Why Trinitarians And Non-Trinitarians Have Different Beliefs?

[Randy]

The Angel of the LORD is God.

And the Angel of the LORD appeared to him in a flame of fire from the midst of a bush. Exodus 3:2
And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look upon God. Exodus 3:6


Do you believe Moses saw God?

I believe He saw as I read "A angel" OF GOD. I believe the Holy Spirit was there as well. The Angel was standing in the presence of God and the ground was Holy ground for whatever the Spirit touches becomes Holy. When Moses went up the mountain then He was allowed to see God's backside as God stated no man may see my face and live.

This is the same language as Jacob when its described He wrestled with God and saw Gods face.
Yet we read in Hosea about Jacob's encounter with God, "He struggled with the angel and overcame him;"

 

[eddif]

I believe He saw as I read "A angel" OF GOD. I believe the Holy Spirit was there as well. The Angel was standing in the presence of God and the ground was Holy ground for whatever the Spirit touches becomes Holy. When Moses went up the mountain then He was allowed to see God's backside as God stated no man may see my face and live.

This is the same language as Jacob when its described He wrestled with God and saw Gods face.
Yet we read in Hosea about Jacob's encounter with God, "He struggled with the angel and overcame him;"

Consider
Matthew 22:44 kjv
44. The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?
IMHO
Our Lord - Jesus

Said His Lord - The Father. Gave Him instructions to sit at the right hand of the Father

Jesus became a messenger Of the Father when Jesus told the Disciples how to pray.

Our Lord Jesus
Jesus’s Lord- The Father

In our human body the nerves are messengers - or equal to IMHO symbolic angels.

The seed is The Word of God
Two different context areas, but the same concept.


Symbolism?

Mississippi redneck
eddif

 

[Runningman]

KJV and NKJV both read "GOD was manifested in the flesh", that settles it.

Here's a question that I think makes an alarming number of Christians uncomfortable. Do you believe everything the KJV says and would you be willing to say simply yes or no if I provided you with some verses?

 

[Runningman]

Jhn 10:14 - I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine.

Jhn 10:15 - As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.

Jhn 10:16 - And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

Jhn 10:17 - Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.

Jhn 10:18 - No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

This is interesting. Jesus says he is laying down his life and has the power to take it again.

This is similar to Jesus saying he would raise up his body in three days.

Oh, wait a minute. He says “This commandment have I received of my Father.”
That explains it. Jesus was commanded to lay down his life, and if he did he could take it back again. The power to lay down he life was therefore of the command he had from the Father. And the power to take it back again was of the same command.

So, when Jesus laid down his life the Father gave it back to him according to the command.

In other words, a dead person cannot raise himself from the dead.
If a dead person can raised himself from the dead, then he’s not dead.

Yes. That must be the accurate understanding of the passage in John 10 and John 2:22. The Bible says at least a dozen times that someone other than himself resurrected him.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Here's a question that I think makes an alarming number of Christians uncomfortable. Do you believe everything the KJV says and would you be willing to say simply yes or no if I provided you with some verses?

No I don’t, that’s why I brought up NKJV. No Bible translation is perfect, including KJV and NKJV, but those two are the most trustworthy and least adulterated ones.

 

[JLB]

That version of 1 Timothy 3:16 says "he was manifested in the flesh" except for like one or two Bibles. Why do you supposed that is?

Do you understand the word "Theos" is used in the Greek for God.

Look at the context -

In the previous verse we see the same word Theos G2316 is used and both are rendered God.

So when we see the word Theos used in verse 16 and rendered God, we know what Paul was plainly teaching us by the Spirit.

 

[JLB]

I believe He saw as I read "A angel" OF GOD.

Now Moses was tending the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian. And he led the flock to the back of the desert, and came to Horeb, the mountain of God. And the Angel of the LORD appeared to him in a flame of fire from the midst of a bush. So he looked, and behold, the bush was burning with fire, but the bush was not consumed. Then Moses said, “I will now turn aside and see this great sight, why the bush does not burn.”
So when the LORD saw that he turned aside to look, God called to him from the midst of the bush and said, “Moses, Moses! And he said, “Here I am.”
Then He said, “Do not draw near this place. Take your sandals off your feet, for the place where you stand is holy ground.” Moreover He said, “I am the God of your father—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look upon God. Exodus 3:1-6


We see that a three-fold progression of understanding unfolding here in this passage.

The only One who was interacting with Moses was the Angel of the LORD, who is referred to as the LORD as well as God.

• And the Angel of the LORD appeared to him
• And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look upon God.

Elsewhere in scripture we see the Angel of the LORD referred to as God.


Here is another three-fold progression of understanding.

1. Angels are called sons of God in the Old Testament. So the Angel of the LORD would be The Son of God.

Jesus is the Son of God.

2. Angel in the Hebrew means messenger. A messenger is one who brings a word from a king or one in authority.
So the Angel of the LORD would be the WORD (message) of God.

Jesus is called the Word of God. John 1:1
3. Angels are spirits. So the Angel of the LORD would be the Spirit of the LORD.

Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. 2 Corinthians 3:17






JLB

 

[LeviR]

Now Moses was tending the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian. And he led the flock to the back of the desert, and came to Horeb, the mountain of God. And the Angel of the LORD appeared to him in a flame of fire from the midst of a bush. So he looked, and behold, the bush was burning with fire, but the bush was not consumed. Then Moses said, “I will now turn aside and see this great sight, why the bush does not burn.”
So when the LORD saw that he turned aside to look, God called to him from the midst of the bush and said, “Moses, Moses! And he said, “Here I am.”
Then He said, “Do not draw near this place. Take your sandals off your feet, for the place where you stand is holy ground.” Moreover He said, “I am the God of your father—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look upon God. Exodus 3:1-6


We see that a three-fold progression of understanding unfolding here in this passage.

The only One who was interacting with Moses was the Angel of the LORD, who is referred to as the LORD as well as God.

• And the Angel of the LORD appeared to him
• And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look upon God.

Elsewhere in scripture we see the Angel of the LORD referred to as God.


Here is another three-fold progression of understanding.

1. Angels are called sons of God in the Old Testament. So the Angel of the LORD would be The Son of God.

Jesus is the Son of God.

2. Angel in the Hebrew means messenger. A messenger is one who brings a word from a king or one in authority.
So the Angel of the LORD would be the WORD (message) of God.

Jesus is called the Word of God. John 1:1
3. Angels are spirits. So the Angel of the LORD would be the Spirit of the LORD.

Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. 2 Corinthians 3:17






JLB

God’s holy angels in heaven are not called sons of God.

 

[JLB]

God’s holy angels in heaven are not called sons of God.

Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them. And the LORD said to Satan, “From where do you come?”
So Satan answered the LORD and said, “From going to and fro on the earth, and from walking back and forth on it.”
Job 1:6-7

 

[LeviR]

Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them. And the LORD said to Satan, “From where do you come?”
So Satan answered the LORD and said, “From going to and fro on the earth, and from walking back and forth on it.”
Job 1:6-7

Would they be the same sons of God who supposedly took on human nature and had sex with human women?

 

[JLB]

Would they be the same sons of God who supposedly took on human nature and had sex with human women?

I just know the scripture refers to angels as sons of God.

When we are resurrected from the dead and receive sinless bodies that are eternal, and don't die anymore we will be like the angels, as sons of God.

Jesus answered and said to them, “The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage. But those who are counted worthy to attain that age, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; nor can they die anymore, for they are equal to the angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection. Luke 20:34-36

 

[Free]

Jewish people as a whole don’t believe in Trinity or the deity of Jesus, except the messianics whom I align with. What does God say about them? Are they still God’s people? Here’s the answer, loud and clear:

Yet for all that, when they are in the land of their enemies, I will not cast them away, nor shall I abhor them, to utterly destroy them and break My covenant with them;
for I am the Lord their God.
But for their sake I will remember the covenant of their ancestors, whom I brought out of the land of Egypt in the sight of the nations, that I might be their God:
I am the Lord.’ ” (Lev. 26:44-45)

Now you’re equivocating on the meaning of “God’s people.” Your initial use of it was in regards to believers.

Okay, which question this time? “Which Jesus?” 1 Jn. 4:1-3 already answered you, set the true Jesus apart from all the fake ones. If you continue to dismiss that as insufficient, that’s your problem

As I stated, it is possible that John was addressing Docetism—the belief that Jesus only appeared to have a physical body. However, that has nothing to do with this discussion, as I made clear with the examples of the ‘five irreconcilably different "biblical" Christs’ I gave, and you conveniently ignored. My whole point was that those five all believe Jesus came in the flesh, among other things.

So, yes, 1 John 4:9 is clearly insufficient. It is just one verse of many that speak of Jesus, and addresses a specific issue John’s readers were dealing with. Again, verses don’t exist in isolation.

My complaint has been consistently against identity politics and division over the obsession of such labels, against this “us vs them” tribalism,

But, as I pointed out, this is fallaciously begging the question. Who Jesus is matters; it is of central importance. Jesus certainly made it "us vs them" (Matt 10:34) and taught that there were tares among the wheat, chaff among the wheat, goats among the sheep, etc. Paul and other NT writers teach that there are those who "have crept in unaware," are wolves among sheep, are "false brothers," who preach false gospels, false Jesus's, etc.

and also against Nicolaitanism which Jesus specifically hates. And what is Nicolaitanism? Monopolization of God, selling him to the congregation through controlled channels of the Nicolaitans, no one can understand God’s words or build relationship with God except through the clergy, that just sums up European history from the fall of Roman Empire to the reformation, and it’s still quite common among most Christians who rarely read their Bible and only flaunt a few bumper sticker verses.

This also fallaciously begs the question and ignores the realities I have outlined above. It also has nothing to do with this discussion.

So once again, to clarify, you can see that none of these is about the Trinity doctrine itself or God’s nature, but a vivid display of OUR sin nature - PRIDE.

Of course there can be pride, but, once again, what else does the NT say? It says quite a bit about false teachers, false teachings, and that there are certain truths of the faith--rather the whole point of the NT--from which we must not waver. Christians are told to beware of false teachings and to only put up with sound doctrine so as not to be led astray.

This is very much about who Jesus is. "Who do you say that I am?"

I said these things such as “yet they didn’t know God” to show you that just reading and studying the Bible is not enough, as those religious elites had demonstrated, they were blinded by their own doctrines and pride.

I agree that reading and studying the Bible isn't enough, if one doesn't do so prayerfully with their heart open to what God says, or does so in isolation from all the other Christian voices since the beginning. We can be led astray by what we subjectively think Scripture says, so we must also study as a part of the community of God.

 

[Runningman]

Do you understand the word "Theos" is used in the Greek for God.

Look at the context -

In the previous verse we see the same word Theos G2316 is used and both are rendered God.

So when we see the word Theos used in verse 16 and rendered God, we know what Paul was plainly teaching us by the Spirit.



View attachment 16357

There being different Greek manuscripts is exactly what I have told you exhaustively this whole time. The one that contains "He who" was revealed in the flesh is the original.

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/1_timothy/3-16.htm

 

[Hopeful 2]

Yes he is, he’s called a life giving spirit. A life giving spirit with a body of flesh and bone.

You will need scriptural proof stating that.

Who is the imprint image of his Father.

Those terms are unknown to me.

 

[JLB]

There being different Greek manuscripts is exactly what I have told you exhaustively this whole time. The one that contains "He who" was revealed in the flesh is the original.

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/1_timothy/3-16.htm

Here is what the manuscript used for the King James and New King James shows us.

And when compared to other scripture, such as -

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. John 1:1
And the Word became 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. John 1:14

So it's easy to see that God became flesh.

 

[eddif]

Man (Adam and Eve) were not the same as today.
The 3 part man did not start till Pentecost for the Jews, and the gentiles waited for the gentile inclusion.

We still see through a glass darkly (till the last trump). The resurrection has not happened yet.

Elihu thought man had the information in himself. God’s conversation to Job shows what God thought about Elihu
and his speech.

Mississippi redneck
eddif

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Now you’re equivocating on the meaning of “God’s people.” Your initial use of it was in regards to believers.

If a believer is adopted as Abraham’s seed under the new covenant, then this applies to them as well as to the Jews.

As I stated, it is possible that John was addressing Docetism—the belief that Jesus only appeared to have a physical body. However, that has nothing to do with this discussion, as I made clear with the examples of the ‘five irreconcilably different "biblical" Christs’ I gave, and you conveniently ignored. My whole point was that those five all believe Jesus came in the flesh, among other things.

If 1 Jn. 4:1-3 is insufficient, fine, take 1 Tim. 3:16 - “God was manifested in the flesh, justified in the spirit, seen by angels, preached among gentiles, believed on in the world, received up in glory.” It’s not just focused on flesh as a polemic against Docetism, but also GOD in the flesh, so any doctrine or teaching such as Runningman’s that denies Jesus’s deity is obviously false, that sufficiently separates the true from the false, at least among the five you listed.

 

[LeviR]

I just know the scripture refers to angels as sons of God.

When we are resurrected from the dead and receive sinless bodies that are eternal, and don't die anymore we will be like the angels, as sons of God.

Jesus answered and said to them, “The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage. But those who are counted worthy to attain that age, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; nor can they die anymore, for they are equal to the angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection. Luke 20:34-36

Normally, those who consider the sons of God in Genesis 6 to be angels in heaven who took on human nature and had sex with women, would also consider the sons of God in Job to be angels in heaven also.
But I don’t believe either to be the case.
I would say they both refer to men.
Job was a man who served God, as those of Gen. 6

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

But, as I pointed out, this is fallaciously begging the question. Who Jesus is matters; it is of central importance. Jesus certainly made it "us vs them" (Matt 10:34) and taught that there were tares among the wheat, chaff among the wheat, goats among the sheep, etc. Paul and other NT writers teach that there are those who "have crept in unaware," are wolves among sheep, are "false brothers," who preach false gospels, false Jesus's, etc.

Then you’re begging the question - who were “us”? Who were “them”? What was the context of Matt. 10:34? Show me where’s such a conflict of “Trinitarian vs non-Trinitarian” in the Bible? A “brother” is one who does the will of God (Matt. 12:50), where’s Trinitarianism in that qualification?

This also fallaciously begs the question and ignores the realities I have outlined above. It also has nothing to do with this discussion.

It has everything to do with the discussion, because you’re doing what those Nicolaitans did, setting an unnecessary barrier of “Trinitarianism” on the narrow path of righteousness, blocking people out rather than drawing people in, and using “which Jesus” to justify is, as though Trinitarianism is the key of heaven which Jesus have to Peter.

This is very much about who Jesus is. "Who do you say that I am?"

you tell me, if you’ve had a personal encounter with him, don’t quote any bible. I’d love to hear your testimony.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

God’s holy angels in heaven are not called sons of God.

Yes they are, I'm with JLB on this one. Yes, angels are spirits, so is God spirit.