Who really created the Son of God?

[GodsGrace]

Either you produce your die-hard claim that the Father and Son are the same, as a mathematical equity that scripture tends not to do, i.e. 'is' usually does not equate to '=', in a logical sequence and thought process that I believe you are not capable of doing,

All you can do is insult.
It's your method of operation.

I will not be leaving this thread.

I will remain here stating that you are posting heresy.

And, BTW, try reading post no. 197.


Jesus is YAHWEH.
Is God the First and the Last?
Is Jesus the Alpha and the Omega?

See JustMe.
Father and Son ARE THE SAME.

or you can just leave this thread quietly, in knowing you tried you best. What else is there to do? That I believe is your 'high' road that you can take.

 

[JustMe]

This is like a conversation I had with another poster in this thread. He refused to admit John 1:1 does not mention Yeshua, let alone the divinity of Yeshua. Yet, he was confident it was irrelevant!

Whether something is relevant is an opinion from the facts. Odd to be confident in an opinion WHILE SIDE STEPPING the facts, don't you think?

Yes, I've noticed a great deal of this selectiveness. This entire back-and-forth is not the most productive yield of fruit that God would be pleased with, I assure you.

 

[GodsGrace]

This is at least the 4th time you have brought in scripture into play that does not help your cause, I'm afraid. Don't you get tired of knowing this is the limit of your understanding this thread, and you cannot hope to articulate anything more in any detail?

Later

Because YOU do not understand scripture....
does not make it illigitimate.

 

[Justified]

You are combining the Memra-Logos one and only-kind Son with the Anointed One, a man: yet another catastrophic error much like the other poster herein. That mixture was forced in the early days of the RCC in order to invent a God-Man because of an utter misunderstanding of the nomen sacrum written all through the texts. The Meshiah or Christos is the Anointed One: the Memra or Logos is the very Anointing upon the Anointed One.

And, yet, the NT makes it abundantly clear that the Logos is the Messiah. It has nothing to do with the RCC but rather with what Scripture states.

You should listen to @Wrangler:

Why should I listen to him when he leaves all my arguments, which are based on Scripture, completely unaddressed and just offers mere opinion based on out-of-context proof-texting, which it seems you have done as well?

the Gospel of John does not say that "Jesus is the Logos" anywhere and especially not in the first chapter, that's another catastrophic assumption that leads to catastrophic error even in most of the mainstream.

The Gospel of John states that the Logos is God in nature, having existed for all "eternity past" in an interpersonal relationship with God. John's line of thought in 1:1-18 starts with who the Word is and then who the Word becomes.

It's based on nothing more than your indoctrination which has given birth to your dogma.

Why do all you anti-Trinitarians continually make such fallacious assumptions about those you disagree with? Why do you all so proudly think that you're not indoctrinated?

Another catastrophic error: thinking that the Meshiah/Christ is always speaking of himself in the third person.

So, who was Jesus talking about? You're all good at giving opinions while completely avoiding addressing the actual argument and providing a satisfactory answer.

The Meshiah/Christ is a man, not a "God-Man", and his Anointing, the One and Only-Kind Son of the Father, is Divine, uncreated, and is ever in the bosom of the Father, (John 1:18), because he is the Memra-Logos-Word of the Father. The Father has never been without His Word and His Word is not a man.

That's just avoiding the entirety of John 1:1-18, not to mention a number of other passages which I have provided.

Perhaps you should open your eyes and ears and realize that the Meshiah may not be always speaking of himself when he mentions the Son in the third person.

Then who would he have been talking about? And if Jesus "may not always be speaking of himself when mentions the Son in the third person," which implies that sometimes he may be doing so, how do you determine the difference?

Don't say that someone should open their eyes when you offer nothing to "help" open their eyes.

Moreover, regarding other topics and situations, especially in the Gospel of John, the Son, the Word, speaks through the Anointed One: and why should anyone be surprised about that? for the Son is the very Anointing upon the Anointed One.

You're now implying that the Son is the Word. You stated above that "the Memra or Logos is the very Anointing upon the Anointed One," and now you say that "the Son is the very Anointing upon the Anointed One."

You are equating the Word with the Son, which is the very argument I have made. So why are you right and I am wrong? Yet, you also deny that the Word is a person. Do you also deny that the Son is a person? Why or why not?

Generally when you see the double affirmation, "Amen, amen", (which only happens of the Gospel of John), the text is most likely signifying this fact, that the Son is speaking through the Anointed One, the Meshiah or Christos. Was the divine Son also sent? Yes, in the form of a dove in the immersion accounts, and He therefore descends and ascends the heavens.

I agree that the divine Son was sent, but the Bible clearly states that the Holy Spirit descended like a dove onto the Son, as attested to in all four gospels:

Mat 3:16 And when Jesus was baptized, immediately he went up from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest on him;
Mat 3:17 and behold, a voice from heaven said, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.”

Note more closely what John the Baptist states:

Joh 1:29 The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!
Joh 1:30 This is he of whom I said, ‘After me comes a man who ranks before me, because he was before me.’
Joh 1:31 I myself did not know him, but for this purpose I came baptizing with water, that he might be revealed to Israel.”
Joh 1:32 And John bore witness: “I saw the Spirit descend from heaven like a dove, and it remained on him.
Joh 1:33 I myself did not know him, but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’
Joh 1:34 And I have seen and have borne witness that this is the Son of God.”

The Son of God cannot be the Holy Spirit. A plain reading of the text simply does not allow for such an understanding. Jesus is the incarnation of the divine Son--the Word become flesh--and says that he "will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper" (John 14:16).

Many of your opinions are illogical and unreasonable, and yet logos and logic go hand in hand, (see Rom 12:1, reasonable is actually logikos, that is, logical, and its root is logos).

And, yet, once again, you only offer opinion and nothing of substance. You haven't even actually engaged with any of my arguments to even try and show that my "opinions are illogical and unreasonable."

All flesh is not the same flesh: even Torah scrolls are made of flesh, originally lambskins, also called parchment.

Speaking of illogical. One consistent thing I have noticed among you anti-Trinitarians is how you take plain statements in Scripture and spin them to mean something else, simply because the plain statements don't fit your beliefs.

Joh 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.
Joh 1:15 (John bore witness about him, and cried out, “This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me ranks before me, because he was before me.’”)
Joh 1:16 For from his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace.
Joh 1:17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.

The plain reading is abundantly clear; this shouldn't be an issue. Who did John bear witness about? Jesus. Are you now arguing that Jesus was of a different flesh? That would be absurd.

Jesus himself never makes such an absurd argument:

Joh 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Luk 24:39 See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.”
Luk 24:40 And when he had said this, he showed them his hands and his feet.
Luk 24:41 And while they still disbelieved for joy and were marveling, he said to them, “Have you anything here to eat?”
Luk 24:42 They gave him a piece of broiled fish,
Luk 24:43 and he took it and ate before them.

 

[Justified]

<sigh> What set of words would support adoptionism?

Words that clearly state Jesus was adopted. That is a claim neither he nor any other NT writer makes. What they all do make clear is that Jesus is uniquely the only Son and that anyone who repents and puts their faith in Christ and his work become adopted.

 

[Justified]

Yeshua is the real Son of God, conceived and born of a woman. Yeshua is a full-fledged God that sits on a throne to the right of His Father Yahweh in Heaven.

What Does the Bible Say About Jesus Sitting At The Right Hand Of The Father?

Bible verses about Jesus Sitting At The Right Hand Of The Father

www.openbible.info

and behold, a voice out of the heavens said, This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased. Matthew 3:17 and You heard that I said to you, ‘I go away, and I will come to you.’ If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced because I go to the Father, for the Father is greater than I. And....Jesus said to her, “Stop clinging to Me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, ‘I ascend to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God. John 20:17

He is not a separate God. The Bible absolutely and utterly refutes such an idea.

 

[JLB]

This is at least the 4th time you have brought in scripture into play that does not help your cause, I'm afraid. Don't you get tired of knowing this is the limit of your understanding this thread, and you cannot hope to articulate anything more in any detail?

Later

I don’t have a cause.

The scriptures teach the truth about Christ and who He is.


Jesus Christ is LORD; YHWH


He is God who became flesh.


But to the Son He says:
“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever;
A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.
You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness;
Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You
With the oil of gladness more than Your companions.”
And: “You, LORD, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth,
And the heavens are the work of Your hands. Hebrews 1:8-10



And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness:
God was manifested in the flesh,
Justified in the Spirit,
Seen by angels,
Preached among the Gentiles,
Believed on in the world,
Received up in glory.
1 Timothy 3:16

 

[Grailhunter]

He is not a separate God. The Bible absolutely and utterly refutes such an idea.

LOL
The McKenzie Bible Dictionary explains it this way.... “The Trinity of God is defined by the Church as the belief that in God there are three persons who subsist in one nature. The belief as so defined was reached only in the 4th and 5th centuries AD and hence is not explicitly or formally a biblical belief.” Which hold true to the fact that the word Trinity does not occur in the Holy Bible.

This is strictly a Roman Catholic Doctrine that was forced on Christianity upon pain of excomunication or death. You defend a Roman Catholic Doctrine, I defend the scriptures.

 

[Justified]

Appeal to Authority.

Lol. No, it isn't.

This is like a conversation I had with another poster in this thread. He refused to admit John 1:1 does not mention Yeshua, let alone the divinity of Yeshua. Yet, he was confident it was irrelevant!

That is bearing false witness. Christians aren't supposed to be doing that.

Whether something is relevant is an opinion from the facts. Odd to be confident in an opinion WHILE SIDE STEPPING the facts, don't you think?

And yet it is you and the other anti-Trinitarians that have yet to actually engage with the arguments and have only given opinion. Several passages of Scripture that I've given which you all have just avoided, preferring to make assumptions about those with whom you disagree.

 

[Justified]

LOL
The McKenzie Bible Dictionary explains it this way.... “The Trinity of God is defined by the Church as the belief that in God there are three persons who subsist in one nature. The belief as so defined was reached only in the 4th and 5th centuries AD and hence is not explicitly or formally a biblical belief.” Which hold true to the fact that the word Trinity does not occur in the Holy Bible.

What does this have to do with my post that you quoted? I was addressing the other poster's tritheism.

 

[Grailhunter]

What does this have to do with my post that you quoted? I was addressing the other poster's tritheism.

You posted....He is not a separate God.
He is a separate God not 3 in one.

 

[Justified]

You posted....He is not a separate God.
He is a separate God not 3 in one.

Again, the Bible absolutely and utterly rules out even one more true, living God. There is only one God, yet the Son is truly deity. There aren't very many directions that can go, but tritheism is precluded.

 

[Wrangler]

Words that clearly state Jesus was adopted.

Yea, OK. I already showed you several such verses.

 

[Matthias]

You believe MATTHIAS!
But he's a MAN!

YOU have been stating that you do not believe those that the THE APOSTLES taught because they are mere men and not inspired !

So is Matthias inspired?
And yet you believe HIM?

You are washed from shore to shore because youre theology is incorrect.


James 1:6
6 But he must ask in faith, doubting nothing, for the one who doubts is like the surf of the sea, driven and tossed by the wind.


1 Timothy 4:1
4 But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will [a]fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons,


@Matthias

Please, I’m requesting you publicly to stop mentioning me in your rebuttals.

Post in thread 'Reason for The Crusades explained'
Reason for The Crusades explained

I honored your request. I hope you’ll honor mine.

 

[Grailhunter]

Again, the Bible absolutely and utterly rules out even one more true, living God. There is only one God, yet the Son is truly deity. There aren't very many directions that can go, but tritheism is precluded.

Over a hundred scriptures prove the 3 in 1 God formula for the trinity wrong.
Oh my gosh! To start with Yahweh had a Son! The scriptures do not say He had Himself! The Father and Son relationship is actually a thing and Yeshua being the Son of Yahweh is a district and important fact in Christianity. 50 my Father and My Father in heaven scriptures. And again Yeshua called Yahweh his Father and His God.

 

[Justified]

Over a hundred scriptures prove the 3 in 1 God formula for the trinity wrong.

Can you provide just a few with a precise explanation as to how they prove the Trinity wrong?

Oh my gosh! To start with Yahweh had a Son!

Yes, I know, and I fully agree.

The scriptures do not say He had Himself!

Of course it doesn't because that would be absurd. That is why the doctrine of the Trinity doesn't state such a thing either.

The Father and Son relationship is actually a thing and Yeshua being the Son of Yahweh is a district and important fact in Christianity. 50 my Father and My Father in heaven scriptures. And again Yeshua called Yahweh his Father and His God.

Again, all the Trinitarian doctrine fully affirms all of that.

 

[Justified]

Yea, OK. I already showed you several such verses.

But you haven't. As I have already stated in response to those verses:

Joh 1:12 But to all who did receive him [Jesus], who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God,

Col 3:12 Put on then, as God's chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassionate hearts, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience,

Gal 3:26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith.

Humans are clearly said to be adopted as God's children, but that isn't what Adoptionism means. Jesus, or rather the Son, was never adopted--that's rather the whole point of monogenes, which refers to "one and only" and uniqueness.

Again, as I have pointed out, even Jesus claims he is the only Son:

Joh 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
Joh 3:17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Joh 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

It's worth noting that not only did you not even attempt a rebuttal, you are now simply repeating your unsupported assertion. This is a very clear case of eisegesis. You're reading what you want into those texts, but they're clearly addressed to and speaking about believers, not Jesus.

In that same response, I also posted this, to which again you completely ignored (I think that was at least the second time):

First, we see in Heb. 1:2 that "in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world."

How did the Father create the world through his Son if the Son didn't exist when the world was created? Basic reasoning shows that the Son necessarily existed prior to the creation of the world. This comes out again in Heb. 1:10-12:

Heb 1:10 And, “You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands;
Heb 1:11 they will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment,
Heb 1:12 like a robe you will roll them up, like a garment they will be changed. But you are the same, and your years will have no end.”

Who is speaking here? The Father, as we can see from verse 8. But look at the astounding claim--he is applying Ps. 102:25-27 to the Son. But who is Ps. 102:25-27 referring to? To Yahweh, to God. The Father is literally saying the Son is also Yahweh. (Yet, we know that there is only one God.) Again, there is a consistency from Heb. 1:2 to 10-12, which is consistent with what John says in 1:1-18.

Why haven't you addressed this? You appealed to Heb. 1:5 but completely ignored this further, very significant context.

 

[Grailhunter]

Can you provide just a few with a precise explanation as to how they prove the Trinity wrong?

LOL A few!!!
The one God formula for the Trinity skews the meaning of over a hundred scriptures and the storyline of the Gospels….
And then here are over a hundred scriptural reasons why the one God formula for the Trinity is false.
Note: Feel free to verify all scriptural references in your own favorite translation.
This is a topic that is easy to prove because it connects to so many scriptures, which will be referenced directly and or indirectly through this discussion as well as the obvious storyline of the Gospels. The topic as a whole is interesting because it involves the thoughts and beliefs of the Early Church Fathers and the Ecumenical Councils that eventually influenced Catholic and Protestant beliefs.

Most Christian denominations proclaim a belief in the Trinity, and its existence is certain, it is the details that vary. Some define the Trinity as three persons in one God, some turn the perspective around and believe that the Trinity is one God with three aspects. Some reduce the Trinity to a duo, the Holy Spirit merely being the projection of Yahweh or Yeshua’s spirit...not a God….a spirit, different in substance than Yahweh or Yeshua. Part of this was due to not giving the Holy Spirit a name. Holy Spirit is not a name.....they are all holy Spirits to an extent.

Some definitions of the Trinity…
Baptist definition of the Trinity
We believe that there is one, and only one, living and true God and infinite, intelligent Spirit, the Maker and Supreme Ruler of Heaven and Earth

Catholics believe in one single God, who made Himself known to the world (revelation) as three separate persons: God the Father, God the Son (Jesus) and God the Holy Spirit. This is known as the doctrine of the Trinity, and is a fundamental belief for all Catholics.

Pentecostal definition of the Trinity
The doctrine states that there is one God, a singular divine spirit with no distinction of persons….who manifests himself in many ways, including as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This stands in sharp contrast to the doctrine of three distinct, eternal persons posited by Trinitarian theology.

The three persons in one god is very popular and common in the mythology of Paganism.

Then there are those that believe Yeshua is the “one” and only God... representing three aspects of God or even Christ being the God that created the Heavens and Earth. Which would pretty much invalidate the entire Old Testament and the Apostle’s Creed, where God the Father is the Creator, or even the concept of God being the Father.

Now this one God formula makes you wonder how God the Father fits in! Oddly enough, the “confusion factor” comes from a “qualifying condition” from the 4th century on, the thinking is if it makes no sense or cannot be understood, that is the qualifying factor that it is of God! This is an interesting topic in itself. Debates over what the Trinity meant, and or what it is, has continued throughout the centuries. The winning point always has been and is, that the Gospels clearly document the presence, actions, communications, and movements, of three persons (Gods). But the most commonly accepted doctrine of the Trinity, is that there are three persons in one God, called God, named God, as if the word God is a name. This is the larger intent and underlying reason for this doctrine of the Trinity, and that is to say “one God” not Gods. Because of this the reasons for and explanation of the errors with the one God formula for the Trinity starts with the removal of Yahweh’s name from the Old Testament. This was the event that set the stage for the one God formula and it started with the removal of God’s name from the Old Testament scriptures. That is to change the name of the Yahweh to God. Rather than “God” representing spiritual position, to change the word God to a proper name. At which point they could manipulate it very easily.

The truth is that God the Father's name at one time appeared around 6,800 times in the Old Testament and He was adamant that He was the only one and no one like Him existed. There are a few words in the OT that refer to Yahweh, like EL and Elohim and at times they referred to locations or holy sites, but they are references not proper names, or they could not say or write them. On the other hand YHWH does refer to the proper name of God the Father and at one time it appeared over 6.800 times in the Old Testament.

The exact pronunciation of Yahweh name is debatable but from around 840 BC on, His name was represented by the Tetragrammaton….YHWH. Then during the Greek translations of the Hebrew Bible (The Septuagint, beginning around 280 BC) they removed the Tetragrammaton and replaced it with the words Lord or God or both. So then during the Ecumenical Councils they could argue that the Trinity was a functional unnamed trio in the Old Testament ….because God was now all their names!

So now the bumper sticker “IN GOD WE TRUST” can mean any god.
The word Trinity is not in the Bible but it was coined by early Christian writers but they did not define the Trinity as three Gods in one person or entity. So why and when was the doctrine of the one God Trinity proposed? The doctrine of the one God Trinity was created by the Ecumenical Councils to settle irreconcilable arguments within the Council on the nature and differences between God the Father and God the Son. These differences were Irreconcilable but Emperor Constantine commanded an agreement on this issue.

In and out of the Council, Christians had differing beliefs regarding Yahweh and Yeshua. The big topic was about some seeing a big difference in the character and nature and actions of Yahweh and Yeshua. Which was one of the concerns of the Gnostics. Now modern Christians believe as the Ecumenical Councils and the Roman Catholics believed that Gnostics were heretics and preached false beliefs, and that was correct, but some Gnostic beliefs were gaining popularity with Christians towards the end of the 1st century and beyond. The Gnostics believed that the Old Testament God was either evil or insane. So they believed that Yeshua was the Creator God and God Almighty, essentially the only true God.

Now beliefs are ideas and do not necessary commitment to a particular religion as a whole. And some Gnostic beliefs or similar beliefs were accepted by some “mainstream” Christians. Part of this may have been because of the Gospel of John. John’s writings came out towards the end of the 1st century when Christians were thirsty for more information. Now John’s writings seemed to have a Gnostic flavor. Not that He condemned God the Father but promoted Christ as the Creator God and God Almighty. He also embraced the concept of the Logos which was a Greek belief from 6 centuries prior that described a universal knowledge.

The Ecumenical Councils saw Gnostic beliefs as a threat because it was so popular at the time, and of course the beliefs outlined in John’s writings where as Yeshua was the Creator God and God Almighty and these beliefs were popular with some within the Councils so this was some of the irreconcilable arguments within the Councils. On the other hand…..

“Some” being people in the council and outside of the council.
Some believed that Yahweh was the Creator God and some believed that Yeshua was the Creator God.
Some believed in a hierarchy, that God the Father was senior to God the Son.
Some saw a difference in the character of Yahweh and Yeshua, a difference in their nature and actions.
Some believed that because God the Father begot a Son that was a God, that was proof of two Gods.
Some believed that parts of the Gospel of John validated parts of Gnosticism. Because of this and other reasons the Church had to put down the Gnostics.

These differences could not be resolved but Emperor Constantine insisted on an agreement, the one Church, one faith thing. But still the differences persisted. So the one God formula was developed…..with a whole slew theological terms to explain it, that are not in the scriptures. The reasoning was that if you imply that God is one person there cannot be a difference in character, nature, and substance and all events are attributed to that one person (God) The problem is the scriptures do not support this by direct explanation or even follow the storyline of events, particularly in the Gospels where Yahweh and Yeshua were interacting and referring to each other and referring to each other in different places. For example Christ said my Father in Heaven….Omnipresent? But Christ did not say, My Father everywhere, it is always My Father in Heaven.

So as it is….

The McKenzie Bible Dictionary explains it this way.... “The Trinity of God is defined by the Church as the belief that in God there are three persons who subsist in one nature. The belief as so defined was reached only in the 4th and 5th centuries AD and hence is not explicitly or formally a biblical belief.” Which hold true to the fact that the word Trinity does not occur in the Holy Bible

Continued.....

 

[Grailhunter]

But issuing the doctrine of the Trinity was not enough because Emperor Constantine believed that all of Christianity should be one belief….one Faith. So the effort of belief control began. This doctrine had to be forced on Christianity in that they would excommunicate or kill anyone that preached anything contrary to the one God Trinity, even to the point that one could not be a Christian or saved if they did not believe in the one God Trinity.

The term and concept of heresy came from the Edict of Roman Emperor Theodosius 380 AD and the Catholic Church adopted the term. And by the way the Catholic Church considered all Protestants heretics. A heretic would be excommunicated by the Church and since the Catholic Church was the state religion of the Roman Empire, heretics were considered enemies of the Empire and could be killed. And you can get into the list of heretics that were killed as time went on as well as the groups that believed differently than the Roman Catholic Church. And yes eventually there were wars between the Catholics and Protestants.

But, as with many of the official doctrines of man, what Rome proposed and what the regional churches and the people believed were many times different than the prescribed doctrines coming out of Rome. The one God formulas for the Trinity was/is abstract and incongruent. So many in that time period did not agree with the one God concept, and many believed in the authoritative position of God the Father. The one God formula was not true or accurate but it did shutdown the arguments by outlawing public objections….

The problem with these doctrines is that as a whole the scriptures as well as the storyline of the Gospels do not support the one God formula. The Gospels clearly show the Father and Son interacting and communicating throughout Christ’s ministry. Even the people that were not Apostles understood that there were individuals Gods in the trinity…. Like the time the Mother of James and John Asked Christ that her sons sit on thrones on either side of Him? And Christ answered that the places at My right side and at My left side are not Mine to give. Whoever My Father says will have those places.” There are several examples like this but one God formula people are so brain washed that they cannot see the forest for the trees.

The Comma Johanneum as it is referred to originated as a common literary explanation for the one God Trinity formula. The first discussion against the one God formula may have been around the 3rd century. Some mention a connection with some of the early Church Fathers, like Cyprian which debated the oneness concepts of the Trinity. It first appeared in written form during the 4th century in the Latin homily Liber Apologeticus, which was probably written by Priscillian of Avila. This theological formula was circulated from then on, but was not accepted, or at least was not quoted by most of the early Church Fathers in which there was a continual disagreement on the construct of the Trinity.

At some point this short summary of the Trinity made its way into the margin notes of some of the manuscripts that were written after the 5th century. Unlike other examples of popular margin notes that made their way into the scriptures, the Comma Johanneum found its way into the verses of the Bible by way of another avenue. After the early 16th century, the Byzantines began to recopy and retranslate the available Greek texts of the New Testament. At this point some of these copies became known as the “Textus Receptus.” ---Erasmus--- It was in some of these that the formula was added and then later included in some of the Bibles. Most notably the King James Version, which relied heavily on these texts. On the 2nd of June 1927, Pope Pius XI decreed that the Comma Johanneum was open to dispute. The updated " Nova Vulgata" edition of the Vulgate, published in 1979 as a result of the Second Vatican Council, does not include the Comma. In the Catholic study Bible I have that was printed around 1960 includes a combination of these two scriptures, with a side note that explains that it was a re-phrasing of the scriptures by the Holy See, as it was his prerogative. But as such are open to debate.

As it happened the Comma Johanneum Addition was much more than a re-translation, or an addition, but rather a replacement of the original scriptures with a theological statement. They kept the verse numbers in sequence so that it would not be as noticeable, but replaced the words.

The scriptures involved are 1st John 5:6-8. The original scriptures read as follows... (Quoting 6 through 8, so it can be read in context)

“6. This is the one who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ; not with the water only, but with the water and with the blood. 7. And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is the truth. 8. And it is the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.”

This was replaced with what came to be called the Comma Johanneum Addition.

6: This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. 7: For there are three that bear record in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8: And there are three that bear witness in Earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

As one can see there is no chance that this is simply a different translation, but rather a removal of the scriptures and an insertion of a known theological statement for an intended purpose. Of course and again, there is no question that the Trinity exists, just that the Bible does not support the commonly explained formula or description of it. And this is the larger problem, if everybody changes the scriptures to what they believe, then we do not get an accurate reading of the Word of God, but instead a denominational sermon of beliefs. The Comma Johanneum Addition is a good illustration of the frustration that some had with trying to promote their beliefs and to what extent they would go to, to promote their beliefs above and over the Bible. This is not a unique observation but rather the opinion of many scholars and most of the well known reference material explains the Trinity as more of a doctrine than a biblical teaching.

Now the term Trinity was coined early on in post biblical Christian writings but the one God formula or definition was not in those writings. Nor the theological terms of the Catholic Church to explain it…..

Equality: The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are equal in the Holy Trinity

Incarnation: Only the Son became incarnate as Jesus Christ

Coeternality: The Son is coeternal with the Father and begotten from his same substance

The Son is completely divine, or homoousion tō Patri, which means "of one substance with the Father"

The council drew up the Nicene Creed, which states that the Son is of the same substance as God the Father

Those that believe in the one God formula cling to a couple scriptures but there are so many scriptures that disagree with this formula directly or by circumstance or congruency of the Gospel storyline. It does happen, people get fascinated by the "one liners" in the Bible and employ imagination to fill in the blanks...it is a good thing that they did not promote the scriptures about hating your mother and father and pretty much your wife and your whole family (Luke 14:46) or the scriptures that says that It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. (Matt. 19:24) Or we would have a religion that only appealed to the poor and they would not consider Christianity unless they hated their mother and father and their whole family. LOL

The Truth is, the Trinity is not the merging or mixing of three entities into one, like you would a cake mix, nor is it a three headed God. It is a condition and a reality that is beyond our understanding, but how the Trinity manifested itself in the Gospels.....I believe and define that there are three Gods in one Godhead, a Devine unity, but not one.

The Trinity exists simultaneously in an unexplainable spiritual condition of union, that allows for the sharing of traits, principles, powers and abilities, but prevents any possibility of disagreement. Still, this being true, they have their own individual presence, minds, wills, and characters. Three Gods that can sit side by side on three thrones. (I am not going to address spiritual thrones thing, it is just referenced that way in the Bible.) The Trinity makes sense, the scriptures that describe Their activity in the Gospels, make sense. The following discussion includes scriptures that speak of the Trinity as it is referenced in the Gospels. So we are going to put this in motion and as with reality and the truth, it will move through the story of Christ’s mission in the Gospels. The best example of the Trinity we have is how the three Gods interacted with each other during the Gospels. What they said to each other and about each other. Much of the proof comes from the lips of Christ Himself as He describes Himself and His Father as two persons in two different places as well as the communication between the two. Keeping in mind that it is very important to Christianity that Christ is the Son of God the Father.

Now for reasoning and scriptures….

1. If Christ’s throne is on the right hand of God, He is not within God and that position although important is second to God the Father. Mark 16:19 “So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into Heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.”

Continued.....

 

[Grailhunter]

2. If one had to leave before the other could come, as in the case of the Holy Spirit, this would suggest individuality. John 16:7


3. If there is any conversation at all between the three entities; that would indicate some individuality.

4. If the conversation included a request, like Yeshua asking His Father to bypass the cup (so-to-speak); it indicates individuality and hierarchy. Matthew 26:36-46

5. If the conversation is in the form of a pray. For example; Our Father which art in Heaven.....But the Son was standing before them. This indicates individuality and hierarchy.

6. If one God refers to Himself or others refer to Him as the Father and the other God refers to Himself or others refer to Him as the Son; This indicates individuality and hierarchy. This is particularly significant because this is a self defined and self described definition by God Himself. God decided to define their positions as God the Father and God the Son, so we would understand their relationship. God so loved the world He gave His only begotten Son…. John 3:16

It was God that chose to describe Himself as a Father, so we could understand our relationship with Him and His relationship with His Son, in human terms. There is a clear authoritative aspect associated with the Father and Son relationship. There is no possible way of mistaking this relationship as equal or the same person. Yeshua was the begotten Son of Yahweh. Yahweh did not begot Himself.

7. Again, for God so love the world that He gave His only begotten Son...John 3:16 There is no part of this verse that suggest that He begot Himself, or sent Himself, or that his Son was Him. The meaning of the verse is that, it took a lot of love for God to offer His real Son as a sacrifice for the world. This verse is talking about two Gods. God the Father and God the Son.

8. If a person can sin against one God worse than the other...as in the case of the un-pardonable sin. This indicates separation of some sort as well as a very special uniqueness in regard to the Holy Spirit. Matthew 12:30-32

9. When Yeshua said, “...the father is greater than I.” John 14:28 --- then this is proof of His understanding of individuality and hierarchy.

10. Then he said, "And do not call anyone on earth your father, for One is your Father, He who is in Heaven. And do not be called leaders, for One is your Leader, that is, Christ." Matthew 23:9-10 This refers to Yahweh as Father and Christ as leader. Similar to other scriptures referring to Christ as the head of the Church.

11. But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ. 1st Corinthians 11:3 This clearly defines hierarchal positions.

12. 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. (How many ways does this prove two persons, in two places, God the Son referring to His Father as His God.) Matt. 27:46, Mark 15:34, John 20:17

13. There is not a single verse that would indicate or suggest that God the Father was crucified, or that They were crucified together, or that all three were crucified. Christ the God was crucified and ascended to His Father and took his place on a throne...at the right hand of His Father, His God, God Almighty. The storyline does not suggest that Christ is talking to Himself when He is talking to His Father.

14. Matthew 20:20….Mark 10:35…When asked by the mother of John and James if they could sit on the right and the left of Christ in the kingdom to come, One of the things Christ said to her (them) was “....this is not Mine to give....” This would indicate that it was someone else’s to give...another God...Not Himself and higher authority. This point is further exemplified by John 3:35 The Father loves the Son, and hath given all things into His hands. John 13:3 Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he had come forth from God, and was going back to God; >>> Definitely defining two persons, giving and receiving occurs between two persons and so does coming from and going back to. These verses indicate hierarchy and individuality. God the Father had the authority to give, you will never see where Yeshua gave authority to His Father.

15. If the conversation includes an element of surprise, like when Yeshua was on the cross and asked His Father why He had forsaken Him. This would be strong evidence of individuality. Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:4

16. If the conversation indicates disparity of location and movement between the two deities, such as ascended to my Father, I came forth from the Father, or was sent by the Father, or because I go to the Father, this would all indicate individuality, hierarchy, and different location.

17. If one knows something that the other does not, like in Matt. 24:36 where Yeshua said, He did not know when the “end of the age” would occur, only the Father knew. This definitely indicates individuality and is conclusive proof that we are not talking about a single mind.

18. If the Son was sent by the Father. This indicates individuality and hierarchy of authority. One person sent somewhere by another. You will never read that Yeshua sent the Father anywhere.

9. If Christ said, (John 5:30) “I can do nothing on My own initiative. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is just, because I do not seek my own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.” The statement regarding the will of the one Who sent Him, occurs in other verses. John 6:38 & 39 Matt 12:50. Then there is Matthew 26:36-46 Mark 14:36 “And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt.” This is a request from one person to another of higher authority and a designation of two separate wills... “not what I will, but what thou wilt.” The wills and minds of two Gods, clearly defined in words and actions with a clear show of respect from Son to Father agreeing to subject Himself to the will of the Father.

20. The oldest of the Christian Creeds is called the Old Roman Creed 2nd century…
I believe in God the Father almighty; and in Christ Jesus His only Son, our Lord, Who was born from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, Who under Pontius Pilate was crucified and buried, on the third day rose again from the dead, ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, whence he will come to judge the living and the dead; and in the Holy Spirit, the holy Church, the remission of sins, the resurrection of the flesh,

21. And Christ said this while He walked the earth...But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven" Matthew 10:33 God the Father and God the Son. Two persons in two different places and the Son denying someone before His Father.

22. “The My Father verses” are the most prevalent and best examples of Yeshua’s relationship with Yahweh. Over fifty times in the Gospels Yeshua refers to Yahweh as “My Father.” As far as understanding the interconnecting relationship between Yeshua and Yahweh these verses are very important to understand in content, context, and perspective. In most of these verses the differences between Yahweh and Yeshua are expressed, either by hierarchy, authority, interaction, will, mind, movement, communication, or physical location.

23. In John 2:16, Yeshua indicates that the Temple is His Father’s house .....not His. Christ never indicates that the Temple belongs to Him, the temple belongs to another. Nor did Christ ever suggest that after He left they should worship Him in the Temple.

24. In John 14:2 Christ tells of a place that would await the Apostles. He says, “In My Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.” Note that He is not saying, His house. In 14 of the “My Father” verses, Yeshua refers to Yahweh as the Father in Heaven, precisely written, “Father which is in Heaven.” In 7 of these verses He is referring to His Father in Heaven, worded “Father in Heaven.” So Christ was standing on Earth referring to God the Father in Heaven, two different places.

25. In John 5:7 Christ says, “And the Father who sent Me, He has borne witness of Me. And the Father who sent Me, He has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time nor seen His form. You have neither heard His voice at anytime, nor seen His form.” In this verse one should understand that it takes someone else to bare witness of another, and the voice and form they were hearing and seeing then, was not that of God the Father. He was not baring witness of Himself.

26. In Matthew 18:10, where Christ was warning not to offend the “little ones”....Christ indicates that their Angels constantly behold the face of Yahweh...in Heaven. Now surely, there is an understanding of the concept of omni-presence, but if you notice, Christ is not saying, they behold My face, or

Continued.....