Why did the early church send greetings in God, and in Jesus Christ, instead of a trinity?

[blü 2]

1. “Paul, Silas and Timothy, To the church of the Thessalonians in God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ:” (2 Thes 1:1)
2. “Grace and peace to you from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.” (2 Thes 1:2)

In 1., the apostle addresses the Father as ‘God’ and addresses Jesus Christ as ‘Lord’.

For a supposedly unbreakable doctrine expressing three persons as a one immutable, almighty worshipped being, it is odd that there the greeting is only to two persons, one only of whom is called ‘God’.

Where is the third person that makes a trinity?

Of course, this isn’t *THE ONLY* incredibly belittling error towards the third person by one only apostle to the Thessalonians because there are also these: (*Edit : error corrected by additional text*)

• “James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, To the twelve tribes scattered among the nations: Greetings.” (James 1:1)
• “Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ to further the faith of God’s elect and their knowledge of the truth that leads to godliness…” (Titus 1:1)
• “This letter is from Paul, a slave of Christ Jesus, chosen by God to be an apostle and sent out to preach his Good News.” (Romans 1:1)

And many more.

The last listed has the apostle Paul claiming himself as a slave of Jesus Christ … chosen by God!

Not only, again, is there only two persons mentioned, not a trinity three, but it is clear that these two are completely separate beings. One is GOD and the other is Jesus Christ.

How is it then claimed by world wide ideological groups calling themselves ‘Followers of [Jesus] Christ’ that GOD and Jesus Christ are GOD, and GOD, is three persons who are ONE IMMUTABLE GOD who must be worshipped. Yet there is no mention of a third person that would form a trinity of co-equal all powerful all knowing Being (singular!)

Did Jesus Christ ever claim that he was a ‘Three Person GOD’, with one of the other members called GOD, and that he must be worshipped as God?

Indeed, where is there an expression in the scriptures even saying to worship the third unnamed person? And, does anyone actually worship a third unnamed person of a claimed ‘holy trinity’?

And if there is no worship claim for either Jesus Christ, or the third unnamed trinity person, are the ‘Followers of [Jesus] Christ’ not guilty of sacrilege by disowning their own claims… and proudly denouncing baptism in the name of three persons by baptising in the name of ONLY ONE PERSON of the three person, only two named, one God (called ‘Father’), being entitled: “GOD”!

(Observation: God appears to be a member of the trinity God trio - which makes Jesus a recursive entity in God since he is the ‘Son of God’, and the same ‘God’ that he is the Son of… giving:

• God is “God, Jesus Christ, unnamed person”
  
• But Jesus Christ is ‘Son of God’
• So, God is “God, Son of God (who is God), unnamed other person’
• God is ‘God, God as Son, as God, ….’

Can anyone offer an explanation of this seemingly retched conundrum which passes itself off as ‘Christianity’ which purports to be what Jesus Christ taught and they follow?

The Trinity doctrine, or any such concept, didn't exist when the NT was written.

Instead Paul, and each of the Jesuses of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John, expressly deny that they're God and never once claim to be God.

The Trinity doctrine is invented and adopted in the 4th century CE in response to political pressure to elevate the central character in Christianity to God status. At the same time there was a strong wish to avoid the accusation of being polytheists in the manner of the pagans. Thus the Trinity doctrine.

The Trinity doctrine says that God exists as three "persons" and one "substance". This formulation they acknowledge is "a mystery in the strict sense". A "mystery in the strict sense" "can neither be known by unaided human reason apart from revelation, nor cogently demonstrated by reason after it has been revealed." So by their own statement, as a moment's reflection will reveal, the Trinity doctrine is a nonsense, or, if you prefer, gobbledygook.

The problem is that under the formula, the Father is 100% of God but is neither Jesus nor the Ghost; Jesus is 100% of God but is neither the Father nor the Ghost; and the Ghost is 100% of God but neither the Father nor Jesus. Thus we have 100%+100%+100% being said to total 100% instead of 300% (three gods).

But in practical terms, as the OP suggests, Christianity is polytheistic: Father, Jesus and the Ghost are perceived, referred to, and function as distinct entities.

It's even more so if we include Satan and Mary as divinities.

And even more so again if we include those saints of the RCC to whom prayers are routinely offered, like St Anthony of Padua, patron saint of lost things.

 

[Kenny]

Which document are you speaking of?

Acts, Romans, Colossians.

 

[firedragon]

Acts, Romans, Colossians.

Please tell me what was the word they used for "Godhead".

 

[Kenny]

Please tell me what was the word they used for "Godhead".

Theios Definition Theios Meaning in Bible - New Testament Greek Lexicon - King James Version

1. a general name of deities or divinities as used by the Greeks
2. spoken of the only and true God, trinity
   1. of Christ
   2. Holy Spirit
   3. the Father

Theotes - Definition
deity

1. the state of being God, Godhead

Not to mention that the Jews understand that Jesus made himself equal with God... as well as all the other supportive scriptures like John 1:1

 

[Brian2]

Why would I want to learn about a load of nonsense about Jesus being eternally WITH GOD and also BEING GOD…

From memory you do not believe Jesus existed before He was born as a man.
To keep your belief untarnished you reject scriptures that show Jesus did exist before becoming a man and you avoid answering them.
eg Phil 2:5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.
John 17:4 I have glorified You on earth by accomplishing the work You gave Me to do. 5 And now, Father, glorify Me in Your presence with the glory I had with You before the world existed.
You keep mocking the Trinity idea and Trinitarians but have nothing to replace it with. What you believe certainly looks Biblically wrong. Maybe work on your own beliefs first,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,according to what the Bible says and not just ideas you have.

 

[firedragon]

Theios Definition Theios Meaning in Bible - New Testament Greek Lexicon - King James Version

1. a general name of deities or divinities as used by the Greeks
2. spoken of the only and true God, trinity
   1. of Christ
   2. Holy Spirit
   3. the Father

Theotes - Definition
deity

1. the state of being God, Godhead

Not to mention that the Jews understand that Jesus made himself equal with God... as well as all the other supportive scriptures like John 1:1

Theos means "Godhead"? Please clarify.

 

[Brian2]

Please give proper references to your quotes.

Irenaeus’ “Against Heresies” exists today in full only in a single Latin translation from the original Greek language. It is thus not surprising that trinitarian-supporting “evidence” may be found in the single trinitarian-recopied, trinitarian-translated, trinitarian-redefined manuscript available today. But certainly this respected early Christian writer whom today's trinitarian scholars “credit” with the very “formulation” of the trinity doctrine would not have made the many clear non-trinitarian statements recorded below if he had really believed in or taught a trinity (or “Binity”)!

Obviously the many trinitarian copiests who handled (and mishandled) Irenaeus’ writing down through the centuries could (and did) change some non-trinitarian thoughts into trinitarian thoughts.* But they would certainly never change trinitarian thoughts into non-trinitarian thoughts. Therefore, those many non-trinitarian concepts still remaining must be Irenaeus’ original teaching (as a study of the very first Creeds of this time also proves)!
______________
* The very trinitarian translators of ANF wrote in their Introductory Note to Irenaeus’ Against Heresies: “The text [of Against Heresies] ... is often most uncertain. .... After the text has been settled according to the best judgment [trinitarian, of course] which can be formed, the work of translation remains; and that is, in this case, a matter of no small difficulty. Irenaeus, even in the original Greek, is often a very obscure writer. .... And the Latin version adds to these difficulties of the original, by being itself of the most barbarous character. In fact, it is often necessary to make a conjectural retranslation [trinitarian, of course] into Greek, in order to have some inkling of what the author wrote. .... We have endeavoured to give as close and accurate a translation of the work as possible, but there are not a few passages in which a guess [trinitarian, of course] can only be made as to the probable meaning.” - ANF 1:311-312.

Obviously, if a trinitarian, even a scrupulously honest trinitarian, makes a “conjectural retranslation” or a “guess ... as to the probable meaning,” it will be a trinitarian guess or “conjectural retranslation”!

Irenaeus
(c. 140-203 A.D.)

‘But there is only one God, the Creator ... He it is ... whom Christ reveals .... He is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ: through His Word, who is His Son, through Him He is revealed.’ - pp. 110, 111, A Short History of the Early Church, Eerdmans, 1976. (Ellipses were provided by Boer. Irenaeus quote by Boer is from The Ante-Nicene Fathers, ANF, 1:406.)

“... neither the prophets, nor the apostles, nor the Lord Christ in His own person, did acknowledge any other Lord or God, but the God and Lord supreme .... the Lord Himself handing down to His disciples, that He, the Father, is the only God and Lord, who alone is God and ruler of all; it is incumbent on us to follow ... their testimonies to this effect.” (ANF, 1:422, ‘Against Heresies’)

“For faith, which has respect to our Master, endures unchangeably, assuring us that there is but one true God, and that we should truly love Him for ever, seeing that He alone is our Father.” (ANF, 1:399-400, ‘Against Heresies’)

"Such, then, are the first principles of the Gospel: that there is one God, the Maker of this universe; He who was also announced by the prophets, and who by Moses set forth the dispensation of the law, - [principles] which proclaim the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and ignore any other God or Father except Him." - (ANF, 1:428, 'Against Heresies')

"Now I have shown in the third book, that no one is termed God by the apostles when speaking for themselves, except Him who truly is God, the Father of our Lord." (ANF, 1:553, 'Against Heresies')

There are quotes from Church Fathers like the ones you give which do not deny the deity of Jesus but do not state it. There are other quotes which tell us that Jesus is God.
In that way the Church Fathers are like the Bible. The JWs however like to not mention the quotes that show they though Jesus is God. I don't know that that is honest to anyone else or to yourself.

 

[Shakeel]

how many debates on this topic we need? It's worthless, only those who have the Holy Spirit, the teacher of wisdom who is the author of the bible will understand that Jesus is God.

The forum is unnecessary - I agree with that.

I've heard that; you can't have faith until you have faith and only when you have faith can you have faith. Logical?

 

[Kenny]

Theos means "Godhead"? Please clarify.

Theios 2304 is not the same word as Theos 2316

Is there a reason why you want to change the words?

 

[firedragon]

Theios 2304 is not the same word as Theos 2316

Is there a reason why you want to change the words?

Not at all. Maybe someone told you that I want to change words. But see, no one here knows me so you were just wrong. Also you should understand that people cant really change words. Maybe through centuries meanings of words will change.

Again, I ask you, are you saying Theos means "Godhead"?

 

[Kenny]

Not at all. Maybe someone told you that I want to change words. But see, no one here knows me so you were just wrong. Also you should understand that people cant really change words. Maybe through centuries meanings of words will change.

Again, I ask you, are you saying Theos means "Godhead"?

It was a question because you changed the words that were written in Greek and applying one definition to a different word.

And again, Theos does not mean Godhead. It is a different word. So, unless you clarify what exactly you are asking, how can I answer?

 

[firedragon]

It was a question because you changed the words that were written in Greek and applying one definition to a different word.

And again, Theos does not mean Godhead. It is a different word. So, unless you clarify what exactly you are asking, how can I answer?

Right. So what other word is used in which verse in the New Testament that speaks of "Godhead" which means "Trinity"? Also please provide why this word you are going to refer to was not used for trinity for centuries.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Soapy]

1st century was Godhead... but means the same thing.

‘Godhead’ is a trinitarian invented term.

When they read the verse saying that the Father was pleased that Jesus should be filled with the fullness (of God), they realised that it would be a serious threat to the trinity ideology if they allowed the verse to be read as it was written and meant to express that Jesus was FILLED with the Holy Spirit.

‘Filled with the Holy Spirit’… which allowed him to perform the miracles and have foreknowledge that GOD ALLOWED him to know.

‘Filled with the holy Spirit’:

• “You know what has happened throughout the province of Judea, beginning in Galilee after the baptism that John preached how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and how he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil, because God was with him.“ (Acts 10:37-38)

Is it ok to ask, would I get a holy spirited reply if I did ask:

• If God anointed Jesus (to make him ‘Christ’, then what was Jesus BEFORE God anointed him… He certainly wasn’t ‘Christ’ because ‘Christ’ means, “The anointed one, sanctified, set apart for kingship and/or Priesthood”

Does this anointed align with:

• “As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him. And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.” (Matt 3:16-17)

Priests and kings, to be, were anointed with a special oil concoction known by and used only by appointed holy men of God. I’m sure you all know this.

So what greater ‘Oil’ could be bestowed on upon the Son of God but the ‘Oil of Gladness’, the holy SPIRIT:

• “what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?” (John 10:36)

Jesus, here, is REFUTING angrily, that he made a claim that he was ‘God’ (see verse 35).

How can anyone with truth in their mind and spirit claim that Jesus WAS CLAIMING that he was God?

In addition, I keep asking in other threads where the claim that a ‘Son is equal to his Father’ comes from? No one has answered with evidence. It seems a ridiculous concept to me because, what if, in most cases, the Father has MORE THAN ONE SON? Are they all ‘Equal to their Father’? Surely the tradition was that the firstborn* son INHERITS the lion’s share of the father’s property. How is that ‘Equal’… does the Son own his fathers WIFE and CONCUBINE and CHILDREN… just how do Trinitarians (yes it is them!) define ‘Equality’?

So, GODHEAD is an invalid term used ONLY BY TRINITARIANS as it obscures the true meaning of the verse:

• “For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;” (Col 3:19)
• “For it pleased the Father that in him should all GODHEAD dwell;” (trinity warped obfuscation)

Point of order: If the ‘Godhead’ is ‘Father, Son, and Holy Spirit’, how is Jesus ‘filled with ….’. And what was Jesus BEFORE he was ‘filled with ….’?

 

[Soapy]

There are some hymns of worship to the Holy Spirit.

Here is one I like:

Isn’t this commercial singing?

And, there are songs that worship Satan!

And what’s this thing about a Dove? Where does a Dove (a mild natured bird) come into ‘God’?
The scriptures only says that the Holy Spirit alighted on Jesus IN THE MANNER OF A DOVE. This simply means that the Holy Spirit came down on him LIKE THE LIGHT FLUTTERING OF A DOVE. It wasn’t A DOVE (A BIRD) that alighted on Jesus.

This is what I cannot understand where PENTECOSTAL CHURCHES have a DOVE as their symbol of the Holy Spirit… The Holy Spirit came down on the APOSTLES ‘LIKE THUNDER AND TONGUES OF FIRE’…! How is the symbol of a bird related to PENTECOST?

The song, the singer, has no real Christian faith. She is simply MAKING MONEY singing something she thinks will appeal to vulnerable persons easily seduced by feelings of emotion. There are no scripture verses where an appeal is made TO the Holy Spirit. It is only made TO Jesus or The Father FOR the Holy Spirit.

NO CHURCH, even trinity-based churches, apart from designer-churches, worship the Holy Spirit.

They will always CLAIM that they worship IT because ‘worshipping God’ or ‘worshipping Jesus’ means ‘worshipping all THREE’.

Trinity is like trying to hold onto an eel while your hands are covered in oil.

 

[Psalm23]

Isn’t this commercial singing?

And, there are songs that worship Satan!

NO CHURCH, even trinity-based churches, apart from designer-churches, worship the Holy Spirit.

They will always CLAIM that they worship IT because ‘worshipping God’ or ‘worshipping Jesus’ means ‘worshipping all THREE’.

Trinity is like trying to hold onto an eel while your hands are covered in oil.

The song I posted sounds like worship to the Holy Spirit to me. I wouldn’t go as far to say no church that believes in Trinity worships the Holy Spirit. I think there are Trinity believing churches who worship the Holy Spirit as well.

I’m not sure if this is commercial singing. What is commercial singing?

 

[Soapy]

The song I posted sounds like worship to the Holy Spirit to me. I wouldn’t go as far to say no church that believes in Trinity worships the Holy Spirit. I think there are Trinity believing churches who worship the Holy Spirit as well.

I’m not sure if this is commercial singing. What is commercial singing?

I thought I put what commercial singing is in my post?

She is singing TO MAKE MONEY!

She will sing ANYTHING that makes wealth for her. Even worse the fact that she is misleading the listeners who, guaranteed, are vulnerable by way of their emotions… not by truth!

In any case, can you produce a scripture verse showing worship of the Holy Spirit? And I don’t mean a TRINITY concoction.

Jesus told us that worship was to the Father only, as does the rest of scriptures, because the Father is THE ONLY TRUE GOD.

You know how to read and how to be honest. You may CHOOSE not to be honest because man has free Will but God warns us that free Will means responsibility and wrongful use of your free Will leads to eternal death of your Spirit.

So, ‘Father, … Only True God’ does not deny that OTHERS ARE CALLED ‘GOD’. It is CLEAR that this means that:

• “Though there are Gods … aplenty… For US (true believers) there is ONLY ONE GOD: The Father…”
• Only one TRUE GOD: The Father

Jesus is not ‘God’… nor is the Holy Spirit ‘God’.

Jesus was ANOINTED with the Holy Spirit and with POWER (Acts 10:37-38). His ANOINTMENT means that out of all human Beings, he was:

• ‘CHOSEN BY GOD’ and
• ‘SET ASIDE FOR KINGSHIP AND PRIESTHOOD’
• “what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?” (John 10:36)

An anointing by God, or sanctioned by God is a ‘Setting apart for kingship or priesthood’. Jesus was anointed - set aside - for both!:

• “Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah.” (Acts 2:36)

‘Messiah’ means ‘Christ’, just different languages: Hebrew and Greek.

Read Isaiah 42:1 and Acts 2:36 and Col 1:9… which all express Jesus being CHOSEN BY GOD, and being FILLED with Holy Spirit which EMPOWERED him to do the work of his spiritual Father:

• “I have brought you [Father] glory on earth by finishing the work you gave me to do.” (John 17:4)
• “My food,” said Jesus, “is to do the will of him who sent me [The Father] and to finish his work.” (John 4:34)

Notice also that when the Apostles were ANOINTED with the Holy Spirit, they too acquired GREAT POWERS to do good.

God’s Holy Spirit was SENT as a GIFT via Jesus TO the apostles.

Gods are not SENT!!!

Gods are not GIFTS!!

When the first martyr, Stephen, looked up into a visionary Heaven, who did he see?

((God, SEATED on his throne and Jesus STANDING at his right hand side!

GOD does not STAND next to GOD:

• “Beside(s) me THERE IS NO OTHER GOD” (Isaiah 45:5)

No… no no no… there is not even a verse glorifying, praising, or even honouring the Holy Spirit OF GOD!

 

[Psalm23]

@Soapy , you did put what commercial singing is in your edited posted that I saw later after I had already wrote my post asking what commercial singing was. I cannot say either way if the person singing the song was had faith or not.

 

[Kenny]

‘Godhead’ is a trinitarian invented term.

When they read the verse saying that the Father was pleased that Jesus should be filled with the fullness (of God), they realised that it would be a serious threat to the trinity ideology if they allowed the verse to be read as it was written and meant to express that Jesus was FILLED with the Holy Spirit.

‘Filled with the Holy Spirit’… which allowed him to perform the miracles and have foreknowledge that GOD ALLOWED him to know.

‘Filled with the holy Spirit’:

• “You know what has happened throughout the province of Judea, beginning in Galilee after the baptism that John preached how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and how he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil, because God was with him.“ (Acts 10:37-38)

I wouldn't call it an "invented" term because Paul used it. A new term? Well, maybe in its application. I know that the word agape was probably a new term to describe something.that no words previously had the capacity to express,

Yes, on your application of the scripture. When Jesus came as a man, he did not have the Holy Spirit because He needed to come as a man.

Is it ok to ask, would I get a holy spirited reply if I did ask:

• If God anointed Jesus (to make him ‘Christ’, then what was Jesus BEFORE God anointed him… He certainly wasn’t ‘Christ’ because ‘Christ’ means, “The anointed one, sanctified, set apart for kingship and/or Priesthood”

Again, absolutely true. Jesus came as a man and couldn't do anything without God the Holy Spirit.

Does this anointed align with:

• “As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him. And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.” (Matt 3:16-17)

Priests and kings, to be, were anointed with a special oil concoction known by and used only by appointed holy men of God. I’m sure you all know this.

This is so true!!! Love how Jesus stands as our example as the Son of Man.

So what greater ‘Oil’ could be bestowed on upon the Son of God but the ‘Oil of Gladness’, the holy SPIRIT:

• “what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?” (John 10:36)

Jesus, here, is REFUTING angrily, that he made a claim that he was ‘God’ (see verse 35).

I think that you are misinterpreting here in as much as they wanted to stone him even when he does good works not to mention:

30 I and my Father are one.31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. 32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? 33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

I think that if anyone understood what Jesus was saying would be the Jewish people themselves.

Regardless... when He was "The Word" - is was totally God but when he was on earth he was totally man.

How can anyone with truth in their mind and spirit claim that Jesus WAS CLAIMING that he was God?

Because He said so? And John said so? And Thomas said so?

In addition, I keep asking in other threads where the claim that a ‘Son is equal to his Father’ comes from? No one has answered with evidence. It seems a ridiculous concept to me because, what if, in most cases, the Father has MORE THAN ONE SON? Are they all ‘Equal to their Father’? Surely the tradition was that the firstborn* son INHERITS the lion’s share of the father’s property. How is that ‘Equal’… does the Son own his fathers WIFE and CONCUBINE and CHILDREN… just how do Trinitarians (yes it is them!) define ‘Equality’?

I think the problem here is that I look at it holistically while you are seeing it while he was man.

So... imagine if you have a spirit and soul and body. I can touch your body but not your spirit. They are different in materiality, function and substance but yet you are still one.

Again and again the Jews understood that he was saying that he was equal with God or made himself God and wanted to stone him for it. Pretty clear to me.

So, GODHEAD is an invalid term used ONLY BY TRINITARIANS as it obscures the true meaning of the verse:

• “For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;” (Col 3:19)
• “For it pleased the Father that in him should all GODHEAD dwell;” (trinity warped obfuscation)

Point of order: If the ‘Godhead’ is ‘Father, Son, and Holy Spirit’, how is Jesus ‘filled with ….’. And what was Jesus BEFORE he was ‘filled with ….’?

So.. Jesus BEFORE he was filled with the Holy Spirit and BEFORE he was made flesh, He was The Word equal with God and was God... ask it is written.

Just one God.

 

[Clara Tea]

1. “Paul, Silas and Timothy, To the church of the Thessalonians in God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ:” (2 Thes 1:1)
2. “Grace and peace to you from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.” (2 Thes 1:2)

In 1., the apostle addresses the Father as ‘God’ and addresses Jesus Christ as ‘Lord’.

For a supposedly unbreakable doctrine expressing three persons as a one immutable, almighty worshipped being, it is odd that there the greeting is only to two persons, one only of whom is called ‘God’.

Where is the third person that makes a trinity?

Of course, this isn’t *THE ONLY* incredibly belittling error towards the third person by one only apostle to the Thessalonians because there are also these: (*Edit : error corrected by additional text*)

• “James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, To the twelve tribes scattered among the nations: Greetings.” (James 1:1)
• “Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ to further the faith of God’s elect and their knowledge of the truth that leads to godliness…” (Titus 1:1)
• “This letter is from Paul, a slave of Christ Jesus, chosen by God to be an apostle and sent out to preach his Good News.” (Romans 1:1)

And many more.

The last listed has the apostle Paul claiming himself as a slave of Jesus Christ … chosen by God!

Not only, again, is there only two persons mentioned, not a trinity three, but it is clear that these two are completely separate beings. One is GOD and the other is Jesus Christ.

How is it then claimed by world wide ideological groups calling themselves ‘Followers of [Jesus] Christ’ that GOD and Jesus Christ are GOD, and GOD, is three persons who are ONE IMMUTABLE GOD who must be worshipped. Yet there is no mention of a third person that would form a trinity of co-equal all powerful all knowing Being (singular!)

Did Jesus Christ ever claim that he was a ‘Three Person GOD’, with one of the other members called GOD, and that he must be worshipped as God?

Indeed, where is there an expression in the scriptures even saying to worship the third unnamed person? And, does anyone actually worship a third unnamed person of a claimed ‘holy trinity’?

And if there is no worship claim for either Jesus Christ, or the third unnamed trinity person, are the ‘Followers of [Jesus] Christ’ not guilty of sacrilege by disowning their own claims… and proudly denouncing baptism in the name of three persons by baptising in the name of ONLY ONE PERSON of the three person, only two named, one God (called ‘Father’), being entitled: “GOD”!

(Observation: God appears to be a member of the trinity God trio - which makes Jesus a recursive entity in God since he is the ‘Son of God’, and the same ‘God’ that he is the Son of… giving:

• God is “God, Jesus Christ, unnamed person”
  
• But Jesus Christ is ‘Son of God’
• So, God is “God, Son of God (who is God), unnamed other person’
• God is ‘God, God as Son, as God, ….’

Can anyone offer an explanation of this seemingly retched conundrum which passes itself off as ‘Christianity’ which purports to be what Jesus Christ taught and they follow?

It's more complicated than a trinity. It includes praying to the virgin Mary, and Catholics say Hail Marys (which means howdy do).

 

[Clara Tea]

I wouldn't call it an "invented" term because Paul used it. A new term? Well, maybe in its application. I know that the word agape was probably a new term to describe something.that no words previously had the capacity to express,

Yes, on your application of the scripture. When Jesus came as a man, he did not have the Holy Spirit because He needed to come as a man.



Again, absolutely true. Jesus came as a man and couldn't do anything without God the Holy Spirit.



This is so true!!! Love how Jesus stands as our example as the Son of Man.


I think that you are misinterpreting here in as much as they wanted to stone him even when he does good works not to mention:

30 I and my Father are one.31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. 32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? 33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

I think that if anyone understood what Jesus was saying would be the Jewish people themselves.

Regardless... when He was "The Word" - is was totally God but when he was on earth he was totally man.


Because He said so? And John said so? And Thomas said so?




I think the problem here is that I look at it holistically while you are seeing it while he was man.

So... imagine if you have a spirit and soul and body. I can touch your body but not your spirit. They are different in materiality, function and substance but yet you are still one.

Again and again the Jews understood that he was saying that he was equal with God or made himself God and wanted to stone him for it. Pretty clear to me.



So.. Jesus BEFORE he was filled with the Holy Spirit and BEFORE he was made flesh, He was The Word equal with God and was God... ask it is written.

Just one God.

Walking on water and curing is totally man? No, these are acts of some divine power (if true).