Can One Be Christian and Not Believe In The Trinity?

[HealthyShape]

But, the winners write the history books.

God controls and determines the history and the winners.

If God wanted the ceremonial Mosaic code to be a part of Christianity, it would be.

 

[Lambano]

God controls and determines the history and the winners.

If God wanted the ceremonial Mosaic code to be a part of Christianity, it would be.

Oh, really?

Highly questionable. The assumption is that God both desires and ordains all that comes to be. Did God desire the Fall? His permissive will certainly allowed it to come to be, but did He desire it? If so that makes God the Author of Sin. This is the primary reason the Remonstrants rejected Calvinism. Not because it is unjust and unloving, but because it is unacceptably blasphemous.

 

[HealthyShape]

Oh, really?

Highly questionable. The assumption is that God both desires and ordains all that comes to be. Did God desire the Fall? His permissive will certainly allowed it to come to be, but did He desire it? If so that makes God the Author of Sin. This is the primary reason the Remonstrants rejected Calvinism. Not because it is unjust and unloving, but because it is unacceptably blasphemous.

Let us not make God to be some weak, permissive, isolated God who just laments about what is going on in His creation.

Everything exists in God and Christ is the King over all creation. And the gates of hell can not last against the attacking power of the church.

To even propose that the true church somehow lost basically few decades after Christ and the truth/light was hidden for thousands of years is rather unacceptable.

 

[Lambano]

We know what Jews believe.
We know what Muslims believe.

Careful. Neither Judaism nor Islam is monolithic. Judaism has Orthodox, Conservative, Reformed, and Reconstructionist branches. Islam has its Sunni and Shiite branches. It sounds like you’re looking to define what the core beliefs of Christianity are that cross denominational boundaries.

 

[ProDeo]

I believe that you have the timing a little off here....When it says “before the foundation of the world”, it’s not talking about the planet but the “kosmos” the world of humankind. He was referring to the children of Adam and Eve. Jesus did exist before all creation but “the founding of the world” is not the earth. His service as the redeemer was not needed until sin came into the world....which was through Adam. (Rom 5:12)

Yes, as the “firstborn of all creation” (Col 1:15) the son of God was a glorious spirit being enjoying his life with his God and Father long before any other creation was brought into being.

Yes, it was a huge sacrifice on his part to have himself reduced to a being “lower that the angels”...whom he had personally brought into existence. All creation came “through the son” by means of God’s spirit, just as Christ and his disciples did when God’s holy spirit became operative on them, empowering them to perform miracles.

There is no mention of Jesus being able to perform miracles until he was baptised, and received the Holy Spirit. It was one of the reasons why his siblings did not put faith in him...he was just their older brother.....they had grown up with him, but not until after his resurrection did they put faith in him.

He was not “slain” in any way before Adam sinned....it was through sin that death came to the human race....so if Adam had chosen not to accept his wife’s offer, God would have dealt with the situation differently.
In Genesis, God acted only once in creation itself.....after the creation of man, and with the gift of free will, they would then decide by their choices how God would respond to their actions. All he did from that time onward was respond to the choices that the humans and the rebel angels made.

That is not stated anywhere in the Bible....God being all knowing, would have had contingencies for any and all choices made in the garden. He allowed the humans to exercise their free will and acted accordingly.

There were several other scenarios that could have eventuated.....say for example, the devil had second thoughts about his intentions and changed his mind. He was a free willed being as well.

Or Eve in consulting her husband about the devil’s offer, may have advised her not to take the fruit when God had forbidden it.
Or Adam could have refused his wife’s offer and changed the course of human history.
God did not decide in advance, but allowed his children to make their own choices. The death penalty should have driven home how serious it was to take what God had claimed was his own property.

That is true, but did you miss the point of Jesus being brought into the world without sin? Only a sinless man could offer to God the only thing that would balance the scales of his perfect justice.
A life was to be given for a life under God’s law.....but since there was no one perfect or sinless, Jesus volunteered to be that sinless life, offered to save the whole human race...if they would just obey him.

You are not really reading what it says...
How was Jesus existing in God’s “form”? What “form” does God have? To be absolutely truthful, God has no form at all , because he is invisible. “God is a spirit” according to John, and consequently, so was Jesus before his human birth. Spirits exist in a realm that does not include the material surroundings that we experience.

So to exercise our intelligence here for a moment, we can only imagine how spirits interpret their own surroundings and their own definition of glory. I don’t think we possess any way to understand that, as the prophets who were given revelations into that realm, had difficulty putting into words what they were seeing.

Then it says the opposite to how you interpret it....Jesus ”did NOT count equality with God a thing to be grasped.”
IOW he had NO desire to be equal to his God and Father.

“Taking the form of a servant”......don’t we have to ask whose servant he was?
Acts 4:27, 30 tell us that Jesus was “God’s holy servant”....so how does God become his own servant?

And “being in the likeness of men”...in what way was Jesus like any man existing since Adam was created? He looked like any other human but he was without the stain of sin.....he was Adam’s exact equivalent, offering his sinless life to redeem us, and give us back what Adam lost for us.

“Becoming obedient as far as death”...again to whom was Jesus obedient? He was obedient to his God and Father. A God he served even in heaven. (Rev 3:12) By calling the Father “my God” when he was back in heaven, he showed his ongoing subservience to his Father.

It goes on to say that in Jesus’ name every knee should bow....but to whose glory?
“To the glory of God the Father”.

So....”equality with God, equality with God, equality with God.”.....
Nowhere is that even hinted.

Oh Jane, you are close....

Without going through the whole evidence, allow me to pick (just) one from the OT.

John 19:34 But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once there came out blood and water.
John 19:35 He who saw it has borne witness— his testimony is true, and he knows that he is telling the truth— that you also may believe.
John 19:36 For these things took place that the Scripture might be fulfilled: “Not one of his bones will be broken.”
John 19:37 And again another Scripture says, “They will look on him whom they have pierced.”

The apostle John is quoting Yahweh in Zach 12:10, a prophecy not fulfilled yet.

And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and pleas for mercy, so that, when they look on me, on him whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a firstborn.

 

[Lambano]

The first qualification that should come to mind is that Jesus is God.

Okay; since we've already established that we can't explain what "Jesus is God" really means without deviating into heresy, let's try something different. Let's explore the practical application of the principle, "Jesus is God".

"Personhood" implies relationship. What should be our relationship with God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost be? How is our relationship with Jesus similar to our relationship with the Father? In what ways are our relationship with each one unique?

 

[Aunty Jane]

Jesus often called the Jews "Blind" for a REASON. And this would be the reason. They only saw a man. They did not see their God.

OK....so you think that the Jews were expecting God to appear as a man?
That would have had their ‘blasphemy meters’ going off the scale! They were expecting “a man” as their prophesies had indicated. Jesus claiming to be “the son of God” was enough for them to want him punished for blasphemy. But he never once claimed to be anything else. (John 10:31-36)
Keep in mind that they were looking for an excuse to kill him.

Jesus was a man...100% mortal human or he could not have paid the set price of redemption.
The set price was already contained in God’s law.....”an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life”.....equivalency was the set price because it balanced the scales of God’s justice.....a perfect sinless human life was lost, for all of Adam’s children, so Jesus volunteered to offer his perfect sinless life to redeem us. If Jesus was God, the equivalency is lost...and the overpayment would have been ridiculous! That would be like using hundred trillion cans of bug spray to kill one mosquito.

And, in order for Jesus to be God, would mean that he was an immortal in mortal flesh.....an immortal cannot die, no matter what form they take. The God of the Jews was also the God of Jesus himself....a relationship that was maintained even after his return to heaven, where Jesus calls his Father “my God” several times in one verse. (Rev 3:12)

Just consider the real evidence because you will never hear it in church. They hide it all and promote only those verses that they can manipulate to suggest what Jesus never taught.

If you reject the evidence already presented, then you have run out of excuses.....because that is all I see in the responses here. There is a desperation to uphold a Catholic doctrine that was never in Christ’s teachings in the first place. You need more than suggestion to uphold a doctrine.
Unless there are unequivocal statements to support that doctrine, it is just an unsubstantiated belief.

There are no unequivocal statements, otherwise we would not be having this discussion.

 

[Aunty Jane]

Oh Jane, you are close....

OK...I give up....what on earth am I “close” to?

Without going through the whole evidence, allow me to pick (just) one from the OT.

John 19:34 But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once there came out blood and water.
John 19:35 He who saw it has borne witness— his testimony is true, and he knows that he is telling the truth— that you also may believe.
John 19:36 For these things took place that the Scripture might be fulfilled: “Not one of his bones will be broken.”
John 19:37 And again another Scripture says, “They will look on him whom they have pierced.”

The apostle John is quoting Yahweh in Zach 12:10, a prophecy not fulfilled yet.

Yes....and...? What is your point? Prophesy was fulfilled in Christ down to the last detail.
All prophesy concerning the manner of Christ’s death was accurately fulfilled.
All prophesy was in relation to God’s response to what took place in Eden....after the fall because everything that followed was because of the rebellion in Eden. Nothing was planned before that event.
Contingencies that God had in place depended on what choices his human children made.

He allowed them to choose their own path, just as he allows us to do the same. That is the gift of free will, which if used as God intended, would have been a blessing.....but when it is abused, it becomes a curse, for ourselves and everyone else.

And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and pleas for mercy, so that, when they look on me, on him whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a firstborn.

Reading that verse from the Hebrew Bible, it says...
“10 And I will pour out upon the house of David and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplications. And they shall look to me because of those who have been thrust through [with swords], and they shall mourn over it as one mourns over an only son and shall be in bitterness, therefore, as one is embittered over a firstborn son.”

I think I trust the Jewish translators to give us the correct understanding of the prophets words there.
Who knows Hebrew better than the native speakers? They have no trinity doctrines to uphold.....

 

[TrevorHL]

Greetings again GodsGrace,

Of course you don't care to have a Trinitarian explain what is obvious in scripture.

I decided not to answer your view of Matthew 1:20-21 and Luke 1:34-35 because I consider that these simply and clearly teach that Jesus was a human, the Son of God by birth. I find the Trinitarian view of these verses both confusing and contradictory.

You call yourself a Christian...
why would we be having this discussion??

I stand before the judgement of God the Father and His Son, our Lord Jesus Christ 1 Corinthians 4:3-5.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Hiddenthings]

Oh Jane, you are close....

Without going through the whole evidence, allow me to pick (just) one from the OT.

John 19:34 But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once there came out blood and water.
John 19:35 He who saw it has borne witness— his testimony is true, and he knows that he is telling the truth— that you also may believe.
John 19:36 For these things took place that the Scripture might be fulfilled: “Not one of his bones will be broken.”
John 19:37 And again another Scripture says, “They will look on him whom they have pierced.”

The apostle John is quoting Yahweh in Zach 12:10, a prophecy not fulfilled yet.

And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and pleas for mercy, so that, when they look on me, on him whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a firstborn.

Pro, the JWs once believed in the restoration of Israel, but they abandoned that teaching in 1955. Russell wrote extensively on this subject and demonstrated a solid understanding of Old Testament prophecies such as Zechariah 12. I’ve gone through these prophecies with Jane, and she has no answers when confronted with the clear testimony found in the Acts of the Apostles. Sad really.

 

[ProDeo]

Reading that verse from the Hebrew Bible, it says...
“10 And I will pour out upon the house of David and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplications. And they shall look to me because of those who have been thrust through [with swords], and they shall mourn over it as one mourns over an only son and shall be in bitterness, therefore, as one is embittered over a firstborn son.”

I think I trust the Jewish translators to give us the correct understanding of the prophets words there.
Who knows Hebrew better than the native speakers? They have no trinity doctrines to uphold.....

What about the JW Bible on Zach 12:10 ?

10 “I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the spirit of favor and supplication, and they will look to the one whom they pierced,+ and they will wail over him as they would wail over an only son; and they will grieve bitterly over him as they would grieve over a firstborn son.

Jehovah identifying Himself with Jesus.

Or better, all the other translations :

Zechariah 12:10 - Mourning the One they Pierced

Then I will pour out on the house of David and on the people of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and prayer, and they will look on Me, the One they have pierced. They will mourn for Him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for Him as one grieves for a firstborn son.

biblehub.com

Zach 12:10 “And I [Jehovah] will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and pleas for mercy, so that, when they look on me, on him whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a firstborn. [ESV]

Jesus, fully human, also God in the flesh.

 

[Hiddenthings]

me

The Hebrew uses the first-person pronoun (vv. 2, 3, 4, 6, 9) interwoven with the third-person pronoun (vv. 4–5, 7–8) throughout this chapter. The Lord Jesus Christ is Yahweh in manifestation (Matt. 10:40; John 13:20; 5:23). Therefore, when the Jews rejected him, they rejected Yahweh; when they crucified him, they crucified Yahweh, for he was “God with us” (Matt. 1:23), “God manifest in the flesh” (1 Tim. 3:16).

The shocking realisation that the nation has been guilty of such a sin will strike the Jewish people with overwhelming force, producing the deep mourning foretold in this chapter, a mourning that will humble every Jew to the dust and make them pliable to Divine guidance.

 

[Grailhunter]

Hell is real! But…..the topic can be confusing, because of that the Jehovah's Witnesses and others that try to use the confusion to deny it’s existence. But Hell is real…..so let’s straighten this out. Hear are some facts….

1. Hell is not mentioned in the Old Testament.

2. The understanding of an eternal fiery place of eternal punishment did not exist during the Old Testament period.

3. Some Christians did not understand why Hell was not in the Old Testament.

4. So they put it there with some of the older translational processes.

5. Some times they used the word Hades. Hades is a Greek word, it cannot be in a Hebrew text. Hades is a Greek god and reigned over an underworld of the same name. No fire.

6. Hell was new information in the New Testament so there was no word for an eternal fiery place of punishment. The word Hell comes out in the 8th century….Anglo-Saxon-German.

7. Because there was no word for Hell Yeshua and the Apostles referenced it in different ways….explanations and examples like Gehenna. They also used the Greek word Hades and changed what it meant. Like I said, Hades is a Greek god that reigned over an underworld of the same name.

8. Hell is real!

Scriptures pertaining to Hell.

Matthew 5:22 But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the Gehenna of fire.

Matthew 5:29-30 If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into Gehenna. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into Gehenna.

Matthew 8:12 While the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

Matthew 10:28 And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in Gehenna.

Matthew 3:12 His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor and gather his wheat into the barn, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire.”

Matthew 13:41-42 The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all law-breakers, and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Matthew 13:50 And throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Matthew 23:15 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel across sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of Gehenna as yourselves.

Matthew 23:33 You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to Gehenna?

Matthew 24:51 And will cut him in pieces and put him with the hypocrites. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Matthew 25:41 Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

Matthew 25:46 And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

Mark 9:43 And if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than with two hands to go to Gehenna, to the unquenchable fire.

Mark 9:45 And if your foot offend you, cut if off: it is better to you to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into Gehenna, into the fire that never shall be quenched.

Mark 9:48 where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.

Luke 3:17 His winnowing fork is in his hand, to clear his threshing floor and to gather the wheat into his barn, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire.”

Luke 12:5 But I will warn you whom to fear: fear him who, after he has killed, has authority to cast into Gehenna. Yes, I tell you, fear him!

Luke 16:19-31 “There was a rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. And at his gate was laid a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores, who desired to be fed with what fell from the rich man's table. Moreover, even the dogs came and licked his sores. The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried, and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side.

John 5:28-29 Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment.

2nd Thessalonians 1:8-9 In flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might,

2nd Peter 2:4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into Tartarus and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment; Tartarus means deep abyss.

Jude 1:7 Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.

Revelation 1:18 And the living one. I died, and behold I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of Death and Hades.

Revelation 14:10 He also will drink the wine of God's wrath, poured full strength into the cup of his anger, and he will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb.

Revelation 14:11 And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night, these worshipers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name.

Revelation 19:20 And the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who in its presence had done the signs by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped its image. These two were thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns with sulfur.

Revelation 20:10 And the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.

Revelation 20:12-15--- 12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what they had done. 14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. 15 Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire.

Revelation 21:8 But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.

You can look the scriptures up and see what word was actually used.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Thanks RK...
I agree with everything you've stated.

I do also believe that when we have correct theology everything does make more sense and every single passage in the NT is easy to explain without having to twist and bend and go on a tyraid as to what it "really" means... IOW,,,all scripture has to be reconciled in order for it to make any sense.

But you said there are CHRISTIANS who reject the Trinity...
so what defines them as Christian?

Is it merely the fact that they follow Jesus?
If that is the only criteria, then we each can create our very own "religion".

I'm saying that if we want to DESCRIBE ourselves as Christian we must adhere to
Christian tenets.

Is this wrong?

If I'm an auto mechanic...
don't I have specific rules to follow?
or can I fix a car however I see fit to even if it causes harm to the auto?

If I want to make lasagne (more my style!)
don't I have a specific recipe to follow?
Or can I make them any way I wish to and still call them lasagne?


(and yes, it is lasagne and not lasagna).

Well, as I was trying to say, but apparently failed, is that there are different kinds of Christians. Yes, anybody who says they are following Christ can claim to be a "Christian." This doesn't make them a "good Christian." Nor does it have to do with saying they are a "good person" or a "bad person." They can be a very "good person" and be totally wrong about what a "good Christian" is.

A "good Christian" is one who holds to the general orthodox standard of the historical Church. All of the Church denominations hold to some semblance of the Creeds. However, in the case of the Trinity, we have Pentecostal Oneness today, and we have Unitarianism.

Are these groups "good Christians?" I would say that they are not "good Christians" in the sense of carrying proper doctrine. But I'm not saying that they're "bad Christians" in the sense of not following Christ or in the sense of being "bad people." They are simple "bad Christians" in the sense that for whatever reason they're following a path that is not proper Christian doctrine, as evidenced by the historical Church and its basic beliefs.

This is difficult to say or to dissect. I hope you understand?

 

[Grailhunter]

Well, as I was trying to say, but apparently failed, is that there are different kinds of Christians. Yes, anybody who says they are following Christ can claim to be a "Christian." This doesn't make them a "good Christian." Nor does it have to do with saying they are a "good person" or a "bad person." They can be a very "good person" and be totally wrong about what a "good Christian" is.

A "good Christian" is one who holds to the general orthodox standard of the historical Church. All of the Church denominations hold to some semblance of the Creeds. However, in the case of the Trinity, we have Pentecostal Oneness today, and we have Unitarianism.

Are these groups "good Christians?" I would say that they are not "good Christians" in the sense of carrying proper doctrine. But I'm not saying that they're "bad Christians" in the sense of not following Christ or in the sense of being "bad people." They are simple "bad Christians" in the sense that for whatever reason they're following a path that is not proper Christian doctrine, as evidenced by the historical Church and its basic beliefs.

This is difficult to say or to dissect. I hope you understand?

Well, as I was trying to say, but apparently failed, is that there are different kinds of Christians. Yes, anybody who says they are following Christ can claim to be a "Christian." This doesn't make them a "good Christian." Nor does it have to do with saying they are a "good person" or a "bad person." They can be a very "good person" and be totally wrong about what a "good Christian" is.

A "good Christian" is one who holds to the general orthodox standard of the historical Church. All of the Church denominations hold to some semblance of the Creeds. However, in the case of the Trinity, we have Pentecostal Oneness today, and we have Unitarianism.

Are these groups "good Christians?" I would say that they are not "good Christians" in the sense of carrying proper doctrine. But I'm not saying that they're "bad Christians" in the sense of not following Christ or in the sense of being "bad people." They are simple "bad Christians" in the sense that for whatever reason they're following a path that is not proper Christian doctrine, as evidenced by the historical Church and its basic beliefs.

This is difficult to say or to dissect. I hope you understand?

Many----most people misunderstand the discussion of the Trinity. It is not denying the Trinity it is attempting to understand it the best we can.

Most people would like to think that their beliefs are correct, that their beliefs were the ones in the 1st century----biblical. They use words like orthodox to describe their beliefs. But how is the term orthodox used….mostly it means popular or common. At one time the belief that the world was flat was popular and people condemn those like Galileo who proved it was wrong.

The fact is it was the Catholic Church that first to promote the 3 in 1 formula for the Trinity and then it became orthodox. The Catholic Church was the first to attempt at belief control. In reality it is a fool’s game.

At one time the Catholic Church dabbled with defining divine nature and substance….again a fool’s game. The best we can do is do our best to understand but we will never understand it all. And those that attempt a higher level of understanding will be condemned because they will be thinking outside of the box, out of the orthodox.

God is not a name….it is not a God. God is a divine title or divine position. The Christian Gods are named in the scriptures. We know them as Yahweh and Yeshua and the Holy Spirit. But exactly how they relate and exactly how they are connected we do not know. Yahweh defined Yahweh and Yeshua’s relationship in a simple manner….Father and Son….Was it kept at that simple level because the truth is so advanced that we could not comprehend it?

As a theologian I look at the scriptures as a whole and as a whole the New Testament shows 3 Gods working together to save humanity. I do not take one or two scriptures and elevate them above the whole.

Some would like to believe that Christian beliefs are static, but taking the Bible as a whole, beliefs and understanding were never static but evolving and even after the biblical period they continue to evolve.

 

[Aunty Jane]

What about the JW Bible on Zach 12:10 ?

10 “I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the spirit of favor and supplication, and they will look to the one whom they pierced,+ and they will wail over him as they would wail over an only son; and they will grieve bitterly over him as they would grieve over a firstborn son.

And yet they are going to grieve over him as “an only son”....as they would a “firstborn son”....would you say that about someone’s father? Not making a lot of sense here....
The NWT follows the rendering of the Hebrew Bible in this verse, rather than a trinitarian based translation.
You can use whatever translation you prefer....whatever you think is the right one.....as long as it agrees with your preferred view of God....and yet, he is who he has always been...unchangeable....so how come the Jews never knew him the way Christendom describes him? When did he become a chameleon?

Jehovah identifying Himself with Jesus.

Where? I see no such “identifying”.....in fact, I see a clear cut statement about a “firstborn or son”....not a triune god. Do you have distorted lenses in your spiritual glasses?

Or better, all the other translations :

Zechariah 12:10 - Mourning the One they Pierced

Then I will pour out on the house of David and on the people of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and prayer, and they will look on Me, the One they have pierced. They will mourn for Him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for Him as one grieves for a firstborn son.

biblehub.com

Zach 12:10 “And I [Jehovah] will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and pleas for mercy, so that, when they look on me, on him whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a firstborn. [ESV]

Jesus, fully human, also God in the flesh.

And you expect trinitarians to translate the Bible without bias towards their favourite doctrine?
I like to do my own research....with all the tools available to get to the true meaning of the original language words the writers used, and how they were understood by the writers themselves and their intended audience.

 

[TrevorHL]

Greetings Randy Kluth,

A "good Christian" is one who holds to the general orthodox standard of the historical Church. All of the Church denominations hold to some semblance of the Creeds.

I suggest by your definition you are siding with the orthodox historical Church which persecuted the faithful for 1260 years Daniel 7.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[HealthyShape]

Greetings Randy Kluth,

I suggest by your definition you are standing with the orthodox historical Church which persecuted the faithful for 1260 years Daniel 7.

Kind regards
Trevor

I think that this is a clear logical fallacy. You associate the general orthodox standards (like creeds) with political evils.

You could do all kinds of associations that way. For example, you are labeling yourself a Christian and people labeled as Christians persecuted other Christians.

Or, you could label yourself a Unitarian, but there certainly was some evil in history done by a Unitarian. It does not automatically belong to you, does it?

 

[ProDeo]

What about the JW Bible on Zach 12:10 ?

10 “I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the spirit of favor and supplication, and they will look to the one whom they pierced,+ and they will wail over him as they would wail over an only son; and they will grieve bitterly over him as they would grieve over a firstborn son.

The NWT follows the rendering of the Hebrew Bible in this verse, rather than a trinitarian based translation.

Zach 12:10 “And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and pleas for mercy, so that, when they look on me, on him whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a firstborn.

The thing is the JW bible conveniently stripped "on me", that's a fraud.

Likewise the fraud on John 1:1, and the word was a god (fraud), the right translation : and the Word was God.


JW Bible
Jehovah : I am the Alʹpha and the O·meʹga,” says Jehovah* God, “the One who is and who was and who is coming, the Almighty.”-- Rev 1:7
Jesus : I am the Alʹpha and the O·meʹga, the first and the last, the beginning and the end -- Rev 22:13

The one Russell and comrades forgot ?

 

[ProDeo]

Pro, the JWs once believed in the restoration of Israel, but they abandoned that teaching in 1955. Russell wrote extensively on this subject and demonstrated a solid understanding of Old Testament prophecies such as Zechariah 12. I’ve gone through these prophecies with Jane, and she has no answers when confronted with the clear testimony found in the Acts of the Apostles. Sad really.

Sad indeed.

And the most sad of all, they robbed Jesus from His glory.