Why Trinitarians And Non-Trinitarians Have Different Beliefs?

[Free]

Too many to list but, in the interest of conciseness, I believe we should try to keep our posts focused more on single points so we don't need to spend a lot of time reading through thousands or words and addressing dozens of different talking points in single comments.

There is simply no way to be concise. This is one of the most difficult and most important theological topics and it takes reading through many words--many verses with exposition--to come to a fuller understanding.

Just to address your opening statement, Paul clearly did not believe Jesus is God in all of his theology because Paul doesn't contradict himself. That's something I believe, but as you will see here are some points.

2 Corinthians 11
31The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, who is forever worthy of praise, knows that I am not lying.

Eph. 1
2Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Romans 1
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified Him as God nor gave thanks to Him, but they became futile in their thinking and darkened in their foolish hearts. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools, 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images of mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

But you have just made him contradict 1 Cor 8:6, Phil 2:6-7, and Col 1:16-17. The NT writers often refer to the Father as God and Jesus as Lord, but that clearly doesn't mean that the Father isn't also Lord and Jesus isn't also God. The write of both the Father as God and Lord and the Son as God and Lord, in addition to strongly implying that the Holy Spirit is also God.

We don't need to get into the weeds, but if you accept that Jesus was created then he can't be God. If we agree on that I have nothing more to add.

Please carefully note what I am saying. Jesus is both God and man. He eternally preexisted as the Son (the Word) and then took on human flesh in the person of Jesus; becoming a man but never ceasing to be God.

 

[WalterandDebbie]

There is simply no way to be concise. This is one of the most difficult and most important theological topics and it takes reading through many words--many verses with exposition--to come to a fuller understanding.


But you have just made him contradict 1 Cor 8:6, Phil 2:6-7, and Col 1:16-17. The NT writers often refer to the Father as God and Jesus as Lord, but that clearly doesn't mean that the Father isn't also Lord and Jesus isn't also God. The write of both the Father as God and Lord and the Son as God and Lord, in addition to strongly implying that the Holy Spirit is also God.


Please carefully note what I am saying. Jesus is both God and man. He eternally preexisted as the Son (the Word) and then took on human flesh in the person of Jesus; becoming a man but never ceasing to be God.

Good morning, https://christianforums.net/threads/we-must-realize-that-god-is-a-spirit.92713/

 

[Runningman]

Please carefully note what I am saying. Jesus is both God and man. He eternally preexisted as the Son (the Word) and then took on human flesh in the person of Jesus; becoming a man but never ceasing to be God.

1 John 1 calls the word (logos) an it and completely strips the word of the personification that John 1 applies to it. I think we both agree that God is not an it, so there must be a middle ground here. Perhaps the correct way to view this is with the perspective I have been trying to present this whole time; Jesus didn't pre-exist as a literal person, but as thoughts in the foreknowledge of God (the logos.)

1 John 1
1That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our own eyes, which we have gazed upon and touched with our own hands—this is the Word of life. 2And this is the life that was revealed; we have seen it and testified to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life that was with the Father and was revealed to us.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

God said, "Let there be light," but where does it say God was light?

The verse doesn't say that it was a divine light.

He appeared as in flames of fire but the bush wasn't consumed. But what point are you trying to make?

This is known as God's shekinah(dwelling) glory. It was there in the beginning, Moses had it on Mount Sinai, Jesus had it in His transfiguration. Jesus the Lamb IS this light, and all God's people will be bathed in it.

There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. This man came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all through him might believe. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world. (Jn. 1:6-9)

Then Jesus spoke to them again, saying, “I am the light of the world. He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life.” (Jn.8:12)

The city had no need of the sun or of the moon to shine in it, for the glory of God illuminated it. The Lamb is its light. And the nations of those who are saved shall walk in its light, and the kings of the earth bring their glory and honor into it. (Rev. 21:23-24)

I find your attitutde of denial and dismissal very troublesome. Jesus the Son is the incarnate of God the Father. If you deny Jesus as light, you deny God as well. It doesn't matter whether God is the light or not, what matters is that Jesus is the Light, and He's the ONLY way to God, which means, only can we know God through him. God is outside of the time-space continuum, Jesus is inside, he's the visible light of the world.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

The language of persons and personhood and personalities was never meant to be adequate but just a close approximation to help us understand.


Not really. Three persons is not at all the same as three Gods. Again, manifest is too often used by unitarians such as Modalists and Oneness.


Because the Bible does. Do we need any other reason?


The difference is literally whether God is ontologically one person or three persons. He cannot be both.


Trinitarianism affirms the diversity that is within the unity.


But unitarianism ignores the three eternally distinct persons, from which is necessarily follows that they are merely modes or different manifestations of one person. At best, unitarianism will result in Modalism. There are many other potential results, but, by definition, Trinitarianism isn't one of them.


Yes, the classic definition. But at heart is a unitarian view of God, which is also the Oneness view of God. They just have a modern form of Modalism which I call Concurrent or Coexistent Modalism. They believe Jesus is God who manifests himself simultaneously as Father, Son, and Spirit; that's the only difference with classical Modalism.


He can precisely because he is three eternally distinct persons.

The specific language of "three persons" is neither in the bible nor in the Nicene Creed. Even in the Johanine Comma (1 Jn. 5:6-7) it only says three WITNESSES in heaven and three WITNESSES on earth. This can be traced back to the Torah where Ahraham swore to "the Lord, the God of heaven and the God of the earth" (Gen. 24:3), and Moses also called heaven and earth to bear witness - "Give ear, O heavens, and I will speak; And hear, O earth, the words of my mouth.(Deut. 32:1)" Overall there's no fundamental difference between our theologies, three simultaneous manifestations are NOT modalism as much as three distintive persons are NOT tritheism. we just have our own preferred lingos and verses, so don't let this "personhood" issue become a wedge between us. I think we can both accept the definition of Trinity from that article - there is one God who manifests Himself as three distinct, simultaneous persons. If the three are "concorrent", then that's NOT modalism anymore.

 

[Hawkins]

Would ants understand a human fully? If you would save a hive of ants would you set a prerequisite demanding that ants must fully understand humans in order for them to be saved?

Understanding God's Trinity is not a prerequisite for our salvation, it's rather an ackknowledgment to those who can keep a closer distance to God for Him to reveal more about who He is.

That's my understanding.

 

[GodsGrace]

None of them said they are God.

Jesus could only forgive sins because that authority was given to him. That indicates he isn't God.

Matt 9
6But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins...” Then He said to the paralytic, “Get up, pick up your mat, and go home.” 7And the man got up and went home.
8When the crowds saw this, they were filled with awe and glorified God, who had given such authority to men.

1. Where does Matthew 9:6 say that Jesus was GIVEN authority?
It states that the Son of Man HAS AUTHORITY on earth to forgive sins.

2. If you're right and then Jesus gave the Apostles authority to forgive sins in John 20:23 - that means that catholic doctrine is correct and we should all be going to confession.

I am a Christian. What do I believe that Jesus doesn't believe or teach?

Again....that He is just another man.
In which case we are dead in our sins since Jesus, as God, died to save us.

It's the most important thing. Someone who does not follow Jesus is decidedly not a Christian. You seem to be trying to separate being a Christain from the lordship of Jesus as shepherd of the flock.

No. I'm doing no such thing.
If a person believes Jesus is God, then he will follow the shepherd.
If He's just another man, I don't know why I'd want to follow him.

Matt 16:24
Then Jesus told his disciples, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.

Matt 19:21
Jesus said to him, “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.”

1 Peter 2:21
For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps.

But why would you care to follow A MAN!?

I look forward to the chance to represent the truth.

Well, as Pontius Pilot said: WHAT IS THE TRUTH?

Do you believe in your heart that God raised Jesus from the dead or that Jesus raised Jesus from the dead?

God raised Jesus.
Jesus is God.
Jesus raised Himself
and the Holy Spirit raised Jesus.
The Trinity cannot be separated.
It's ONE GOD:


When it comes to the resurrection of our Lord, then, we have a pretty good idea what the answer must be:

• God the Father raised Jesus (Acts 2:24, 32; 3:15, 26; 4:10; 5:30; 10:40; 13:30, 33, 34, 37).
• God raised Him up again (Rom. 4:24; 6:4 [through the glory of the Father]); 10:9; 1 Cor. 6:14; Gal. 1:1; Col. 2:12).
• The Holy Spirit is somehow involved in the resurrection of Jesus:
  Romans 8:11 “But if the Spirit of Him who raised…”
  Romans 1:4 “who was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord,…”
• The Son Himself lays down His life and takes it up again — John 10:17-18

It seems as though the answer is that all of the Trinity is involved in the Resurrection.

source: https://bible.org/question/did-god-father-raise-god-son-or-did-jesus-raise-himself-dead

You could look this up in a few different sources.

Romans 10
9that if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.

See above.
Non-Trinitarians have a problem with a lot of scripture.
This is why it took many years to write the creed regarding the relationship between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

You must take ALL scripture into account, not just those that SEEM to agree with you.

I think John 1:1 is pretty clear. It says the Word is God without any mention of Jesus. However, the word "word" in Greek is actually a word called logos and it means a word, speech, divine utterance, analogy. It goes into a lot more detail in the context, but the idea being conveyed is that Jesus preexisted as God's thoughts and when God spoke Jesus was created.

I agree except for the last sentence.
Jesus existed as the Logos.
He was always with God and was God.
Jesus became created when He was born...
but He was ALWAYS in existence as the logos.

Just showing you that having a divine nature isn't useful to proves someone's deity.

Having a divine nature and being deity is the same.
Divine, used as an adjective:

adjective,di·vin·er, di·vin·est.

1. of or relating to a god, especially the Supreme Being.
2. addressed, appropriated, or devoted to God or a god; religious; sacred:divine worship.
   

There is not a verse that says this.

What?
I said that if God has a son, that Son MUST be God.
I think I posted Genesis 1, if not I'll post it now.
God created all beings to reproduce THEMSELVES...
A human has a human,
a tree has a tree,
God has GOD.

Genesis 1:21
....each producing offspring of the same kind.

See also Genesis 1:24

And therefore Jesus being a human, you believe the Father is a human being?

Oh for goodness sake!


page 1 of 2

 

[GodsGrace]

page 2 of 2

What Christians believe and what the Bible says aren't always in harmony.

But it should be. A Christian believes what the NT teaches.
It teaches that Jesus is God.
It teaches the Trinity.

The one and only true God is the Father (John 17:3) and God sent Jesus and in your belief Jesus was sent from have as a pre-incarnate being known as the Son. Therefore, if the one who sent the Son is greater than the Son then they are not equals and thus the Son is not God.

They are certainly equal.

View attachment 15678



Each PERSON of the Trinity has the same authority and power since they are all of the same mind.
The following lists some of the passages where all 3 of the Trinity are mentioned.


In preparing the disciples for their future ministry, Jesus, God the Son, tells them He will pray to God the Father to send the Helper, or Comforter. This is a clear distinction between all members of the Trinity.
source: https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/don_stewart_331.cfm

Bad translation.

Could you give us the correct translation?

The idea being conveyed is God's words produced a human.

No reply for this.
Sorry, it's just too silly.
Maybe you could read the verse again and think it over?

How did an immortal invisible God die for your sins? It creates too many problems to say God became sin and died. Fortunately the Bible doesn't actually say that.

What DOES it say?
WHO saves us?

I assume you're referring to a Trinitarian church. I visited one a few years ago and made some friends that I miss, but their "church" if you can call it that, was mostly about money and putting on an entertaining concert. One of them used a Bible for a footrest. They also had a false prophet. God worked through me there, but there is no way I would go back unless my friends called me to help with something.

Uugghh!

Unitarian churches don't have the problem Trinitarian churches have.

Were Unitarian churches around in the year 300AD?

I know we disagree about everything and for the record I won't ever change regarding what the Bible says, but I hope you won't continue being judgmental and telling us we aren't saved and aren't Christians. It's really disappointing to come here and then watch an intellectual discussion be made personal especially when I am the target.

I won't reply to the rest. There's just too much.
I'd like you to understand very well Runningman, I NEVER said you're not saved.
I said that in order to be called a Christian a person MUST believe specific doctrine.
You don't have to agree with it, I know many don't accept the Trinity.
And I don't expect you to change. We're just discussing theology...that's why we're here.
JWs don't believe in the Trinity. They don't believe Jesus is God.
Would you consider them to be Christian?

My stating this is NOT being judgmental.
If you want to call yourself a member of some group...
You MUST adhere to the beliefs of that group.

These beliefs, for Christians, were decided hundreds of years ago by those that were persecuted and died for their beliefs.

 

[Free]

1 John 1 calls the word (logos) an it and completely strips the word of the personification that John 1 applies to it. I think we both agree that God is not an it, so there must be a middle ground here. Perhaps the correct way to view this is with the perspective I have been trying to present this whole time; Jesus didn't pre-exist as a literal person, but as thoughts in the foreknowledge of God (the logos.)

1 John 1
1That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our own eyes, which we have gazed upon and touched with our own hands—this is the Word of life. 2And this is the life that was revealed; we have seen it and testified to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life that was with the Father and was revealed to us.

Be careful with arguments like this. First, Jesus referred to himself as "something," yet he isn't a thing:

Mat 12:5 Or have you not read in the Law how on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath and are guiltless?
Mat 12:6 I tell you, something greater than the temple is here.
...
Mat 12:41 The men of Nineveh will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and behold, something greater than Jonah is here.
Mat 12:42 The queen of the South will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, for she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon, and behold, something greater than Solomon is here. (ESV)

Second, it isn't really clear as to what "that" is referring to--is it the Word, certain aspects of the Word, or is it Jesus? Third, it isn't clear to what "from the beginning" is referring to--Gen 1:1, in which case it would be referring to absolute existence as in John 1:1-2; Jesus's birth; Jesus's ministry. Fourth, you highlighted the use of "which," but didn't highlight "we have heard . . . we have seen . . . we looked upon and have touched." That is personification.

So, I disagree that John's use of "that" "completely strips the word of the personification" that John applies to the Word in John 1. It's not entirely clear in 1 John 1:1 to what, exactly, he is referring to, although verse 2 speaks of Jesus. Besides, you have to explain why John would personify the Word in John 1:1 and then also strip the personification in 1 John 1. It doesn't add up, especially when he also writes the following:

Rev 19:11 Then I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse! The one sitting on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and makes war.
Rev 19:12 His eyes are like a flame of fire, and on his head are many diadems, and he has a name written that no one knows but himself.
Rev 19:13 He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God. (ESV)

 

[Free]

The specific language of "three persons" is neither in the bible nor in the Nicene Creed.

What we see in the Bible is that there is only one God, yet the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. But, the Father is not the Son nor the Holy Spirit, nor is the Son the Holy Spirit. In other words, they are all eternal and all eternally distinct. Hence, three persons.

Even in the Johanine Comma (1 Jn. 5:6-7) it only says three WITNESSES in heaven and three WITNESSES on earth. This can be traced back to the Torah where Ahraham swore to "the Lord, the God of heaven and the God of the earth" (Gen. 24:3), and Moses also called heaven and earth to bear witness - "Give ear, O heavens, and I will speak; And hear, O earth, the words of my mouth.(Deut. 32:1)"

I don't give much credence to the Johannine Comma.

Overall there's no fundamental difference between our theologies, three simultaneous manifestations are NOT modalism as much as three distintive persons are NOT tritheism. we just have our own preferred lingos and verses, so don't let this "personhood" issue become a wedge between us.

I think it's more than that. The fundamental difference, as I've pointed out, is that Trinitarianism has a trinitarian (three person) view of God. Modalism has a unitarian (one person) view of God. Whether one says, as in classical Modalism, that the three persons are successive or as modern Modalism does, that the three persons manifest simultaneously, is not relevant to the point that the core belief of both is that God is only one person. One person manifesting as three persons is Modalism.

I have my doubts as to the common definition of classical Modalism anyway, since the NT clearly shows all three persons at the very same time. A Modalist would really have to twist the text to not see all three manifesting at the same time. Of course, it could just be that classical Modalism actually taught that the Father existed first, then added the manifestation of the Son, then added the manifestation of the Holy Spirit, which would allow for succession as well as concurrent.

I think we can both accept the definition of Trinity from that article - there is one God who manifests Himself as three distinct, simultaneous persons.

I don't accept that definition since it is much too close to Modalism, or, if you prefer, to the Oneness/Jesus Only unitarian view of God.

If the three are "concorrent", then that's NOT modalism anymore.

If one person manifests in three different modes, I don't see how it matters whether they're successive or concurrent.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

What we see in the Bible is that there is only one God, yet the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. But, the Father is not the Son nor the Holy Spirit, nor is the Son the Holy Spirit. In other words, they are all eternal and all eternally distinct. Hence, three persons.

Or rather, three presences, as long as you believe that God is omnipresent. A "person" can only be in one place at one time, God's presence is everywhere, all the time.

I have my doubts as to the common definition of classical Modalism anyway, since the NT clearly shows all three persons at the very same time. A Modalist would really have to twist the text to not see all three manifesting at the same time. Of course, it could just be that classical Modalism actually taught that the Father existed first, then added the manifestation of the Son, then added the manifestation of the Holy Spirit, which would allow for succession as well as concurrent.

I've told you many times that "all three" (manifested) at the same time is NOT modalism, there's no "coexistent" or "concorrent" modalism, that's an oxymoron. I know you don't like the term "manifest", but the term is at least frequently used in 1 John to teach the fact that Jesus the Son is God the Father manifested to us for our salvation.

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, concerning the Word of life— the life was manifested, and we have seen, and bear witness, and declare to you that eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested to us. (1 Jn. 1:1-2)

Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness. And you know that He was manifested to take away our sins, and in Him there is no sin. (1 Jn. 3:4-5)

He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil. (1 Jn. 3:8)

He who does not love does not know God, for God is love. In this the love of God was manifested toward us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him. (1 Jn.4:8-9)

I don't accept that definition since it is much too close to Modalism, or, if you prefer, to the Oneness/Jesus Only unitarian view of God.

Then I can't accept your definition either, since it's much too close to cause tritheism. Any understanding of the trinity must be rooted in the Torah, the first five books of the bible. We focus on Jesus only because Jesus is the only way to God, no one can know God except through him.

If one person manifests in three different modes, I don't see how it matters whether they're successive or concurrent.

It does. It changes everything. Instead of God being a "shapeshifter", he seats on the throne in heaven while his spirit permeates and fills the whole earth. That's definitely not modalism.

 

[Free]

Or rather, three presences, as long as you believe that God is omnipresent. A "person" can only be in one place at one time, God's presence is everywhere, all the time.

Person has been used for at least 1500 years, so I think it's safe to continue using it. As I said, it's just an approximation and about as good as we can get in English. It's not meant to be taken so literal as to be compared to a human person. We don't want to be equivocating.

I've told you many times that "all three" (manifested) at the same time is NOT modalism, there's no "coexistent" or "concorrent" modalism, that's an oxymoron.

The Modalists of old still have to explain the appearance of all three at the same time in the NT. From what I can see, it is ultimately no different; a unitarian view of God is still a unitarian view of God. It's just semantics whether one believes they are successive manifestations or all three happen at once.

I know you don't like the term "manifest", but the term is at least frequently used in 1 John to teach the fact that Jesus the Son is God the Father manifested to us for our salvation.

And here is the issue. What you have just said sounds like God the Father took on flesh in the person of Jesus, but that isn't Trinitarianism. It was God the Son who took on human flesh, not the Father; but he did make the Father known to us (John 14:7-9).

Then I can't accept your definition either, since it's much too close to cause tritheism. Any understanding of the trinity must be rooted in the Torah, the first five books of the bible. We focus on Jesus only because Jesus is the only way to God, no one can know God except through him.

The Trinity has always been rooted in the clear monotheism of the Torah and so has always avoided the charge of tritheism. What I have given has been the understanding since the doctrine of the Trinity was formalized. A basic, concise definition is: "Within the one Being that is God, there exists eternally three coequal and coeternal persons, namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" (James R. White, The Forgotten Trinity, p. 26). That is what I have been saying the whole time.

It does. It changes everything. Instead of God being a "shapeshifter", he seats on the throne in heaven while his spirit permeates and fills the whole earth. That's definitely not modalism.

All I am saying is that if God is unitarian, then there is no difference whether he manifests concurrently or successively or both; it actually becomes irrelevant. God is not one eternal person, he is three eternal persons; there was never a time when the three persons did not coexist.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Person has been used for at least 1500 years, so I think it's safe to continue using it. As I said, it's just an approximation and about as good as we can get in English. It's not meant to be taken so literal as to be compared to a human person. We don't want to be equivocating.

Nevertheless, Jesus is a human person in a literal sense.

The Modalists of old still have to explain the appearance of all three at the same time in the NT. From what I can see, it is ultimately no different; a unitarian view of God is still a unitarian view of God. It's just semantics whether one believes they are successive manifestations or all three happen at once.

As much as it's just semantics whether one believes the trinity is three distinct persons or three manifestations of God.

And here is the issue. What you have just said sounds like God the Father took on flesh in the person of Jesus, but that isn't Trinitarianism. It was God the Son who took on human flesh, not the Father; but he did make the Father known to us (John 14:7-9).

I've never asserted or implied that the Father and the Son are the same. In Daniel 7 there were the Son and Man approaching the Ancient of Days, you've got two distinct figures, that's the Father and the Son. The difference is, no man can see the face of the Father and live (Exodus 33:20), all men must see the face of the Son to live (Num. 21:8-9, Jn. 3:14-15).

The Trinity has always been rooted in the clear monotheism of the Torah and so has always avoided the charge of tritheism. What I have given has been the understanding since the doctrine of the Trinity was formalized. A basic, concise definition is: "Within the one Being that is God, there exists eternally three coequal and coeternal persons, namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" (James R. White, The Forgotten Trinity, p. 26). That is what I have been saying the whole time.

All I am saying is that if God is unitarian, then there is no difference whether he manifests concurrently or successively or both; it actually becomes irrelevant. God is not one eternal person, he is three eternal persons; there was never a time when the three persons did not coexist.

Please be noted that I'm not denying the validity of the Trinity doctrine or the deity of the Spirit or anything like that, the simple fact of the matter is, we worship creator of the universe through Jesus, God's intermediary between him and man, between heaven and earth. Every biblical hero in the OT, from Adam to Noah, Abraham, Joseph, Moses, prophet Nathan and all the other prophets, they were all intermediaries - or representatives, mouthpieces - of God. Jesus is the final and perfect intermediary, the last Adam. "Jesus only" is not a "unitarian view", it's God's design and arrangement for us. You can't circumvent Him and invent another way - including the trinitarian doctrine, any such attempt is doomed to end up in idolatry.

You've probably heard this narrative, that "all religions worship the same God;" the problem in this argument is not "the same God", but "worship". The controversy is never monotheism or creationism, but the exclusivity of Jesus Christ. God never commands anybody to kill infidels or practice yoga or flog yourself, you worship God, you worship on His term in His way. Abel and Cain both worshiped the same God, Abel worshiped properly, Cain worshiped improperly in his own way, and then Abel's offering was honored, Cain's was rejected. The true worshipers worship the father in spirit and truth (Jn. 4:23), and the spirit and truth will point them to Jesus.

 

[WalterandDebbie]

Nevertheless, Jesus is a human person in a literal sense.

As much as it's just semantics whether one believes the trinity is three distinct persons or three manifestations of God.

I've never asserted or implied that the Father and the Son are the same. In Daniel 7 there were the Son and Man approaching the Ancient of Days, you've got two distinct figures, that's the Father and the Son. The difference is, no man can see the face of the Father and live (Exodus 33:20), all men must see the face of the Son to live (Num. 21:8-9, Jn. 3:14-15).


Please be noted that I'm not denying the validity of the Trinity doctrine or the deity of the Spirit or anything like that, the simple fact of the matter is, we worship creator of the universe through Jesus, God's intermediary between him and man, between heaven and earth. Every biblical hero in the OT, from Adam to Noah, Abraham, Joseph, Moses, prophet Nathan and all the other prophets, they were all intermediaries - or representatives, mouthpieces - of God. Jesus is the final and perfect intermediary, the last Adam. "Jesus only" is not a "unitarian view", it's God's design and arrangement for us. You can't circumvent Him and invent another way - including the trinitarian doctrine, any such attempt is doomed to end up in idolatry.

You've probably heard this narrative, that "all religions worship the same God;" the problem in this argument is not "the same God", but "worship". The controversy is never monotheism or creationism, but the exclusivity of Jesus Christ. God never commands anybody to kill infidels or practice yoga or flog yourself, you worship God, you worship on His term in His way. Abel and Cain both worshiped the same God, Abel worshiped properly, Cain worshiped improperly in his own way, and then Abel's offering was honored, Cain's was rejected. The true worshipers worship the father in spirit and truth (Jn. 4:23), and the spirit and truth will point them to Jesus.

Hello Carry_Your_Name, And how are you all? great post, We may add:

The subject of God is mysterious, confusing to almost all. Yet the single most important knowledge in the universe would be that of the true God. What could be more important than which god one worships? Millions, indeed billions, have asked WHO and WHAT is God? This all-important question has confounded man for millennia.
He has still not found the answer!

With the explosion of new and different brands of Christianity, confusion about God has not lessened in the modern age. And the so-called “great religions” of the world have only made it worse. Yet, correctly identifying the true God is the central issue towering over EVERYTHING in life. It is at the core of all that is truth. For those who believe that God authored the Bible—Christians!—the question comes into sharper focus.

Who and What is the God of the Bible?

Millions of professing Christians believe in, speak of and weekly sing about God as a “trinity”—“Father, Son and Holy Spirit.” Acceptance of this god has become perhaps the greatest litmus test of orthodox or traditional Christianity.

But is the Bible’s God a trinity—three persons in ONE BEING? Can this be proven? Or is God a Family—and can this be proven? If the “trinity god” is false—if it is not the God of the Bible—it must be rejected. In its place must come an understanding of the true God.

​

Which Is Better?​

Consider this question. Which would be better: having correct understanding of every single doctrine in the Bible, but having neither true knowledge of nor contact with the God who inspired it?—or, having absolutely no knowledge of a single Bible truth on any subject except the nature and identity of the true God, and contact with Him?
Let’s consider further.

The Bible is filled with hundreds of separate doctrinal truths: the gospel, salvation, baptism, identity and location of the true Church, the name of that Church, whether one should keep holy Saturday or Sunday, whether one should observe the annual festivals of Leviticus 23 or various humanly-devised holidays, financial laws, the purpose of marriage, principles of proper childrearing, punishment in the afterlife, the nature of repentance and conversion, the unpardonable sin, dietary laws and health, healing, scores of prophetic truths, the law of God, the role of Christ, and many, many more.

I ask again: Would it be more important to understand all these Bible truths while at the same time lacking the knowledge of who is the true God—or to know nothing of them, but to have direct contact with the God who recorded them?

Think! If one knew and was worshipping the TRUE GOD, he would automatically be led into all the right knowledge offered by that God, revealed only to those who have a relationship with HIM. This would happen relatively quickly after entering into such contact.

The true God would not leave one in ignorance about exactly how He was to be worshipped—in other words, knowledge of all the many truths contained in His Word. The knowledge of the true Plan of God, the location of the true Church and Work of God—and every other divinely-revealed point of understanding—flows from being in direct contact with the right God. On the other hand, possessing all of the knowledge about every Bible doctrine would be utterly useless if one was worshipping the WRONG GOD! Mere knowledge of true doctrine would not necessarily, and certainly not automatically, lead a person to the God who authored it, and thus his religion would be in vain.

Love, Walter And Debbie

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

But is the Bible’s God a trinity—three persons in ONE BEING? Can this be proven? Or is God a Family—and can this be proven? If the “trinity god” is false—if it is not the God of the Bible—it must be rejected. In its place must come an understanding of the true God.

Have you noticed that in the rhetoric of the trinity doctrine, the definition of "person" is inconsistent? God himself is outside of the universe, he is beyond nature, therefore he's INcomprehensible; when he manifested himself in the wilderness, he appeared as a "great fire", his voice scared the Israelites to death, see Deut. 18:15-18:

“The Lord your God will raise up for you a Prophet like me from your midst, from your brethren. Him you shall hear, according to all you desired of the Lord your God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, ‘Let me not hear again the voice of the Lord my God, nor let me see this great fire anymore, lest I die.

Although man is made in God's own image, it is erroneous to make God in man's image, God is not a topless Santa Claus as he is depicted in Renaissance paintings, that's Zeus, not God. He's not a alien race with supreme intelligence and technology either, that's the modern equivalent of the ancient mythology. He is addressed and honored as the "Father" only through Jesus the Son. A traditional father figure being the teacher, the leader, the protector and the provider of a family, is the closest human model we have to God's character. Without Jesus the Son, God cannot be known in any other way, and Jesus is this promised Prophet to whom we can relate:

“And the Lord said to me: ‘What they have spoken is good. I will raise up for them a Prophet like you from among their brethren, and will put My words in His mouth, and He shall speak to them all that I command Him.

Jesus was a literal person of flesh and blood, he had all the physiological needs, senses, emotions and limitations of human, those are woven into the definition of "person", anyone who denies that is denying Jesus's humanity and promoting the heresy of docetism. But can this definition be applied to the other two "persons" in the trinity? Is God one individual human being of flesh and blood? Is the Spirit one individual human being of flesh and blood? Not really. The "personhood" of God and the "personhood" of the Spirit certainly differ from the personhood of Jesus, that's the main gripe I have with the specific rhetoric of "three co-equal persons".

 

[WalterandDebbie]

Have you noticed that in the rhetoric of the trinity doctrine, the definition of "person" is inconsistent? God himself is outside of the universe, he is beyond nature, therefore he's INcomprehensible; when he manifested himself in the wilderness, he appeared as a "great fire", his voice scared the Israelites to death, see Deut. 18:15-18:

“The Lord your God will raise up for you a Prophet like me from your midst, from your brethren. Him you shall hear, according to all you desired of the Lord your God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, ‘Let me not hear again the voice of the Lord my God, nor let me see this great fire anymore, lest I die.

Although man is made in God's own image, it is erroneous to make God in man's image, God is not a topless Santa Claus as he is depicted in Renaissance paintings, that's Zeus, not God. He's not a alien race with supreme intelligence and technology either, that's the modern equivalent of the ancient mythology. He is addressed and honored as the "Father" only through Jesus the Son. A traditional father figure being the teacher, the leader, the protector and the provider of a family, is the closest human model we have to God's character. Without Jesus the Son, God cannot be known in any other way, and Jesus is this promised Prophet to whom we can relate:

“And the Lord said to me: ‘What they have spoken is good. I will raise up for them a Prophet like you from among their brethren, and will put My words in His mouth, and He shall speak to them all that I command Him.

Jesus was a literal person of flesh and blood, he had all the physiological needs, senses, emotions and limitations of human, those are woven into the definition of "person", anyone who denies that is denying Jesus's humanity and promoting the heresy of docetism. But can this definition be applied to the other two "persons" in the trinity? Is God one individual human being of flesh and blood? Is the Spirit one individual human being of flesh and blood? Not really. The "personhood" of God and the "personhood" of the Spirit certainly differ from the personhood of Jesus, that's the main gripe I have with the specific rhetoric of "three co-equal persons".

Amen, Hi Carry_Your_Name

We now come to a central question: Who or what is the Holy Spirit? Many people answer this in the following way: “He is the third person of the Trinity.” However, close examination of Scripture reveals a totally different picture.

Satan counterfeits every aspect of true Christianity. The truth about who and what the Holy Spirit is would be no exception. It serves the devil’s purpose to deceive people into believing that the Holy Spirit is a person. He knows that if he can convince people to believe this, they will never learn their own awesome potential. Satan knows that human beings will ultimately be offered an opportunity that he will never receive.

​

Is the Holy Spirit a Person?​

We saw that the supposed three members—“persons”—within the trinity are actually one being. But is the Holy Spirit a separate person? As in previous chapters, earlier points will be repeated in a different context. To explain the full truth of the matter, we must examine many scriptures.

Simply put, a person is a person. Three persons cannot be more or less than three persons. Each is separate and unique. If the Holy Spirit is a person, it cannot be part of a triune godhead of one being. Some will say that it is not accurate to label God as a person, however, most trinitarians do. Of course, they then wander off into abstract, philosophical ideas. Again, many ignore II Corinthians 11:3: “But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.”

To understand the fallacy of the argument that the Holy Spirit is a person, we start by examining I Kings 3:16-27. In this well-known account, there was a dispute over who was the rightful mother of a baby. Solomon offered the following solution: Cut the baby in two and give each woman half. Obviously, a person cannot be cut in half and live. Likewise, individual human body parts do not regenerate, and will eventually corrupt, if they are cut off.

Here is the point. We have already explained how the trinity concept does not permit Christ to “extricate” Himself to come to Earth as Savior. Neither can the Holy Spirit be locked into the Father and Son in the same way. If it is a person, it is separate.

God expects Christians to “grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (II Pet. 3:18). If the Holy Spirit is a person, how would it be increased within the Christian who has it? For a person to increase the amount of God’s Spirit within him, he has to exercise it. How could this be done if the Spirit were a person? It is either present or it is not, with no way to be increased or decreased. Take a moment and read the parable of the pounds found in Luke 19:11-26. In this parable, Christ is instructing His listeners to increase the amount of the Holy Spirit within them.

(To learn more about how the Spirit of God grows in a person, read our vital article “Exercise God’s Spirit!”)
In Psalm 51:11, confessing his sin, King David implored God, “Take not Your Holy Spirit from me.” If the Holy Spirit were a distinct person, with a mind and consciousness of its own, would David have not said, “Holy Spirit, do not leave me”? Would the Holy Spirit not have the power to come and go as “He” pleases? Luke 11:13 makes plain that the Holy Spirit is given by God to those who ask for it. Therefore, the Holy Spirit is not a person that comes of its own volition, but rather is seen to be something that God gives.

In this regard, notice that in Acts 8:18-20, Peter did not rebuke Simon Magus for referring to the Holy Spirit as power, as opposed to a person, when this man sought this “power” for himself. He rebuked Simon because he thought he could “purchase” such a power with money.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Amen, Hi Carry_Your_Name

We now come to a central question: Who or what is the Holy Spirit? Many people answer this in the following way: “He is the third person of the Trinity.” However, close examination of Scripture reveals a totally different picture.

Satan counterfeits every aspect of true Christianity. The truth about who and what the Holy Spirit is would be no exception. It serves the devil’s purpose to deceive people into believing that the Holy Spirit is a person. He knows that if he can convince people to believe this, they will never learn their own awesome potential. Satan knows that human beings will ultimately be offered an opportunity that he will never receive.

​

Is the Holy Spirit a Person?​

We saw that the supposed three members—“persons”—within the trinity are actually one being. But is the Holy Spirit a separate person? As in previous chapters, earlier points will be repeated in a different context. To explain the full truth of the matter, we must examine many scriptures.

Simply put, a person is a person. Three persons cannot be more or less than three persons. Each is separate and unique. If the Holy Spirit is a person, it cannot be part of a triune godhead of one being. Some will say that it is not accurate to label God as a person, however, most trinitarians do. Of course, they then wander off into abstract, philosophical ideas. Again, many ignore II Corinthians 11:3: “But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.”

To understand the fallacy of the argument that the Holy Spirit is a person, we start by examining I Kings 3:16-27. In this well-known account, there was a dispute over who was the rightful mother of a baby. Solomon offered the following solution: Cut the baby in two and give each woman half. Obviously, a person cannot be cut in half and live. Likewise, individual human body parts do not regenerate, and will eventually corrupt, if they are cut off.

Here is the point. We have already explained how the trinity concept does not permit Christ to “extricate” Himself to come to Earth as Savior. Neither can the Holy Spirit be locked into the Father and Son in the same way. If it is a person, it is separate.

God expects Christians to “grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (II Pet. 3:18). If the Holy Spirit is a person, how would it be increased within the Christian who has it? For a person to increase the amount of God’s Spirit within him, he has to exercise it. How could this be done if the Spirit were a person? It is either present or it is not, with no way to be increased or decreased. Take a moment and read the parable of the pounds found in Luke 19:11-26. In this parable, Christ is instructing His listeners to increase the amount of the Holy Spirit within them.

(To learn more about how the Spirit of God grows in a person, read our vital article “Exercise God’s Spirit!”)
In Psalm 51:11, confessing his sin, King David implored God, “Take not Your Holy Spirit from me.” If the Holy Spirit were a distinct person, with a mind and consciousness of its own, would David have not said, “Holy Spirit, do not leave me”? Would the Holy Spirit not have the power to come and go as “He” pleases? Luke 11:13 makes plain that the Holy Spirit is given by God to those who ask for it. Therefore, the Holy Spirit is not a person that comes of its own volition, but rather is seen to be something that God gives.

In this regard, notice that in Acts 8:18-20, Peter did not rebuke Simon Magus for referring to the Holy Spirit as power, as opposed to a person, when this man sought this “power” for himself. He rebuked Simon because he thought he could “purchase” such a power with money.

Amen. I pointed out in an earlier post about antropomorphism and antropopathism, fancy compound Greek words, meaning our innate tendency to attribute human form and emotion to abstract non-human entities such as deities, natural phenomenons, animals or institutions, the "three distinct persons" rhetoric is the inevitable product of that, and there's nothing wrong about that, we have to ditch the black and white mentality that this or that is either sound biblical teaching or heresy from the devil. Antropomorphism and antropopathism are all over the OT, almost ubiquitous - He delivered the Israelites with an "outstretched arm"; May he make his "face" shine upon you; He gave Moses two stone tablets with the testimony written by the "finger" of God; God was "grieved" seeing the wickedness of man; He who sits one the throne "laughs". And with the titles "Lord" and "Father", it goes even further, He's not just a distant stranger, the "man upstairs" with human form and emotion. When you acknowledge somebody as your lord, you're his servent; when you acknowledge somebody as your father, you're his child. You now have a personal relationship with Him.

Some people think they are too smart for that, they think can bypass antropomorphism and antropopathism and figure out how God created the universe as the "primal force of the cosmos" or "the master of the sun, moon and stars", that's the typical apologetic thinking with the sole purpose to counter atheism and reconcile the Scripture with science. As a result, that adds more ammunition to our intellectual arsenal, but it doesn't help understand his sovereignty in our lives and bring people closer to him. I remember in a Torah commentary, that God wants us to enjoy, appreciate and steward his creation, how and when did he create the universe is not of our concern, if we choose to go down that rabbit hole, that'd be a distraction.

Likewise, there's nothing inherently wrong about describing the Holy Spirit as a "person". After all, the global church, in which the Holy Spirit dwells, is the temple of the Spirit and the Body of Christ. On the road to Damascus, Jesus didn't ask Paul why are you persecuting His church, his people or his followers, he asked why are you persecuting ME!

In Pauls' letters we're also called the members of the body. Terms such as "corporation" and "governing body" all stem from this view. And if you dive in deeper, what keeps members of a corporeal body alive? Blood. And what is in the blood? Oxygen, the active component in the air, carried by hemoglobins, circulating in every part of the body, and "air" is exactly what "spirit" in both Greek (pneuma) and Hebrew (ruach) literally means - specifically, breath! If air is cut off, or replaced by other poisonous gas such as carbon monoxide, the body is dead!

However, we must keep in mind that Paul was describing the personhood of the Spirit in a figurative sense, which differs from the literal sense of Christ's personhood, the definition is subtly changed. To truly understand the role of the Spirit, go back to the beginning, the first commandment God gave to mankind - "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it." That's exactly what the Spirit does - increase and multiply. Jesus Christ of Nazereth is one person limited in the first century Judea region; the Holy Spirit is in ALL personS all over the earth; and all persons of the church are the called out assembly; every Christian, by definition, is a "little Christ" comformed to his image, and together, all persons act as one collective person; and through the members of the Body of Christ, the works of God is manifested (Jn. 9:3).

 

[WalterandDebbie]

Amen. I pointed out in an earlier post about antropomorphism and antropopathism, fancy compound Greek words, meaning our innate tendency to attribute human form and emotion to abstract non-human entities such as deities, natural phenomenons, animals or institutions, the "three distinct persons" rhetoric is the inevitable product of that, and there's nothing wrong about that, we have to ditch the black and white mentality that this or that is either sound biblical teaching or heresy from the devil. Antropomorphism and antropopathism are all over the OT, almost ubiquitous - He delivered the Israelites with an "outstretched arm"; May he make his "face" shine upon you; He gave Moses two stone tablets with the testimony written by the "finger" of God; God was "grieved" seeing the wickedness of man; He who sits one the throne "laughs". And with the titles "Lord" and "Father", it goes even further, He's not just a distant stranger, the "man upstairs" with human form and emotion. When you acknowledge somebody as your lord, you're his servent; when you acknowledge somebody as your father, you're his child. You now have a personal relationship with Him.

Some people think they are too smart for that, they think can bypass antropomorphism and antropopathism and figure out how God created the universe as the "primal force of the cosmos" or "the master of the sun, moon and stars", that's the typical apologetic thinking with the sole purpose to counter atheism and reconcile the Scripture with science. As a result, that adds more ammunition to our intellectual arsenal, but it doesn't help understand his sovereignty in our lives and bring people closer to him. I remember in a Torah commentary, that God wants us to enjoy, appreciate and steward his creation, how and when did he create the universe is not of our concern, if we choose to go down that rabbit hole, that'd be a distraction.

Likewise, there's nothing inherently wrong about describing the Holy Spirit as a "person". After all, the global church, in which the Holy Spirit dwells, is the temple of the Spirit and the Body of Christ. On the road to Damascus, Jesus didn't ask Paul why are you persecuting His church, his people or his followers, he asked why are you persecuting ME!

In Pauls' letters we're also called the members of the body. Terms such as "corporation" and "governing body" all stem from this view. And if you dive in deeper, what keeps members of a corporeal body alive? Blood. And what is in the blood? Oxygen, the active component in the air, carried by hemoglobins, circulating in every part of the body, and "air" is exactly what "spirit" in both Greek (pneuma) and Hebrew (ruach) literally means - specifically, breath! If air is cut off, or replaced by other poisonous gas such as carbon monoxide, the body is dead!

However, we must keep in mind that Paul was describing the personhood of the Spirit in a figurative sense, which differs from the literal sense of Christ's personhood, the definition is subtly changed. To truly understand the role of the Spirit, go back to the beginning, the first commandment God gave to mankind - "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it." That's exactly what the Spirit does - increase and multiply. Jesus Christ of Nazereth is one person limited in the first century Judea region; the Holy Spirit is in ALL personS all over the earth; and all persons of the church are the called out assembly; every Christian, by definition, is a "little Christ" comformed to his image, and together, all persons act as one collective person; and through the members of the Body of Christ, the works of God is manifested (Jn. 9:3).

Amen

Love, Walter And Debbie

 

[Randy]

There was no "Jesus" before the conception of Jesus.

While He didn't have the name Jesus the one who came down from heaven from the Fathers presence and testified to what He saw and heard and afterward ascended to where He was before is the very same person.
Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever.

While I have no proof or word from above on this I believe John referred to Jesus as the Word in John and the Word of Life in 1John to give clarity on the one He was testifying about .

Would it make any sense to state in the beginning was God and God was with God and God was God. God was with God in the beginning. And through God all things were made. So John referred to Jesus as the Word to make the distinction on who He was testifying about. My point is the very same person or the Son who was, His spirit, was put in that body conceived in Mary's womb by the Spirit of God. The Spirit of the most High,

"Father into your hands I commit My spirit"

For your consideration.

 

[Hopeful 2]

While He didn't have the name Jesus the one who came down from heaven from the Fathers presence and testified to what He saw and heard and afterward ascended to where He was before is the very same person.
Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever.

Jesus was the Word, before He took on flesh.
Just the taking on of the flesh makes your last line a mistake.
He isn't the same as when He was the Word.

While I have no proof or word from above on this I believe John referred to Jesus as the Word in John and the Word of Life in 1John to give clarity on the one He was testifying about .

Then you do have the proof you need.

Would it make any sense to state in the beginning was God and God was with God and God was God. God was with God in the beginning.

It wouldn't make sense, as they are referred to as "US" in Gen 1:26.
Two beings, God and the Word.

And through God all things were made. So John referred to Jesus as the Word to make the distinction on who He was testifying about. My point is the very same person or the Son who was, His spirit, was put in that body conceived in Mary's womb by the Spirit of God. The Spirit of the most High,

"Father into your hands I commit My spirit"

For your consideration.

The Word became Jesus, after He took on the flesh.