult for your position to take into account.

Runningman stated that he is Unitarian.

The problem with non-Trinitarians, as I see it, is that they not only do not understand the Trinity,
but no effort is made to understand one of the chief tenets of Christianity.

If everyone on a forum were telling me that I'm wrong about something....
I'd stop and take a second look and delve a little deeper.

 

[Free]

Verse 20 of Colossians 1 said none of it was accomplished until the cross. The context takes place after Jesus was born, not before. This refers to "all things" in a limited sense in reference to the church. Jesus is our high priest and mediator before God in heaven and earth.

Colossians 1
20and through Him to reconcile to Himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through the blood of His cross.

That makes no sense whatsoever.

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.
Col 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent.
Col 1:19 For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell,
Col 1:20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.
Col 1:21 And you, who once were alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds,
Col 1:22 he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him, (ESV)

First, Paul lays out the case that the Son created all things, which means absolutely everything. There is no question about this. Second, Paul then begins to talk about who he is and what he has accomplished during his incarnation, that is, after creating everything. Verse 16 lays out who Jesus is and what he did prior to his incarnation; verse 17 is after his incarnation.

How can you seriously claim that verse 20 means that none of verses 16 and 17 "was accomplished until the cross," when the mere existence of the cross couldn't have happened until everything had been created, including humans, who disobeyed God, necessitating the cross. All creation is being reconciled to God, but creation must first exist in order for reconciliation to take place. That really goes without saying.

 

[Free]

Runningman stated that he is Unitarian.

Yes, which is a position that cannot actually be supported biblically.

The problem with non-Trinitarians, as I see it, is that they not only do not understand the Trinity,
but no effort is made to understand one of the chief tenets of Christianity.

Exactly. I have yet to meet a non-Trinitarian that actually understands the doctrine of the Trinity. It is usually conflated with Modalism and Oneness and then the straw man is "refuted." The irony is, Modalism and Oneness both have unitarian views of God.

If everyone on a forum were telling me that I'm wrong about something....
I'd stop and take a second look and delve a little deeper.

It should cause one to stop and think...

 

[Runningman]

What is unitarianism?
Does this faith system allow you to make up your own doctrine?
Your own beliefs?
Or do they have set beliefs that you can trust?

Unitarians follow sola scriptura.

You keep saying that Trinitarians believe there is one God in 3 Persons.
It's not like that.

There are 3 persons in ONE GOD.

According to your peoples' Athanasian Creed the god is the substance or essence divided among the members of the trinity.

Can you confirm that you understand the difference?

When we speak of the trinity doctrine we should be careful to define what it is we are talking about. It's not something in the Bible. It has to be supported by a creed.

 

[Runningman]

The other member is referring to Colossians 1:16

You're quoting Colossiand 1:20.

Is 1:16 uncomfortable for you?
It states that Jesus created everything.

Colossians 1:16
For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities-- all things have been created through Him and for Him.

I'm providing context because the premise in that post doesn't follow to its conclusion. Colossians 1:20 is the conclusion. It's in regards to the church, of which Jesus was made head, with the New Covenant being ratified by the blood of the cross.

I believe that, maybe, you have trouble with the bible because your denomination encourages you to believe whatever you want to believe.

I don't have any trouble with the Bible.

1. the main heresy denying the divinity of Christ, originating with the Alexandrian priest Arius ( c. 250– c. 336). Arianism maintained that the son of God was created by the Father and was therefore neither coeternal nor consubstantial with the Father.
   
   
   Arianism (Koine Greek: Ἀρειανισμός, Areianismós)[1] is a Christological doctrine considered heretical by all mainstream branches of Christianity.[
   Accept it at least.
   
   
   
   
   source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism

I'm not arian.

Your beliefs are heretical RM.

That's what I believe about your beliefs, GG.

 

[Runningman]

Runningman stated that he is Unitarian.

The problem with non-Trinitarians, as I see it, is that they not only do not understand the Trinity,
but no effort is made to understand one of the chief tenets of Christianity.

Don't conflate the trinity with Christianity.

If everyone on a forum were telling me that I'm wrong about something....
I'd stop and take a second look and delve a little deeper.

No one has told me I am wrong.

 

[GodsGrace]

Unitarians follow sola scriptura.


According to your peoples' Athanasian Creed the god is the substance or essence divided among the members of the trinity.


When we speak of the trinity doctrine we should be careful to define what it is we are talking about. It's not something in the Bible. It has to be supported by a creed.

RM,
What do you think creeds are?
A creed is a credo.
Credo means to believe something.

After the Apostles died (and even before actually) there were many heresies circulating.
A creed is a declaration that the early church put together in order to clarify what the heresy of the moment was, and what belief the chuch held.

Do you think some men sat around and made creeds up?
No. Creeds are all BIBLICAL.
Christianity IS a biblical religion/faith.

Because YOU don't see it does not mean that you're right and everyone else is wrong.

Did you know that there's a creed in the NT?
Look it up.

1 Corinthians 15.3-4
3For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
4and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,

There are more right in the NT.

 

[GodsGrace]

Don't conflate the trinity with Christianity.

No one has told me I am wrong.

If someone does not agree with you, then they think you're wrong.

The reason no one has used those precise words is because it's against our rules.
If you noticed, we attempt to be very respectful and civil to each other on this Forum.

Conflate Christianity with the Trinity?
RM, Christianity IS the Trinity.

Are you worshipping Jesus?
Is He just a man?
Then you're an idol worshipper.

Are you not worshipping Jesus?
Then who are you trusting to save you?
Corinthians 15:14-17
14and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain.
15Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised.
16For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised;
17and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins.
18Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.
19If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied.



Who raised Jesus from the dead?
Why?

 

[GodsGrace]

Unitarians follow sola scriptura.


According to your peoples' Athanasian Creed the god is the substance or essence divided among the members of the trinity.


When we speak of the trinity doctrine we should be careful to define what it is we are talking about. It's not something in the Bible. It has to be supported by a creed.

Who is YOUR PEOPLE?

Are you not a part of my people?
Are you admitting your beliefs are not Christian?