Why do Trinitarians think Jesus is God? (From a Biblical Unitarian)

[WIP]

Well I'm concerned because almost all trinitarians believe that if you're not a trinitarian then you're not saved even though they cannot provide clear (not ambiguous) Biblical evidence to support their doctrine. Like the beginning of the Nicean Creed says that anyone who does not adhere to the trinity will quote "perish eternally" and then it goes on to put as many contradictions as it can on a single page.

Where did anyone in this discussion claim you are not saved? That is not our claim to make. That is between you and God.

 

[King David]

Stop kidding yourself. You have received nothing, neither are you about to. You have reduced yourself to making a mockery of the Church, fooling yourself that God is mocked.

You completely dismiss understanding the languages the Bible is written in, as a concept. That's a shame, because you do have some valid learning under your belt; as long as it stays simple enough that one word from the original language corresponds to one word in English. Which it doesn't.

You even managed to work identity politics into this, all in the same breath. And all within your first 24 hours?!?

You are allowed to not care what the Church has taught. (Assuming you are in the US, you have religious liberty)
Just don't pretend otherwise.

Who is "the Church" exactly? Which "Church" is the true Church?

Also you accused me of not understanding the languages in which the Bible was written but you have given no examples of me displaying a supposed lack of understanding.

I notice you haven't addressed Jude 1:3; how many times was the Faith delivered? But that means nothing to you

There is nothing in this verse to address. The Faith was delivered once and not to be changed such as making God into a trinity which neither Jesus or the Apostles taught.

 

[King David]

Where did anyone in this discussion claim you are not saved? That is not our claim to make. That is between you and God.

That's the official orthodox trinitarian view that all non-trinitarians are not saved as stated in the Nicean Creed.

 

[WIP]

That's the official orthodox trinitarian view that all non-trinitarians are not saved as stated in the Nicean Creed.

I just reread the Nicene Creed and I don't see that claim. Did I miss something?

 

[Northman]

Tolerate what? I came here to receive from trinitarians clear (not ambiguous) Biblical evidence of the trinitarian idea that God is a "Unity in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity." I'm especially concerned because I've already been told by many trinitarians after my few months of being a Biblical Unitarian that I'm going to be burning eternally in hell if I don't subscribe to this concept yet they have displayed a severe amount of ignorance of the languages and culture in which the Bible was written and/or they take verses out of context and refuse to interpret Scripture with Scripture.

Stop worrying about what other people think where your salvation is concerned.
I would like to say right out that the whole idea of the trinity is something force-fed to people. I do not deny it but people getting other people to agree who God has not brought to that level of understanding is fault on their part, not the person who doesn't understand it.

There are lots of things I read here. Not to be completely rude but you do trivialize logos and it is a bit obvious that you don't really know all it encompasses. It's not something to define but rather defines things. Logos is "whats behind something". To say it could be a saying or decree severely diminishes what John says it is. Not only that but logos stopped being a word where there was a simple definition for(which was not actually that simple) 500 years before Jesus walked the earth. John was using it in that light, that one who knew Greek(not just the language) at that time could understand.

As many Biblical Unitarian, Jewish, and even Trinitarian scholars have pointed out, God often speaks majestically to His heavenly court in the plural. As the NIV study Bible (a Trinitarian translation) states in its footnote of Genesis 1:26, "Us… Our… Our. God speaks as the Creator-king, announcing His crowning work to the members of His heavenly court (see 3:22; 11:7; Isaiah 6:8; I Kings 22:19-23; Job 15:8; Jeremiah 23:18)." It doesn't mean that He was inviting them to help him create, He was just speaking majestically as the Creator King. This is found in other places in Scripture. Biblical examples include Daniel's statement to Nebuchadnezzar, "We will tell the interpretation thereof before the king" (Daniel 2:36). Daniel, however, was the only one who gave the king the interpretation of his dream.

See this wierds me out. This concept of majestic speech is on earth what we would actually term multiple personalities. God is speaking in the plural because He is speaking to Himself. This part about Daniel should be a clue. It should point to the direction that it is God speaking through Daniel because the man himself did NOT interpret the dream, God did.

Now I didn't go on with more because by this point it should be evident that concepts are amiss. So what evidence are you looking for? If you can explain away John 1:1-2 then you will probably be able to explain away anything.

 

[Razeontherock]

Who is "the Church" exactly? Which "Church" is the true Church?

You sound like Pontius Pilate: "what is truth?" He was mocking, too.

Also you accused me of not understanding the languages in which the Bible was written but you have given no examples of me displaying a supposed lack of understanding.

There is no need for you to add lying to the growing list of things you're doing wrong here. First of all there is no "accusation of not understanding" foreign languages that haven't been in use for a very long time. You simply don't make room for the fact that some words, phrases, idioms etc in other languages don't translate into English.

Next, logos in John 1 is an example of exactly such a thing. If you really wanted to learn anything, you would be looking up the concept, and perhaps discussing what you find with us.

There is nothing in this verse to address. The Faith was delivered once.

Once. Yet you thumb your nose at it, mocking both the Church and the Nicene Creed, caring nothing about teaching quite the opposite of what the Church has historically taught. You even seem to have a persecution complex, feeling superior to those who adhere to orthodoxy.

You're stating the Faith was delivered more than once, most recently to you, and thinking you have something better.

Jesus' sheep know His voice, and another they will not follow. He is the good shepherd.



I'm not being harsh, I've been quite patient. How long do you think we'll tolerate this?

 

[King David]

I just reread the Nicene Creed and I don't see that claim. Did I miss something?

Sorry I misspoke. I meant to say the Athanasian Creed. I get those confused sometimes.

 

[King David]

There are lots of things I read here. Not to be completely rude but you do trivialize logos and it is a bit obvious that you don't really know all it encompasses. It's not something to define but rather defines things. Logos is "whats behind something". To say it could be a saying or decree severely diminishes what John says it is. Not only that but logos stopped being a word where there was a simple definition for(which was not actually that simple) 500 years before Jesus walked the earth. John was using it in that light, that one who knew Greek(not just the language) at that time could understand.

Now I didn't go on with more because by this point it should be evident that concepts are amiss. So what evidence are you looking for? If you can explain away John 1:1-2 then you will probably be able to explain away anything.

The Greek word "Logos" is used all throughout the New Testament and it never refers to a person.
https://biblehub.com/greek/logos_3056.htm
I'm not simply pulling this interpretation out of thin air I'm reading 1 John 1 which is John's own commentary on John to make the correct interpretation. So when John calls "the word" he spoke about in his Gospel a "that" (or "what") in the opening of his first epistle that should be an immediate red flag. Jesus is called "the word" of God in the book of Revelation because God has communicated to us through his Son (Heb 1:1-2).

See this wierds me out. This concept of majestic speech is on earth what we would actually term multiple personalities. God is speaking in the plural because He is speaking to Himself. This part about Daniel should be a clue. It should point to the direction that it is God speaking through Daniel because the man himself did NOT interpret the dream, God did.

God gave Nebuchadnezzar the dream and Daniel was the one who interpreted it with the help of God of course but Daniel said that "we will tell the interpretation thereof before the king." Clearly God was not the one who told Nebuchadnezzar the interpretation but Daniel only. Also consider the example of King Artaxerxes.

 

[King David]

You sound like Pontius Pilate: "what is truth?" He was mocking, too.

No, you're using the word "Church" like there is one unified Church with no disagreement.

There is no need for you to add lying to the growing list of things you're doing wrong here. First of all there is no "accusation of not understanding" foreign languages that haven't been in use for a very long time. You simply don't make room for the fact that some words, phrases, idioms etc in other languages don't translate into English.

Next, logos in John 1 is an example of exactly such a thing. If you really wanted to learn anything, you would be looking up the concept, and perhaps discussing what you find with us.

The Greek word "Logos" is used all throughout the New Testament and it never refers to a person.
https://biblehub.com/greek/logos_3056.htm
I'm not simply pulling this interpretation out of thin air I'm reading 1 John 1 which is John's own commentary on John to make the correct interpretation. So when John calls "the word" he spoke about in his Gospel a "that" (or "what") in the opening of his first epistle that should be an immediate red flag. Jesus is called "the word" of God in the book of Revelation because God has communicated to us through his Son (Heb 1:1-2).

When you say the trinity is something that has been "historically taught" what you're saying is that it has been accepted for a long time. Well historically it was accepted that Mary was a perpetual virgin even though now virtually all Protestants reject this notion off of Matthew 1:25. Ironically, some of the first few people to use the word "trinity" to describe the relationship between the "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" didn't even believe in what the doctrine of the trinity is taught as now. For example, the first Latin father to use the word "trinitas" to describe what trinitarians would now call the "godhead" was Tertullian and he did not believe in what the trinity is taught as now.

You're stating the Faith was delivered more than once, most recently to you, and thinking you have something better.

No, I'm stating that the Faith was once delivered to all the saints and then trinitarians corrupted it.

 

[MarkT]

Immaterial. Trying to use English nuance to overturn the historic teaching of the Church for well over 1,000 years before English even existed as a language is irrational.

Why is it irrational? I'm using the RSV. Am I being irrational? No. God has not abandoned us or left us in the dark. We don't follow strangers.

The people who followed Joshua, after he died, they went back to the old gods. These things happened in the course of a generation, not 300 years later. So the church taught something 300 years after the last Apostle passed away. So where is the logic in saying this teaching must be true because the church has been teaching it for over a thousand years?

Every teaching will be examined to see if it is true. If it is not true, it will be burned.

 

[chessman]

I meant to say the Athanasian Creed. I get those confused sometimes.

And you confuse the two different words person and God too:

I've already explained leads to the teaching of three gods.

No Trinity teacher teaches three gods.

And you confuse different languages too:

The Septuagint correctly renders this as "And the spirit of the fear of God shall fill him."

 

[JohnDB]

Sorry I misspoke. I meant to say the Athanasian Creed. I get those confused sometimes.

And nobody uses this Creed in the Western churches.
We don't. We haven't....but your actions and words are making me consider that it might have value. Especially if you continue.

 

[Northman]

The Greek word "Logos" is used all throughout the New Testament and it never refers to a person.
https://biblehub.com/greek/logos_3056.htm
I'm not simply pulling this interpretation out of thin air I'm reading 1 John 1 which is John's own commentary on John to make the correct interpretation. So when John calls "the word" he spoke about in his Gospel a "that" (or "what") in the opening of his first epistle that should be an immediate red flag. Jesus is called "the word" of God in the book of Revelation because God has communicated to us through his Son (Heb 1:1-2).

This is what Raze was talking about. You are stuck on word for word definitions. It's less about interpretation and more about understanding there is something that is an idea/identity/force/power and actual motives all rolled into this one word. I know there are probably brothers here who could give us essays expounding on this sentence alone that I've said. To keep it short, Jesus was the absolute embodiment of God's message to all of us. This is part of God and cannot be separated from Him and turned into what you want to call "a saying" or "decree". Jesus fulfills lots of roles.

God gave Nebuchadnezzar the dream and Daniel was the one who interpreted it with the help of God of course but Daniel said that "we will tell the interpretation thereof before the king." Clearly God was not the one who told Nebuchadnezzar the interpretation but Daniel only. Also consider the example of King Artaxerxes.

I don't have to consider one as an example of evidence against the other. They both get to be true because they were both written. God can say "we" and "I" and be right at the same time while being both. It's the assessment I don't care for. Multiple personality types are a mockery of God. Since Daniel wasn't one of them, we can completely disagree. I understand that this is the theology forum so it probably can't and shouldn't be discussed here but you really should seek out some locals in your area that operate in the prophetic gift, you will find out they aren't alone in there.

 

[chessman]

I'm stating that the Faith was once delivered to all the saints and then trinitarians corrupted it.

Who corrupted it and when?

So when John calls "the word" he spoke about in his Gospel a "that" (or "what") in the opening of his first epistle that should be an immediate red flag.

If you were shown that John didn’t call The Word a “that” in 1 John 1:1, would you believe it and then never repeat that argument again?

 

[stovebolts]

Dear King David king,
Welcome to our little nook on the internet.
I would like to direct you to both our community message which was sent to you in a PM when you registered as well as on our forum home. I would also direct you to our statement of faith.

Looking at your post history, it appears you have joined for the sole purpose of debating the Trinity. It may be odd, but we are not a debate forum and we are moving in the direction of forming a community that builds one another up.

I am sorry others have enguaged you in debate, and I am locking this thread because its sole purpose is for debate.

Lastly, let it be known that you are welcome to be a member as long as you respect our vision and you use your knowledge to unify and build up your brother. If you are bent on causing division, I will ban your account.

I do hope you will read our community message and join us.

 

[Razeontherock]

Sorry I misspoke. I meant to say the Athanasian Creed. I get those confused sometimes.

This is our theology section. It's appropriate to discuss certain particulars of this Creed here. It's also worth a mention that Baptists generally reject the notion of Creeds, and are perfectly welcome here.

The Athanasian Creed didn't come about until after 500 AD. It deliberately focused on Christology, which I'm very big on seeing as God speaks to me in those terms. It also focused on Trinity, and indeed "pronounced anathemas," which I'm not big on that idea. It was "a thing" back then.

There's also an idea of "developing doctrine," which makes sense especially since all 5 Apostolic Churches had to be in Unity for Doctrine to be developed. This gets ahead of our conversation here but is an essential concept before this Creed can be addressed. This also addresses your snarky question of "what's the one true Church?" Bypassing the snark, those 5 were Jerusalem, (of course) Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, and Rome. So there was NEVER "one true Church," apart from the Body of believers. I understand if you're wounded over this due to Jesus juking jerks.

It's ok if you don't grasp Trinity. If you're struggling with it, the Athanasian Creed went out of it's way trying to make it as clear as possible what Trinity is and what it is not. I think it's a good place to start, but I think it fails at making it unmistakably clear.

I agree with our Brother Northman, that trying to ram doctrinal beliefs down somebody's throat is poor practice. We are God's children, and His workmanship. He can reveal to us what He wants. My experience is that we have to intensely pursue that sort of revelation and growth, and that it's WORTH it! If He ever chooses to reveal Trinity to you, it will be FAR more meaningful to you than anything I could ever say.

In the meantime, I caution against those that want to focus on condemning, especially if it's based on doctrinal beliefs.
You hold Jesus to be Savior, right?