Starlight
Spiritual but not religious, new age and omnist
Some hindues believe the different gods in hinduism in reality just one God who has manifestet himself as different gods
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
the trinity, what do you believe?
- Thread starter Starlight
- Start date
To me those two choices can not define God as God is unknowable.
It can be explained using the sun and the mirror in a Metephor.
God as the Sun, the rays from the Sun as the Holy Spirit and the Mirror as the Messenger/Prophet.
But none of this is visible, it is a spiritual connection, God is not Flesh, the Holy Spirit is not Flesh. The Mirror that reflects that spiritual light to humanity is flesh only for a brief moment in time.
Much can be offered, as there has never been as much Sun shining, as there is now.
Regards Tony
Last edited:
Brian2
Veteran Member
At the end of Matthew's gospel *Matt 28:18) Jesus said that He had been given all authority in heaven and on earth. He ruled then as He does now.
As the Son of His Father, Jesus has the same nature as His Father.
Why does "nature" generate dissonance with other verses?
When Jesus was on earth, even though equal in nature to God as the Son, He was no more than a man, lower than the angels. When He ascended He went back to what He was before as God and even to a position of more authority in that He was given all authority in heaven and on earth. He ascended to fill all things, the whole universe and more. (Eph 4:10) He became more than a mere man. He was equal to God in nature on earth however and all the angels were told to worship Him (Heb 1:6)
Jesus is already the Davidic King on the throne of David and has been anointed for that position when He ascended and was given the Kingdom that will never end. (Daniel 7:13,14)
Jesus as the Word was in the form of God and we see that in Phil 2 and in that form He was equal to God. When He became a man He kept that form (and that is what the present participle "being" in the form of God, tells us.) Whether we call it nature or form it is the same. As a man He was in the "likeness" of and "appearance" of a human, outwardly. Inwardly His form was the same as God and that is shown in His words and acts. It is not that the words and acts are the form, but who He was (and still is) was shown in His words and acts. He was the human Son, the servant who was anointed to speak God's words and do miracles and die for our sins and He was God because nobody is good but God alone and Jesus was perfectly good.
Micah 5:2 But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come forth for Me One to be ruler over Israel— One whose origins are of old, from the days of eternity.
This passage is translated a number of ways.
Micah 5:2 But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come forth for Me One to be ruler over Israel--One whose origins are of old, from the days of eternity.
Because it has an emphasis on when His origin was, with a repetition, "origins are of old" "from the days of eternity", imo the latter phrase should be "days of eternity" and not just something like "from ancient days".
This means that He was there always with the Father.
It agrees with John 1:3 and other passages that tell us He was not created.
Notice that Jesus did not say to Mary "I ascend to our God" He said "I have to my God and to your God". An interesting distinction in how it was put and whether it means anything is no doubt in the eye of the beholder.
Jesus is both God and man, the perfect man with the nature of a servant and the Son of God, with the nature of God also. We are baptised into Christ and can become equal to Jesus humanity but never equal to Jesus Godhood, His uncreated being.
The Father is the source of life and being of His Son but that is in eternity and the Son has always been there with and in the Father, the uncreated Son.
By association with Christ, in that we are baptised into Christ and receive our life from Christ, the Father recognises us as being in Christ and we are imputed with His righteousness.
Christ is our head (source) and the Father is the head (source) of Christ.
Gal 3:20 I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I that live, but Christ liveth in me: and that life which I now live in the flesh I live in faith, the faith which is in the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself up for me.
Last edited:
None of the above.
^ This.
(Although, to be honest, I'm a big GSM fan (Grenache, Syrah, and Mourvedre), but that's probably best discussed in a different forum.)
Brian2
Veteran Member
I don't know what you mean since John's gospel was in Greek and there is a word for "divine" in Greek but "theos" was used.
The very early church in the late 1st century, early 2nd also called Jesus God.
You will have to be more specific about where my predisposition violates bible inerrancy.
The Father is the only true God and in Him is the Son and His Holy Spirit.
The Son is the same nature as His Father and in Him is the Father and the Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit is from eternity and is the Spirit of the Father and Son and is called God in the Bible, He is not the Son as He is called another paraclete. He is not the Father as He is the Spirit of the Father who know the mind of God.
1Cor 2:11 For who among men knows the thoughts of man except his own spirit within him? So too, no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.
The Father is in Him and the Son is in Him and the Father and Son come to dwell in and with a believer who loves Jesus and obeys His teachings, when the Spirit is given.
John 14:15 “If you love me, keep my commands. 16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you. 18 I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. 19 Before long, the world will not see me anymore, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live. 20 On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you. 21 Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me. The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love them and show myself to them.”
22 Then Judas (not Judas Iscariot) said, “But, Lord, why do you intend to show yourself to us and not to the world?”
23 Jesus replied, “Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them.
I realise that God is far above anything I can imagine but we are given the Bible to help us in our understanding and we are given the Spirit also so that God can be revealed to us.
LactoseIntolerant
Member
Matt 28:18 - Authority was given to the Him ( Ἐδόθη μοι)
My interpretation - not coequal in godhead status as Father is required to give Authority to the Son. The son does not have intrinsic authority.
Your interpretation - coequal in nature thus authority is moot)
Dissonance -
Jesus is granted Full Authority by Father - Jesus has no intrinsic Authority of the Divine Sort.
Matt 28:18 - "... given to Me.."
Jesus is begotten by the Father - Jesus has no intrinsic Immortality.
1 Timothy 6:16 - Father alone is Immortal.
John 8:12 - Jesus is the light.
Genesis 1:3 "...let there be light."
Jesus is granted power by the Father, Jesus is not intrinsically Omnipotent. Matthew 26:39 “My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; yet not as I will, but as You will.”
Matthew 27:46 "... why have you forsaken me.."
Jesus is taught by the Father, Jesus is not intrinsically Omniscient.
Matthew 24:36 “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, but My Father only.
Entity A is God and says "no other gods". You add Entity B (and C) and say that "no other gods" requirement is not violated because A is not complete and requires B (and C) to form godhead. Entity A is intrinsically Immortal, Omniscient, Ominpotent and whose Authority is Necessary and Absolute. Entity B is not so in all 4 categories. Are you taking away the Glory of A because you say He is incomplete? I fully admit you give Glory to B which is part of your godhead, but it not your glory to give?
Eph 4:10 Jesus is/was the Word, Only-Begotten by God at/before the beginning. He was Spirit in Heaven (I speculate) but was made flesh - descent. He was killed and humiliated but ascended to Heaven. The "Prodigal" (tainted flesh with earthly humiliation) Son returns to the Father and Christ reassumes His Place by the Right Hand Side of the Father Heb 1:6. John 8:28, it is with the Will of the Father all this is achieved. Jesus does no need to be part of the godhead to receive the Glory of the Father.
Daniel 7:13,14 The vision of the Davidic throne is realized in the future of Daniel. Revelation 19:15-16 describes the Second Coming with an Iron Rod after the fall of babylon Rev 18. The Davidic Throne is not fully manifested at the cross. Jesus will let himself be known, what is up is up, what is down is down, what is all around is what he will decree - no more things that sway the hearts of man.
Consubstantial ὁμοιούσιος was used in the nicene council meaning same substance. Substance οὐσία is the bible Strong's 3776. Why was οὐσία not used but form μορφή was? If there is a painting of me, the painting is form representative of me, but we are not of the same substance (unless my name is Dorian)
Micah 5:2 - trinitarian interpretation of "going forth" as eternal begottening of the Son and Holy Spirit (I am just quoting not trying to even understand)
But consider a trinitarian comment from Micah 5:2 Hebrew Text Analysis
"Granted that Micah's contemporaries understood the prophecy to state merely that a Saviour should arise from the lineage of David who traced his descent from hoar antiquity, and might be said to have lived in the days of old, this fact (if it be a fact) does not preclude us ..."
It was formerly understood as a prophetic declaration of the Messiah, not an indication of godhead. The trinitarian bias comes "with our more perfect knowledge, from seeing a deeper meaning in the inspired utterance," (quote from above). This perfect distills the contention - where did one perfect the knowledge? The trinitarian structure must be constantly braced with all the questions which it inspires. The scaffolding is greek philosophy.
John 1:3 elaborates the role of the Word with respect to Creation. Jesus as the Means of Creation, Jesus as the Word Incarnate and Jesus as Heir to Absolute Authority does no require Jesus to be part of a godhead. If your bank has all the money you can imagine, there is no need to worry about financing.
I never noticed such distinctions. But upon thinking about it, I am reminded of how I once explained God. God is like infinity. If I measure myself to have 100 units, God has an infinite units. Infinity divided by 100 is infinity. God is infinitely greater than me. If person F is 1000 units. Infinity divided by 1000 is infinity. God is infinitely greater than F, though F is 10 time greater than me. Let's say Jesus, being unimaginably greater than me. When compared to God, God is still an infinite times greater. Hence, "and to my God, and your God."
If Jesus was part of the godhead shouldn't infinity divided by infinity produce a definite number > 1. As F is greater than me, he is not the god of mine because of a factor of 10, so too with Jesus and God.
I see it as Jesus redeemed my lifetime ticket of the Deathride rollercoaster and bought me a mountaineering license to the Holy Mountain. At the top is the Love of My Life and a massive Feast. The idea is to keep climbing.
Faith gives me the strength and wisdom to find Grace in the Eyes of God. Jesus shows me the Way. He is the Father of Eternity.
LactoseIntolerant
Member
John 1:1 "... and the Word was God" would have sealed the deal for the doctrine of the trinity, but trinitarian scholars go with a more generic "...and the Word was Divine". It is true what you say there is a greek word for "divine" in the bible θεϊκός (in Acts, I believe).
However, I contend that it was not saying of θεός as "God", which seems agree to be what a majority of scholars are saying ("Divine"). As Apostle John was a jew and was not as educated as Paul (Act 4:13). It would be John's hebrew expression "elohim" which would be nuancing the Gospel. It would then transcribed to greek. The hebrew nuance of "elohim" was reflected in the translation - hence the "...and the Word was Divine". The paper I read was of a seminary student which I do not have, - no citation. Anyhow most of the arguments were about greek tenses, but consider
Psalm 82:6 man as gods (elohim)
Exo 20:3 false gods (elohim)
The very same word used to refer to God is used to refer to godlike people and false gods. In hebrew, I contend that you can not speak of the Divine (whether part of, a subcategory, a hyperbole, a negation ...) without "elohim" and that was expressed in John 1:1
As a purveyor of digested news, the sayings of early church fathers I leave to the scholars. My understanding of what they said is sparse ànd are accepted or rejected based on Scripture alone.
Inerrancy - Inorder to achieve mathematical closure, the number equations must equal the number of variables. You cannot have a single solution without closure.
The closure concept is that the bible does not explicitly state trinity. Hence the choices in interpretation of the verse meanings partial to trinity godhead is questionable. From where does the trinity bias stem? As per the quote from trinitarian scholar/pastor, the trinity concept "famously absent". Hence, support of the bias must be found out side the bible. This is a clear violation of the biblical rules concerning prophecy and teaching. The logical construct must be intrabiblical to be inerrant.
I think I agree with you in large part, but ...
Jesus being called God. Based on my own studies, all the suspect verses can be understood within the context of how they are related to other verses without the use of the godhead.
1Cor 2:11 - the spirit (or products of the spirit) must be tested against the Scriptures as it cannot contradict. A holy spirit within us can indeed resonate with the Holy Spirit.
I understand God as the bible dictates but what I imagine, I will ask my Master if I get the chance.
tigger2
Active Member
“John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.”
….…………………………
T2: It is far from surprising that trinitarian scholars would prefer the 'God' translation at John 1:1c and ignore any other honest alternate. However, notice this:
Trinitarian Greek expert, W. E. Vine, (although, for obvious reasons, he chooses not to accept it as the proper interpretation) admits that the literal translation of John 1:1c is: “a god was the Word”. - p. 490, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1983 printing.
Professor C. H. Dodd, director of the New English Bible project, also admits this is a proper literal translation:
“A possible translation [for John 1:1c] ... would be, ‘The Word was a god.’ As a word-for-word translation it cannot be faulted.” - Technical Papers for the Bible Translator, vol. 28, Jan. 1977.
The reason Prof. Dodd rejected “a god” as the actual meaning intended by John is simply because it upset his trinitarian interpretation of John’s Gospel!
Rev. J. W. Wenham wrote in his The Elements of New Testament Greek: “Therefore as far as grammar alone is concerned, such a sentence could be printed: θεὸς ἐστιν ὁ λόγος, which would mean either, ‘The Word is a god’, or, ‘The Word is the god’.” - p. 35, Cambridge University Press, 1965.
(Of course if you carefully, properly examine this study, you will find that the grammar really shows that ‘The Word is [or “was” in John 1:1c] a god’ is what John intended.)
Trinitarian NT scholar Prof. Murray J. Harris also admits that grammatically John 1:1c may be properly translated, ‘the Word was a god,’ but his trinitarian bias makes him claim that “John’s monotheism” will not allow such an interpretation. - p. 60, Jesus as God, Baker Book House, 1992. However, his acknowledgment of the use of “god” for men at John 10:34-36 and the use of “god/gods” for angels, judges, and other men in the Hebrew OT Scriptures contradicts his above excuse for not accepting the literal translation. - p. 202, Jesus as God.
And Dr. J. D. BeDuhn in his Truth in Translation states about John 1:1c:
“ ‘And the Word was a god.’ The preponderance of evidence from Greek grammar… supports this translation.” - p. 132, University Press of America, Inc., 2003.
Trinitarian Dr. Robert Young admits that a more literal translation of John 1:1c is “and a God (i.e. a Divine Being) was the Word” - p. 54, (‘New Covenant’ section), Young’s Concise Critical Bible Commentary, Baker Book House, 1977 printing.
And popular Bible scholar, author, and Bible translator, trinitarian Dr. William Barclay wrote: “You could translate [John 1:1c], so far as the Greek goes: ‘the Word was a God’; but it seems obvious that this is so much against the whole of the rest of the New Testament that it is wrong.” - p. 205, Ever yours, edited by C. L. Rawlins, Labarum Publ., 1985.
You see, in ancient times many of God’s servants had no qualms about using the word “god” or “gods” for godly men, kings, judges, and even angels.
New Testament Greek expert Joseph H. Thayer defines theos:
““θεός is used of whatever can in any respect be likened to God or resembles him in any way: Hebraistically, i.q. God’s representative or vicegerent, of magistrates and judges.” - p. 288, Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament.
To see the proof of John’s intended meaning of “a god” at John 1:1c, see my personal studies:
Examining the Trinity
or
Examining the Trinity: John 1:1c Primer - For Grammatical Rules That Supposedly "Prove" the Trinity
In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.”
….…………………………
T2: It is far from surprising that trinitarian scholars would prefer the 'God' translation at John 1:1c and ignore any other honest alternate. However, notice this:
Trinitarian Greek expert, W. E. Vine, (although, for obvious reasons, he chooses not to accept it as the proper interpretation) admits that the literal translation of John 1:1c is: “a god was the Word”. - p. 490, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1983 printing.
Professor C. H. Dodd, director of the New English Bible project, also admits this is a proper literal translation:
“A possible translation [for John 1:1c] ... would be, ‘The Word was a god.’ As a word-for-word translation it cannot be faulted.” - Technical Papers for the Bible Translator, vol. 28, Jan. 1977.
The reason Prof. Dodd rejected “a god” as the actual meaning intended by John is simply because it upset his trinitarian interpretation of John’s Gospel!
Rev. J. W. Wenham wrote in his The Elements of New Testament Greek: “Therefore as far as grammar alone is concerned, such a sentence could be printed: θεὸς ἐστιν ὁ λόγος, which would mean either, ‘The Word is a god’, or, ‘The Word is the god’.” - p. 35, Cambridge University Press, 1965.
(Of course if you carefully, properly examine this study, you will find that the grammar really shows that ‘The Word is [or “was” in John 1:1c] a god’ is what John intended.)
Trinitarian NT scholar Prof. Murray J. Harris also admits that grammatically John 1:1c may be properly translated, ‘the Word was a god,’ but his trinitarian bias makes him claim that “John’s monotheism” will not allow such an interpretation. - p. 60, Jesus as God, Baker Book House, 1992. However, his acknowledgment of the use of “god” for men at John 10:34-36 and the use of “god/gods” for angels, judges, and other men in the Hebrew OT Scriptures contradicts his above excuse for not accepting the literal translation. - p. 202, Jesus as God.
And Dr. J. D. BeDuhn in his Truth in Translation states about John 1:1c:
“ ‘And the Word was a god.’ The preponderance of evidence from Greek grammar… supports this translation.” - p. 132, University Press of America, Inc., 2003.
Trinitarian Dr. Robert Young admits that a more literal translation of John 1:1c is “and a God (i.e. a Divine Being) was the Word” - p. 54, (‘New Covenant’ section), Young’s Concise Critical Bible Commentary, Baker Book House, 1977 printing.
And popular Bible scholar, author, and Bible translator, trinitarian Dr. William Barclay wrote: “You could translate [John 1:1c], so far as the Greek goes: ‘the Word was a God’; but it seems obvious that this is so much against the whole of the rest of the New Testament that it is wrong.” - p. 205, Ever yours, edited by C. L. Rawlins, Labarum Publ., 1985.
You see, in ancient times many of God’s servants had no qualms about using the word “god” or “gods” for godly men, kings, judges, and even angels.
New Testament Greek expert Joseph H. Thayer defines theos:
““θεός is used of whatever can in any respect be likened to God or resembles him in any way: Hebraistically, i.q. God’s representative or vicegerent, of magistrates and judges.” - p. 288, Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament.
To see the proof of John’s intended meaning of “a god” at John 1:1c, see my personal studies:
Examining the Trinity
or
Examining the Trinity: John 1:1c Primer - For Grammatical Rules That Supposedly "Prove" the Trinity
Brian2
Veteran Member
Jesus took the nature of a servant and had no authority on earth except that given from His Father. Yet all that the Father has belongs to Jesus (John 16:15) and belonged to the Son even while He was a man on earth. The Son waited and was given that which belonged to Him as the Son.
While on earth Jesus was a man and lived as other men and gave up His God power for the purpose of living as a man. So Jesus relied on the Father for knowledge of things like the time of the end.
Jesus was fully committed to follow His obedience to the death but as a man did not want to die and asked for it to be taken away if possible.
Jesus suffered death for sin and that included the death of the body and the removal of God's presence from Him. This is what death entails and is what happened.
I'm not sure what you are saying about John 8:12 and Gen 1:3 unless you are saying that Jesus is made of photons of light.
1Tim 6:16..The Father is immortal and that immortality belongs to the Son also.
It is God in His word who is telling us that the Holy Spirit and that His Son are in Him and God along with Him. The one entity, God, is the Father and in Him is the Spirit and Son. Thus 3 distinct persons in the one God. The Father is the source of the Spirit and Son and this has been from eternity. The begettal of the Son (if that is what the word means) is not a thing that has happened in time,,,,,,,,,,,ie. it has always been.
Why do you call the Son, the Prodigal?
Heb 1:3 The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word.
Isa 42:8 “I am the Lord; that is my name!
I will not yield my glory to another
or my praise to idols.
Heb 1:6 And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says,
“Let all God’s angels worship him.”
Mal 3:1“Behold, I will send My messenger, who will prepare the way before Me. Then the Lord whom you seek will suddenly come to His temple— the Messenger of the covenant, in whom you delight— see, He is coming,” says the LORD of Hosts.
Psalm 96:12 Let the fields exult, and all that is in them. Then all the trees of the forest will sing for joy 13 before the LORD, for He is coming— He is coming to judge the earth. He will judge the world in righteousness and the peoples in His faithfulness.
John 5:22 Furthermore, the Father judges no one, but has assigned all judgment to the Son, 23so that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father.
Phil 2:9Therefore God exalted Him to the highest place and gave Him the name above all names,
It isn't that there is a lack of evidence for whom Jesus is.
Brian2
Veteran Member
It could have something to do with Heb 1:3
Hebrews 1:3 The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of His nature, upholding all things by His powerful word. After He had provided purification for sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.
It could have something to do with wanting to show that the Son is really the Son of God and not another creation as the Arians were saying.
There are many Messianic scriptures in the OT which were not interpreted to their full extent by the Jews. They are attributed to the Messiah at times but are not seen as attributing deity to the Messiah even if the actual passages do that. This is also the case with Micah 5:2 when the Hebrew can very easily mean that the origin of the Messiah is in the days of eternity.
With John 1:3 we can see a variety of translations which indicate that the Messiah was not made, created and did not come into being. Why? Because He was there to do those things to every single thing that was made, created or that came into being.
He has always been.
John 1:3 Through Him all things were made, and without Him nothing was made that has been made.
The Father is the God of Jesus because Jesus is a man, even now. God became the God of Jesus when Jesus became a man. (Ps 22:10)
Jesus is also the life giving Spirit. The Father of me alongside His Father.
In Him we are a new creation.
If we attain the status of our Lord as a man, we are doing well and that is all we can attain, the perfection that humans can attain.
Jesus otoh is both God and man and after earth He went back to filling the whole universe (Eph 4:10) and holding all things together by His powerful word (Col 1:17, Heb 1:1-4) and shining with the radiance of the glory of God as He was before He came to earth. (John 17:5)
Edit: These posts have a tendency to get longer and longer with many repeated things I'm sure. Anyway I thought I'd add what I said about your idea that God is infinitely greater than the Son.
If we could see the invisible God we would be seeing the same thing we see if we see the Son.
He is the image of the invisible God. (Col 1)
He shines with the glory of God. (Heb 1)
He is in the same form as God. (Phil 2)
He fills all things as God does. (Eph 4)
He is the express imprint of the very being of God. (Heb 1)
He is equal in all ways except that He is the Son and His Father is His Father and therefore the Son subjects Himself to the Father.
He is equal to His Father because He is the in the form of the Father. (Phil 2)
He along with the Father and the Spirit have the name above all names,
Last edited:
Brian2
Veteran Member
I think it means that what "the God" was so was "the Word." This seems to agree with the rest of scripture imo.
We have an advantage in the apostolic fathers in that they were associated with the apostles and learned from them and knew what was meant and call Jesus their God.
Thomas also as a Jew of his day, would not have called Jesus "my God" without it being so.
Muffled
Jesus in me
I believe the RCC is in error about the Trinity. One church I attended called what I believe Sabellianism but I do not agree with Sabellius. I believe God is acting in three modes. I have since come to recognize three persons in the sense of three types of person which doesn't fit any of the definitions of person as a whole but does in part.
Muffled
Jesus in me
God is in all three and He has a personality so He fits as one person throughout the Trinity by that definition.
Jesus is a person by our usual definition of human being but the Father and Paraclete are not.
The Paraclete has a multitude of persons so it does not fit in the definition of one person except as God of course.
Muffled
Jesus in me
I believe that would leave the B man out but then he already was out for other reasons as well.
LactoseIntolerant
Member
Sorry I think I fired back out of order.
But you yourself suggested Firstborn should be interpreted as pre-eminent. I assume Arians use the same reasoning - Christ is a mandate.
How can Jesus of the godhead change His Nature? What of the hypostatic union? Whether man or deity, shouldn't Jesus remain divine and see His Father as co-equal? The trinitarians seem to redefine what is deity and use the temporal power of the state and church to impose it.
LactoseIntolerant
Member
These are word games based on bible literalisms, I have shown you that trinitarian scholars themselves admit there is no explicit statement of trinity. That means all the choices you make in interpretations is from a source other than the bible. Matthew 15:9 doctrines of man.
Jesus is the Light of the world. God said let there be light. Jesus is also the Word. God spoke the Word into existence. "Hear, O Israel: God is our Lord, God is One."
"Only Immortal Soul" . Only means 1. The greek is μόνος (as in mono).
Luke 15:24For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found. And they began to be merry.
She has me confused because my brain sees the two the same. Maybe, that is what you see too.
LactoseIntolerant
Member
What God has Decreed, man has no competence to change it. My words.
Hear , God is our Lord, God is One. Shema-like
I considered your contention and researched apostolic fathers Polycarp and Ignatius (as they were mentioned in Nine Early Church Fathers Who Taught Jesus Is God.)
I found an interlinear translation of Polycarps epistle to Phillipians where it was translated "God Jesus Christ". I was quite surprised that the verse was in latin not greek (document was mainly greek and some latin) . I typed "dei filius" (which was the original) there was no translation on the web. I then type "filius dei" up popped Son of God. Kind of curious as Polycarp was uneducated like Peter and John - no latin.
As for Ignatius, another interlinear, <Jesus Christ "the God of us" > as τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν. The exact phrase is found in 1 Cor 6:11 where it is translated as "of the God of us". Perfectly consistent with One God.
I'll let the scholars thrash it out. Too much work.
Teritos
Active Member
All three persons are one God, they are one.