-
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!
Famous Trinity Diagram
- Thread starter rrobs
- Start date
Well none, as there is none posted.
I see the sun in the mirror would be best.
Regards Tony
I see the sun in the mirror would be best.
Regards Tony
rrobs
Well-Known Member
Check it out now. I always have trouble with uploaded images. Thanks for the heads up!Well none, as there is none posted.
I see the sun in the mirror would be best.
Regards Tony
Well I say Neither, but best would be the fist one.
1 is not 2 & 3, but 2 & 3 are all we can know of 1.
Thus at the same time, 2 & 3 can not be seperated from 1, they are essential to life.
There are a few ways to consider this.
Regards Tony
Last edited:
Skwim
Veteran Member
rrobs
Well-Known Member
whirlingmerc
Well-Known Member
The left one in a sense represents the Athanasian Trinity
but... I think it too abstract...
either works.
1. is mental
1. is physical
1. is movement/action
For the purpose of convenience of thought and study, the Hermetic Philosophy considers that the Universe may be divided into three great classes of phenomena, known as the Three Great Planes, namely:
1. The Great Physical Plane.
2. The Great Mental Plane.
3. The Great Spiritual Plane.
rrobs
Well-Known Member
Thanks for your reply. I watched your video and was excited to hear your opening quote from John.
John 20:31,
But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
I thought you were going to say what is rarely said in Christendom, namely that Jesus is the son of God. It would have been a most welcome breath of fresh air to hear from a brother who truly believes in one God. But you didn't. Instead of reading "son of God" you read "God the son." That verse says absolutely nothing about a trinity. Why can't Jesus be the son of God as well as God's anointed without being God Himself? There is no other son that is his own father. There is no other son who is a trinity by virtue of his having a father. Why can't sincere Christians simply read and accept what is written? The answer is simple; tradition. Tradition has caused most Christians to see "God the Son" where "son of God" is clearly written.
I'm often told by Trinitarians that I've been blinded by the devil for my belief that Jesus is the son of God but not God the Son. In light of what I've just said above, can you not see the irony in that?
1 Cor 8:6,
But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
While the scriptures do declare a "God the Father" there is nowhere to be found the Trinitarian mainstay phrase "God the Son." And even if such a phrase were to be found, it would not negate the clear declaration in Corinthians that the only true God is the father. Am I right or wrong in my reading of 1 Cor 8:6? If I'm wrong, please explain how.
John 20:17,
Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.
Jesus has a God. There are about a dozen other verses that mention, "the God and Father" of our Lord Jesus Christ. If Jesus is God, then God has a God? Please explain to me who that God is. As much as I love you as a brother in Christ, I don't think you can.
God bless and thanks again for your reply.
Last edited:
Oeste
Well-Known Member
View attachment 27775 View attachment 27774[/QUOTE]
Either image does a fairly good job misrepresenting the Trinity.
Because neither image describes or illustrates it.
It's like asking "Which of the these images best describes @rrobs and why?"
Attachments
rrobs
Well-Known Member
Either image does a fairly good job misrepresenting the Trinity.
Because neither image describes or illustrates it.
It's like asking "Which of the these images best describes @rrobs and why?"
View attachment 27831 View attachment 27832[/QUOTE]
It is actually a good representation. For the left diagram substitute 1 for the Father, 2 for the Son and 3 for the Holy Ghost. In the center substitute 1 for God. Now the trinity diagram says that 1 equals 1. That part is OK. But then it says that 2 equals 1, and 3 equals 1. That is clearly wrong.
In the second diagram I made God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost all 1. Now it is saying (three times) that 1 is not equal to 1. That is also clearly wrong.
As I've said many times, belief in the trinity requires a complete abandonment of logic, reason, common sense, and the meaning of simple words and concepts. There is no way it can be explained in a coherent way that someone can really understand it. It requires blind faith, and, while church may ask for that, God doesn't.
Eph 1:18,
The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints,
God wants us to know. Look up the word "know" in any Concordance and you will quickly see it means the completer opposite of blind faith. It means you can know it the same way you can know that 1 equals 1 or that 1 does not equal 2 or 3.
I don't want to upset anybody but I think I'm just pointing out the obvious.
Take care...
Oeste
Well-Known Member
Well, let's put 'em up, side by side so we can take a look.
Why are we substituting? Once you substitute you've changed the diagram. If I have a squirrel in my diagram and you replace it with a fig or violin, whatever that diagram was going to originally represent has changed. I'm not saying it's unfair to swap out one thing for another, but we must be careful with our substitutions if we want to retain fidelity with the original diagram.
So you substituted The Father with "1" which I take it means 1 Father in order to retain fidelity with the "original" Trinity diagram. Fair enough, let's proceed.
We just substituted Jesus for 2 Sons. Okay, let's see where its going.
Wow!
So now we have 1 Father, 2 Sons, and 3 Holy Ghosts!!
Somehow this is not looking like any Trinity doctrine I've read about, and I can assure you the left diagram looks nothing like the right.
Cool, but this isn’t looking like the Trinity.
I made a slight change because it’s no longer a “ trinity diagram” but one of your own design. IMO it keeps little fidelity to the "original" beyond tubes and circles.
Yes, it's okay, but not necessarily correct in reference to the Trinity.
I couldn’t agree with you more! 1 Father equals 1 God, 2 Sons equals 1 God, and 3 Holy Ghosts equals 1 God is surely wrong…but it has nothing to do with the Trinity.
Well, let's put 'em up, side by side so we can take a look.
Of course its wrong, because your new diagram no more represents the Trinity then the first. There is nothing similar.
Your second diagram just made the Father, Jesus, the Holy Spirit and God, or it made Jesus, the Father, the Holy Spirit and God, or it just made the Holy Spirit Jesus, the Father and God depending on how you look at it. You did this by giving the separate persons of the Trinity the same name and the same value on the left hand diagram, which is something we don't find on right. In other words:
There is quite a difference between your diagram and the Trinity. Quite frankly, the Trinity doctrine simply doesn't state what most Unitarians interpret the doctrine to mean.
Nonsense. Belief in the Trinity requires no such thing. As I've said many times, the Trinity doctrine is explainable but the Trinity doctrine makes no attempt to explain God. He is above our reason.
Agreed, which is exactly how we “know” such modified diagrams do not represent the Trinity.
Lol, you’re not upsetting me at all and from my encounters with other Trinitarians on this board, I would be very surprised to find any of them agitated. Your thread resides in Scriptural Debates after all.
I’m limited by time constraints but I really do enjoy this stuff.
You too my friend. But in regards to your second figure, where all the values are “1”, you may want to ask a Modalist (Oneness Pentecostal) about it and not a Trinitarian.
rrobs
Well-Known Member
First of all, I'm glad you are not offended. Many are. I can't tell you how many sincere Christians have condemned to everlasting torment. It seems that those who supposedly revere Jesus so much think little of taking away his God given authority to judgment.
John 5:22,
For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:
But that's another story.
I chose to represent the three entities (Father,Son, Holy Ghost) with numbers to help make it obvious that the diagram goes against the normal meaning of the word "equal." I guess it flopped!
Here is the age old axiom that is about sa logical as logical gets: "Things which are equal to the same thing are equal to each other." The diagram, whether numbers or names, goes completely against that. The diagram says that the Father is equal to God, Son is equal to God, and the Holy Ghost is equal to God. Those three things being equal to the same thing must then be equal to each other. However, the diagram says they are not and thus is devoid of any sense in the way we normally think of things. As I said, it requires the complete abandonment of ordinary logical concepts.
But when it comes to push and shove, a diagram does not trump the truth as stated in the scriptures. They declare Jesus to be the son of God almost 50 times and God the Son a grand total of 0 times. How can that be ignored? The term "God the Son" is a complete man made doctrine. And what's more the man mostly responsible for that term is none other than the Roman Emperor Constantine, the high priest (Pontificus Maximus) of the ancient Roman pagan Mystery Religion. It's the Nicene Creed, which he was largely responsible for it's final form. I might add that that belief was declared the law of the land and that refusal to believe it resulted in being burned at the stake. That's how it was for about 1,500 years. Is that really a legitimate source to get one's rule of faith and practice? All of that is well known history and can be easily verified. But history, like a diagram, does not settle truth. That would be the Scriptures, and like I said there is no clear declaration in them that Jesus is God or that there is a trinity. At best, there are inferences which can be twisted into conforming to a preconceived idea of a trinity.
I've quoted the following scriptures several times in the hope that someone could tell me who is the God of God. So far no takers.
John 20:17,
Jesus saith to her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended unto the Father: but go unto my brethren, and say to them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and my God and your God. (Jesus and us share the same God).
Rom 15:6,
that with one accord ye may with one mouth glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
2Cor 1:3,
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort;
2 Corinthians 11:31.
The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is blessed for evermore, knoweth that I lie not.
Eph 1:17,
That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:
1Pet 1:3,
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to his great mercy begat us again unto a living hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
Rev 1:6 (ERV),
And he made us to be a kingdom, to be priests unto his (Jesus') God and Father; to him be the glory and the dominion for ever and ever. Amen.
Rev 3:12,
He that overcometh, I (Jesus) will make him a pillar in the temple of my (Jesus') God, and he shall go out thence no more: and I will write upon him the name of my (Jesus') God, and the name of the city of my (Jesus') God, the new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my (Jesus') God, and mine own new name.
The last verse declares four times that Jesus has a God. So if Jesus is God, then God has a God. Who is that God? Maybe we should be worshiping that God since He must be bigger than the God who is the Father of Jesus Christ. I'm not actually suggesting that, but it is a valid idea if God has a God.
Also what is a trinitarian to do with this verse:
1Cor 8:6,
But to us [there is but] one God, the Father, of whom [are] all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [are] all things, and we by him.
Clearly, God the Father is the only one true God. So even if there was a "God the Son" (which the scriptures never mentions), that god would not qualify as the one true God.
All of these verses (and tons more) are easily explained when one understands that there is no such thing as a trinity and that Jesus is not God, but the son of God. On the other hand, I don't see any way they can be reconciled with the trinity doctrine. The only way that can be done is by ignoring common sense and accepting tradition over the scriptures. One has to pretty much ignore the scriptures to arrive at the idea that God is three in one.
Take care...
Last edited:
rrobs
Well-Known Member
The Apostle Paul would have agreed with only part of this diagram.I agree this is an excellent diagram of the Trinity.
1Cor 8:6,
But to us [there is but] one God, the Father, of whom [are] all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [are] all things, and we by him.
I think it best to take our doctrine from him. He had inside information
Besides that diagram flies in the face of all logic and the normal usage of words and ideas. If two or more things are equal to the same thing, which this diagram avers, then they must be equal to each other, which this diagram denies. It makes no sense whatsoever. God communicated to us vie words and He uses those words in a way that we can understand. That diagram does not accord with any logic or common sense. It requires a suspension of normal thinking to believe in it. There is nowhere in the scriptures where God asks us to do that. The trinity is man's idea that was added to the scriptures at a much later date than any of the authors of the scriptures wrote by inspiration.
To get an idea of the misuse of words and ideas necessary to define the trinity, I offer the following quote penned by a Bishop name Beverage. I'm not sure of the date, but the content is a mixed salad of nonsensical usage of words and concepts.
"We are to consider the order of those persons in the Trinity described in the words before us, Matt 28:19. First, the Father, and then the Son, and then the Holy Ghost ; every one of which is really and truly God. A mystery which we are all bound to believe, but yet must have a great care how we speak of it, it being both easy and dangerous to mistake in expressing so great a truth as this is. If we think of it, how hard it is to imagine one numerically divine nature in more than one and the same divine person? Or, three divine persons in no more than one and the same divine nature? If we speak of it, how hard it is to find out words to express it ? If I say, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost be three, and every one distinctly God, it is true ; but if I say, they be three, and every one a distinct God, it is false. I may say, God the Father is one God, and the Son is one God, and the Holy Ghost is one God, but I cannot say, that the Father is one God, and the Son is another God, and the Holy Ghost a third God. I may say, the Father begat another who is God ; yet I cannot say that he begat another God. And from the Father and the Son proceedeth another who is God ; yet I cannot say, from the Father and the Son proceedeth another God. For all this while, though their nature be the same their persons are distinct ; and though their persons be distinct, yet still their nature is the same. So that, though the Father be the first person in the God head, the Son the second, the Holy Ghost the third, yet the Father is not the first, the Son a second, and the Holy Ghost a third God. So hard a thing is it to word so great a mystery aright ; or to fit so high a truth with expressions suitable and proper to it, without going one way or another from it."
He then goes on to say it is necessary to believe this babble in order to be saved.
"This is is the principal, if not the only characteristical note whereby to distinguish a Christian from another man;"
Too bad he wasn't around to educate the 1st century apostles. The only thing they ever said was necessary to get born again was to accept Jesus as Lord and believe God raised him from the dead (Rom 10:9 & 10). Paul never once said Jesus was God or that God was a trinity. I guess Bishop Beverage would have had Paul go to hell.
The trinity is and idea that came from the Pagan Roman and Greek religions. Trinitarians accept man's idea and then attempt to twist a few scriptures to "prove" their damnable lie, all the while ignoring the multitude of times where Jesus is called the son of God. They insist on calling him God the Son, a term which never once appears in the scriptures. It requires a complete abandonment of the normal usage of words to say a father and son are actually one and the same person.
God bless...
Spartan
Well-Known Member
The Apostle Paul would have agreed with only part of this diagram.
1Cor 8:6,
But to us [there is but] one God, the Father, of whom [are] all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [are] all things, and we by him.I think it best to take our doctrine from him. He had inside information
Besides that diagram flies in the face of all logic and the normal usage of words and ideas. If two or more things are equal to the same thing, which this diagram avers, then they must be equal to each other, which this diagram denies. It makes no sense whatsoever. God communicated to us vie words and He uses those words in a way that we can understand. That diagram does not accord with any logic or common sense. It requires a suspension of normal thinking to believe in it. There is nowhere in the scriptures where God asks us to do that. The trinity is man's idea that was added to the scriptures at a much later date than any of the authors of the scriptures wrote by inspiration.
To get an idea of the misuse of words and ideas necessary to define the trinity, I offer the following quote penned by a Bishop name Beverage. I'm not sure of the date, but the content is a mixed salad of nonsensical usage of words and concepts.
"We are to consider the order of those persons in the Trinity described in the words before us, Matt 28:19. First, the Father, and then the Son, and then the Holy Ghost ; every one of which is really and truly God. A mystery which we are all bound to believe, but yet must have a great care how we speak of it, it being both easy and dangerous to mistake in expressing so great a truth as this is. If we think of it, how hard it is to imagine one numerically divine nature in more than one and the same divine person? Or, three divine persons in no more than one and the same divine nature? If we speak of it, how hard it is to find out words to express it ? If I say, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost be three, and every one distinctly God, it is true ; but if I say, they be three, and every one a distinct God, it is false. I may say, God the Father is one God, and the Son is one God, and the Holy Ghost is one God, but I cannot say, that the Father is one God, and the Son is another God, and the Holy Ghost a third God. I may say, the Father begat another who is God ; yet I cannot say that he begat another God. And from the Father and the Son proceedeth another who is God ; yet I cannot say, from the Father and the Son proceedeth another God. For all this while, though their nature be the same their persons are distinct ; and though their persons be distinct, yet still their nature is the same. So that, though the Father be the first person in the God head, the Son the second, the Holy Ghost the third, yet the Father is not the first, the Son a second, and the Holy Ghost a third God. So hard a thing is it to word so great a mystery aright ; or to fit so high a truth with expressions suitable and proper to it, without going one way or another from it."
He then goes on to say it is necessary to believe this babble in order to be saved.
"This is is the principal, if not the only characteristical note whereby to distinguish a Christian from another man;"
Too bad he wasn't around to educate the 1st century apostles. The only thing they ever said was necessary to get born again was to accept Jesus as Lord and believe God raised him from the dead (Rom 10:9 & 10). Paul never once said Jesus was God or that God was a trinity. I guess Bishop Beverage would have had Paul go to hell.
The trinity is and idea that came from the Pagan Roman and Greek religions. Trinitarians accept man's idea and then attempt to twist a few scriptures to "prove" their damnable lie, all the while ignoring the multitude of times where Jesus is called the son of God. They insist on calling him God the Son, a term which never once appears in the scriptures. It requires a complete abandonment of the normal usage of words to say a father and son are actually one and the same person.
God bless...
You're welcome to your views. I shouldn't have to point to Paul's writings to note that Paul certainly believed that God the Father is God, and I'm sure you would agree on that.
Now we come to the Second Person of the Trinity - Jesus. Paul confirmed the deity of Jesus: Did Paul think Jesus was God? | CARM.org
So now you have two of the three. What is your term for that? And if two, then the Holy Spirit as God can't be far off. And while we don't see an elaborate confirmation of the Holy Spirit being divine in Paul's writings, we can go to Acts chapter five and clearly see it there, and elsewhere as well. We also don't see Paul denying that the Holy Spirit is God, so I think at best you only have a 'Logical Fallacy" - an argument from silence - to support your views.
rrobs
Well-Known Member
Thanks for your reply. Yes, I certainly do believe the God the Father is God. That's precisely what 1 Cor 8:6 says. It's a simple phrase made up of simple words.
I looked at the CARM website you referred to. There is a lot there, so I'll deal with just some of it now and we'll go from there.
Point 1 - Jesus being Lord does not make him God. The word "lord" simply means one with authority, a boss if you will. Without a doubt God is a Lord. He's the one ultimately in charge of everything. As the Lord of all, it is perfectly within His right to delegate that same authority to anyone he so chooses. Unlike all other men since Adam, Jesus was born with sinless blood. That is because God created a seed in Mary's womb, and thus Jesus did not inherit the same corruptible seed (1 Pet 1:23) the rest of us inherit from Adam. God also originally created Adam with innocent blood, but he blew it and became corruptible which corruption he passed on to the rest of us.
So Jesus, like Adam, started out perfect. He was born as the lamb without blemish. But, also like Adam, Jesus had free will. He was tempted in every point just like you and I (Heb 4:15). When you are tempted, do you have any sense of being God or even part God? Well if Jesus was tempted like you and I, then neither did he. In any case, he obeyed his Father to the letter, every minute of every day for some 30 years. But God had one more task He asked (not forced) His son to accomplish. That of course would be to die perhaps the most unimaginably horrific death possible. And that was after they beat him so badly that he was no longer recognizable as Jesus (Is 52:14). Well, Jesus wasn't really very excited about that. He wanted no part of that. In fact, he asked God twice (Matt 26:39 & 42) if there wasn't some other way to redeem us poor, sinful, no good, worthless creatures. God said, "sorry son, but this is the only way." I would have said, "well then, get somebody else." But that is not what Jesus said. He said, "not my will, but thine be done." You know the rest of the crucification story.
I only bring all that up to show how incredible a job the man Jesus did in following God's will. He was perfect from birth and he remained so until his death. While one other man started out perfect (Adam), Jesus is the only one who remained perfect until death. That is why he remained the required lamb without blemish. For a god to do all of that would be pretty ho hum. Would God have had any problem obeying Himself? Would God have any problem Himself that He'd raise Himself from the dead? That would be a no brainer. But for a man, with like passions, desires, and feelings as you and I to do that would be nothing short of the most incredible accomplishment in human history.
God was so impressed by what Jesus did that He conferred virtually every power He Himself held to His son. That's what it says in the scriptures.
John 5:26-27,
26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;
27 And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.
27 And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.
God gave His son life and authority. He granted it to him because he always did His will. If Jesus were God, he'd hardly have needed to be granted anything. He would already have those things.
Acts 2:36,
Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.
Rom 1:4,
And declared [to be] the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:
These 2 verses answer to the first point in the CARM website. God made Jesus Lord and gave him power because of the resurrection. Why would God have had to made Himself Lord and given Himself power? He was, by His very nature both Lord and powerful. As far as the word "Yahweh" is concerned, there is no evidence that that term is used of anybody but God. Declaring it to be otherwise has no scriptural basis whatsoever.
Deut 6:4,
Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God [is] one LORD:
The scriptures say that the Lord God is one. Trinitarians add, the phrase, "in three persons."
Adding to the scriptures what isn't there is not a good idea.
Rev 22:18,
For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
While I could answer directly to all the points in the CARM website (I will if you are interested), suffice it to say that most of the verses it quotes say nothing at all about the trinity. The preconceived idea of the trinity is read into them, again, in direct violation of Rev 22:18. The few that may be construed into saying Jesus is God can easily be explained in a completely not-trinitarian way and thus fit with the many clear verses and scriptural ideas the say Jesus is the son of God and therefore not God Himself. Of course I am assuming that God uses words in such a way that we can understand what He says to us. He is perfectly aware of what a son is and what a father is. He perfectly understands a son and his father are two distinct individuals and can never somehow be one person. Why trinitarians don't understand that is beyond me.
Spartan
Well-Known Member
I liken the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to ONE species - God, so they can be one, and one also in will and purpose.
The Bible is full of evidences for the deity of Jesus. If Paul doesn't believe Jesus is divine then he is wrong. But I've posted my info and I'll stick to that.
Elsewhere, Jesus Must Be Jehovah. Scriptural evidences follow:
Jesus Must be Jehovah
Cheers...
rrobs
Well-Known Member
Jesus absolutely had a divine nature. That is because he was the son of God and thus inherited his Father's nature, which was clearly divine.
Genesis 1:11 said that seed is in itself. An apple seed makes and apple tree, an orange seed makes and orange seed, a cat seed (sperm) makes a cat, etc. Genesis goes on to say in verses 11, 21, and 24 that anything that reproduces makes another identical thing. An apple seed makes an apple tree (v 11), a whale makes a whale (v 21),and a cow makes a cow (v 24). All of this is to say that an offspring of anything will have the same nature as its parent. But that in no way implies that an offspring of a cow can be the same cow. That would be considered an absurd idea in any realm with the one exception that trinitarians make, i.e. God's son is actually his own father.
But here's the real kicker. Are not we, as born again believers, sons and daughters of God? As such, would it not follow that we, like Jesus, also have a divine nature? That is what all the forgoing would indicate. But just to nail it down, I offer:
2Pet 1:4,
Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.
We absolutely have a divine nature. Yet none of us are God. That is why I don't deny the divinity of Jesus, but I do deny in the strongest terms possible that Jesus is God.
But let's say I am wrong. Let's assume Jesus is God. What then do we do with all of the following verses?
John 20:17,
Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and [to] my (Jesus') God, and your God.
2Cor 11:31,
The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is blessed for evermore, knoweth that I lie not.
Eph 1:3,
Blessed [be] the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly [places] in Christ:
These verses all declare Jesus to have a God (there are others also). So if Jesus is God, then God has a God? Who the heck would that be? Presumably that God would be more powerful than both Jesus and his Father. Maybe we should be worshiping that God.
My solution to that dilemma is simple. Jesus is not God. Problem solved.
Take care...
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Well if anything, the diagrams do look like great schematics for a drone.