Trinitarian? Sure, sort of

steveb1 said:

Exactly - the Trinity developed over time, and tragically, outside of the original Jewish christology that it derived from. The original christology was about "Jesus", an angelic being, God's agent of creation, who bore God's image and name, and who in Paul's term, underwent a "kenosis" or self-emptying in which he suffered, died, was buried and rose again. This happened in the lower heavens, the sphere of Paul's Powers and Principalities, not on earth.

The Gospels took the celestial Jesus and invented an earthly life for him. A figure who had previously been a heavenly spirit, revealing himself in visions and revelations, became via the Gospels, a flesh and blood man who lived on earth.

As you can tell, I am a fan of Christ Myth theory, which posits a possible angelic Jesus but denies a historical Jesus.

Click to expand...

Angelic Jesus?
The bible did not mention of the angelic origins of Jesus Christ.
The angelic Jesus had its origins in the minds of men.
The same minds which invented Superman, Iron Man, Winnie the Pooh and Sponge Bob Squarepants

So is Jesus an angel? Let us check the Bible for answers.

Hebrews 1:4-6 New International Version (NIV)
So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs.

For to which of the angels did God ever say,

“You are my Son;
today I have become your Father”?

Or again,

“I will be his Father,
and he will be my Son”?

And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says,

“Let all God’s angels worship him.”


These questions begs a Negative answer.

Hebrews 2:16-18 New International Version (NIV)
For surely it is not angels he helps, but Abraham’s descendants. For this reason he had to be made like them, fully human in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people. Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.

The Bible says he is fully human.

Desert Snake said:

Because the Lord manifests,
John 1:10

John 1:1
John 1:10
•
Matthew 1:20

If you are reading your Bible, the Lord manifests as Jesus, He's God.

Type of Triune, I don't believe the Spirit to be a separate person, nor a person, nor the aspects of God, to be distinct as described by some theologians.

Click to expand...

I don't believe,too.
Nether Trinity nor Triune are not original, but fabricating afterward.

Desert Snake said:

Because the Lord manifests,
John 1:10

John 1:1
John 1:10
•
Matthew 1:20

If you are reading your Bible, the Lord manifests as Jesus, He's God.

Type of Triune, I don't believe the Spirit to be a separate person, nor a person, nor the aspects of God, to be distinct as described by some theologians.

Click to expand...

You're not a Trinitarian. Sabellian would be a more accurate descriptor of your beliefs.

MikeDwight said:

Hananim is Greek.
22 Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: “People of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. 23 For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: to an unknown god. So you are ignorant of the very thing you worship—and this is what I am going to proclaim to you. Acts 17:22

Click to expand...

Surely some pre-Catholic Monk in the 400 ads and earlier swung by and used the Germanics Gott instead of Roman Deus, thus the Germanic language family, Gott and God. This is of course true for all The Orthodox languages.

Desert Snake said:

Because the Lord manifests,
John 1:10

John 1:1
John 1:10
•
Matthew 1:20

If you are reading your Bible, the Lord manifests as Jesus, He's God.

Type of Triune, I don't believe the Spirit to be a separate person, nor a person, nor the aspects of God, to be distinct as described by some theologians.

Click to expand...

There are a number of reasons why Jesus isn't God. For example ─


None of that would stop anyone who wanted to believe the Trinity doctrine from believing the Trinity doctrine; however, it would prevent any claim that the NT supports the Trinity doctrine.

MikeDwight said:

Surely some pre-Catholic Monk in the 400 ads and earlier swung by and used the Germanics Gott instead of Roman Deus, thus the Germanic language family, Gott and God. This is of course true for all The Orthodox languages.

Click to expand...

The Arian Ulfilas probably did in his Gothic Bible--or whatever the Gothic cognate for "Gott" was.

blü 2 said:

There are a number of reasons why Jesus isn't God. For example ─

Paul says Jesus isn't God.

The Jesuses of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John each expressly state they're not God.

If Jesus was God, Mark's and Matthew's Jesuses each said 'Me, me, why have I forsaken me?'

If Jesus was God, then being the son of God he was his own father, the Ghost was his father, and the Father was his father, so that the Father has no better entitlement to be called the Father than Jesus and the Ghost have.

The desire to make Jesus a god arose in church politics quite early, but there was no Trinity doctrine as we know it till the 4th century, so the claim that Jesus was God is an anachronism.

The Church states that the Trinity doctrine is 'a mystery in the strict sense' meaning 'it cannot be known by unaided human reason apart from revelation and cannot be cogently demonstrated by reason after it has been revealed', which can only mean it's an incoherent nonsense (which in fact it is).​

None of that would stop anyone who wanted to believe the Trinity doctrine from believing the Trinity doctrine; however, it would prevent any claim that the NT supports the Trinity doctrine.

Click to expand...

Asiatic and Nestorian
[g-d||human] two natures in one Being, Jesus is God, there.
•
Another,
All god, incarnated, in man form
Jesus is God, there

•
Every real christian perspective has Jesus as God, you are merely misunderstanding the 'trinity' idea that you say you were studying, presumably, in your former religion.

[The idea that Jesus isn't God, scripturally, just doesn't work.

That is why the authors specified which aspect, they were talking about.

Because the Lord manifests,
John 1:10

John 1:1
John 1:10
•
Matthew 1:20

If you are reading your Bible, the Lord manifests as Jesus, He's God.

Type of Triune, I don't believe the Spirit to be a separate person, nor a person, nor the aspects of God, to be distinct as described by some theologians.

This is the premise

Desert Snake said:

Asiatic and Nestorian
[g-d||human] two natures in one Being, Jesus is God, there.
•
Another,
All god, incarnated, in man form
Jesus is God, there

Click to expand...

Since the five major versions of Jesus in the NT each expressly deny they're god, but (you say) Jesus is God anyway, then every one of the five is a methodical liar and deceiver and his entire ministry was based on falsehood.

Really?

Desert Snake said:

Every real christian perspective has Jesus as God

Click to expand...

Everyone's free to believe what they wish, though it would be a manifest error of fact to claim the NT says that.

Desert Snake said:

you are merely misunderstanding the 'trinity' idea

Click to expand...

The Trinity doctrine says that the one god exists as three persons and one substance. Of the persons, the Father is not Jesus or the Ghost, and Jesus is not the Ghost. Each of the persons is God ─ if you talk to Jesus, you talk to the entirety of God, if you talk to the Father or the Ghost, in each case you talk to the entirety of God. God is not the sum of Father, Jesus and Ghost ie is not composed of fractions, is not a partnership of three partners, is not a corporation with a board of three. But 100%+100%+100%=300%= 3 gods. The doctrine expressly denies this. A 'mystery in the strict sense' is theologically not the same thing as 'a mystery'. As I mentioned above, if it's a 'mystery in the strict sense' then it can't be known by unaided human reason apart from revelation, and can't be cogently demonstrated by reason after it's been revealed. So the 'mystery in the strict sense' is the incoherent assertion that 1+1+1=1, and as I said previously, there's no difference between 'a mystery in the strict sense' and 'a nonsense'.

(In terms of our modern understanding of reality, the Aristotelian 'substance' notion here is incoherent too. And I also came across the claim, not stated expressly in the doctrine, that though God is three persons, the three all without exception perfectly agree on everything ─ which would mean they're indistinguishable, meaning they're interchangeable, meaning any distinction is irrelevant.)

Which part of that do you disagree with, exactly?

blü 2 said:

Since the five major versions of Jesus in the NT each expressly deny they're god, but (you say) Jesus is God anyway, then every one of the five is a methodical liar and deceiver and his entire ministry was based on falsehood.

Really?
Everyone's free to believe what they wish, though it would be a manifest error of fact to claim the NT says that.
The Trinity doctrine says that the one god exists as three persons and one substance. Of the persons, the Father is not Jesus or the Ghost, and Jesus is not the Ghost. Each of the persons is God ─ if you talk to Jesus, you talk to the entirety of God, if you talk to the Father or the Ghost, in each case you talk to the entirety of God. God is not the sum of Father, Jesus and Ghost ie is not composed of fractions, is not a partnership of three partners, is not a corporation with a board of three. But 100%+100%+100%=300%= 3 gods. The doctrine expressly denies this. A 'mystery in the strict sense' is theologically not the same thing as 'a mystery'. As I mentioned above, if it's a 'mystery in the strict sense' then it can't be known by unaided human reason apart from revelation, and can't be cogently demonstrated by reason after it's been revealed. So the 'mystery in the strict sense' is the incoherent assertion that 1+1+1=1, and as I said previously, there's no difference between 'a mystery in the strict sense' and 'a nonsense'.

(In terms of our modern understanding of reality, the Aristotelian 'substance' notion here is incoherent too. And I also came across the claim, not stated expressly in the doctrine, that though God is three persons, the three all without exception perfectly agree on everything ─ which would mean they're indistinguishable, meaning they're interchangeable, meaning any distinction is irrelevant.)

Which part of that do you disagree with, exactly?

Click to expand...

John 10:30
I and the Father are one

You're pretty confident in some stance, like the Trinity is disprovable. The strongest thing I've ever stated is that the Bible allows for interpretations of the living Faithful and that Greeks were dispositioned.

MikeDwight said:

John 10:30
I and the Father are one

Click to expand...

You should have read on. John's Jesus makes the meaning of 'being one' explicit in John 17:20-23, where Jesus hopes to make all who believe in him one with God in precisely this sense.

MikeDwight said:

You're pretty confident in some stance, like the Trinity is disprovable. The strongest thing I've ever stated is that the Bible allows for interpretations of the living Faithful and that Greeks were dispositioned.

Click to expand...

First, people are free to believe anything they like, and that includes the Trinity doctrine. My argument is simply that the NT offers no support for the idea that Jesus is God, or a god, and a great deal of express support for the idea that he isn't.

Perhaps a better word than 'disprovable' for the Trinity doctrine is 'incoherent'. So I say that not only is it incoherent, a nonsense, but that in calling it 'a mystery in the strict sense' the churches acknowledge that this is the case.

As I mentioned, according to Christian theology 'a mystery in the strict sense' can't be known by unaided human reason apart from revelation, nor cogently demonstrated by reason after it's been revealed. An accurate synonym for anything having those qualities is 'a nonsense'.

steveb1 said:

It's a realistic argument, as the topic is the Trinity as opposed to what the NT actually says about Jesus. It doesn't matter if the Gospel Jesus is a myth - it is the Gospel Jesus that we are talking about relative to Trinitarianism. We are not talking about Gnostic or Pagan texts, but only the Gospel. We are forced, therefore, to take seriously what the Gospels say about Jesus, whether or not we think he was historical or mythical. The subject is narrowed by the parameters of the Gospels' depiction of Jesus.

Click to expand...

Actually, no, we're talking about the premise I presented, Gospel or not, and verses may or may not be presented in context. In other words, you are not actually presenting a belief as an argument, you have created a 'fake argument' in which to argue against.

steveb1 said:

Until you can refute those points, you're the one who doesn't understand scripture.

Click to expand...

I didn't say scripture, I said theology. And it's you who doesn't understand the scriptural problems with saying Jesus isn't g-d.

steveb1 said:

Charity is also a foundational principle of Christian belief, but James 1:27 says nothing about Jesus being "God", which is the subject of this thread.

Click to expand...

Then what is it saying?

You can't interpret that verse because the only "inherent" meaning, without being vague, actually according to your theories, meaningless, is if Jesus is g-d.

In fact, good example:
James 1:27
'G-d and the pater by him'

Why don't we note how this can be interpreted, according to certain theories.

• 'g-d can mean anything, or anyone'[theory

• 'Yeshua isn't g-d' [theory

[[So who's the 'g-d', in James 1:27?

Using both theories presented, Jesus isn't g-d, and 'g-d' without specification can mean anyone,

Then the verse can literally mean anything.

Desert Snake said:

Because the Lord manifests,
John 1:10

John 1:1
John 1:10
•
Matthew 1:20

If you are reading your Bible, the Lord manifests as Jesus, He's God.

Type of Triune, I don't believe the Spirit to be a separate person, nor a person, nor the aspects of God, to be distinct as described by some theologians.

Click to expand...

If you were speaking from firsthand experience what would you believe?

lostwanderingsoul said:

The main problem I have with the belief that God is a trinity is that it forever limits God to three persons. But God wants to adopt millions of sons and daughters into His family. These adopted children will inherit the same things that Jesus will inherit. They will become part of "God". God is NOT limited to three persons. God will one day consist of millions of adopted "persons". This amazing oportunity that humans have is hidden from people who believe God is forever a trinity. That is the kind of knowledge that Satan does not want people to know about so he has created false religious beliefs like the trinity. You and I and millions of others can one day join God in His family which will be much more than just three persons. IMO

Click to expand...

How come you believe all this malarkey?

steveb1 said:

The NT does not consider Jesus to be "God", so Trinitarianism is not supported by scripture.

Even in John's Gospel, Jesus explicitly excludes himself from the Godhead when he calls God "you, the only true God". John 1:1 does not call Jesus God - it says that the Logos/Word is God, but Jesus is not the Word. Jesus was not in the beginning with God because Jesus only came to be when he took on a human nature ("became flesh"), so it is illogical and unbiblical to call Jesus "God" without qualification. In John, Jesus has a God and prays to God, whereas God does not have a God and God cannot pray to himself. The NT Jesus is only the Son of God, and never "God the Son".

Moreover, if the NT thinks Jesus is God, it would be replete with prayer to Jesus as to God, but it isn't. Only God is addressed in NT prayer, "in Jesus's name" or "through Jesus your Son". NT prayer is never addressed to Jesus as to God, which means that the NT does not view Jesus as God.

Click to expand...

If you believe in a Godhead then you have to believe in a Godbody.

Where is God's body?

leov said:

Jesus sets example how a man becomes part of the Kingdom. because Jesus went to the Father, I can go to the Father If I follow Jesus's teaching.

Click to expand...

This is not true unless the Father of Jesus is your Father too.

You are born of God.
True or false?