Can One Be Christian and Not Believe In The Trinity?

[CTK]

If you had NT evidence to support that, then we could have a real conversation. But the angel who bore Yahweh’s name was an Angel of the Lord. Jesus did not yet exist for many centuries, according to the promise.

Just as with Abraham and Isaac, you cannot have a “promised son” who already exists.

Nonsensical to say the least.

Do you reject John 1:1–3,14 and John 17:5 as teaching that Christ existed with the Father before creation?

 

[Hiddenthings]

Do you reject John 1:1–3,14 and John 17:5 as teaching that Christ existed with the Father before creation?

Not rejected! I understand John’s choice to use Logos rather than the Lord’s name, for obvious reasons. Do you really think John didn’t know his name?

 

[MonoBiblical]

Mono. I'm in a bit of a bad mood due to the dumb responses from persons that are SUPPOSED to be CHRISTIAN.

Let me say it this way:
GO STUDY SOME CHURCH HISTORY.

Most church history post-NT is just a guess.

 

[MonoBiblical]

You're not a smart guy Hidden.
Have you noticed that members have stopped posting to me just now?
Know why?
Because when a gal is as upset as I am right now at the stupidity going no in this thread...

guys are smart enough to keep away.

It would be a good lesson for you to learn, since it seems as though you don't know about it yet.

And to say IF I study church history is condescending.

Being condescending to a person is not very nice.
Do you do this in real life too or just here because you're not standing in front of me?

If your smart, you won't reply.

Apostacy means rebellion. Hence the Jewish rebellion against Rome.

 

[CTK]

Not rejected! I understand John’s choice to use Logos rather than the Lord’s name, for obvious reasons. Do you really think John didn’t know his name?

I’m not asking whether John knew the divine name — of course he did. I’m asking whether you accept what John says about the Logos. In John 1:1–3 the Logos already exists “in the beginning,” is “with God,” and “all things were made through him.” Then John 1:14 identifies this Logos as the One who “became flesh.” And in John 17:5 Jesus speaks of the glory He had with the Father “before the world existed.”


So the issue isn’t why John used “Logos.” The issue is: do you agree that John teaches Christ’s preexistence with the Father prior to creation? If yes, then “Jesus did not yet exist” can only mean “the incarnation had not yet occurred,” not that the Son/Word was nonexistent.


When John says “the Word became flesh” (John 1:14), do you believe that Word existed before becoming flesh — yes or no?

 

[Hiddenthings]

I’m not asking whether John knew the divine name — of course he did. I’m asking whether you accept what John says about the Logos. In John 1:1–3 the Logos already exists “in the beginning,” is “with God,” and “all things were made through him.” Then John 1:14 identifies this Logos as the One who “became flesh.” And in John 17:5 Jesus speaks of the glory He had with the Father “before the world existed.”

Yahweh's Logos is the source of the New Creation in Christ Jesus - John understood both Logos and what Logos became.

So the issue isn’t why John used “Logos.” The issue is: do you agree that John teaches Christ’s preexistence with the Father prior to creation? If yes, then “Jesus did not yet exist” can only mean “the incarnation had not yet occurred,” not that the Son/Word was nonexistent.

No, John, like Paul, understood Christ to be preeminent in all things, not preexistent.

Colossians 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent.

You have a couple of clues there for you to ponder!

When John says “the Word became flesh” (John 1:14), do you believe that Word existed before becoming flesh — yes or no?

Being Yahweh's Spiritual Creation, you would now understand why Colossians & John teach that Christ holds preeminence over all creation, being first in rank and authority in everything.

Now that you understand why John used Logos and not the Lord's name which has a clear distinction wouldn't you say.

The term “the Word” is often used in Scripture to refer to the preaching of the Word (Acts 6:2, 4, 7; Titus 2:5; Rev 1:9; 6:9; 20:4). In this sense, the man Christ Jesus was the Word of the Gospel made flesh, he embodied in his life the very message he and others proclaimed. This is also why Jesus could be described as “the Kingdom”; in Luke 17:21, he revealed that the Kingdom was present among them in first-century Israel. The phrase “the Word of the Kingdom” parallels the concept of “the Word” (Matt 13:19; cf. Matt 13:20–23). The message of the Kingdom and the life of Jesus are inseparably connected.

Similarly, John calls Jesus “the eternal life” (1 John 1:2). The life Jesus lived demonstrates the quality of eternal life that believers will share in the Kingdom. His personality and actions were the living embodiment of all he preached, just as our lives are meant to be living testimonies of Christ. To preach Christ is therefore to proclaim “the things concerning the Kingdom of God”, because the Kingdom ultimately manifests in the person of Jesus (Acts 8:5, 12).

In this sense, Jesus was “the Word” because he epitomized the Gospel itself. This is why James 1:18 says we are born again by the Word of the Gospel, and 1 Peter 1:23 identifies the Word who brings new birth as the Lord Jesus.

I know these truths are difficult to dismiss, though I expect you may try.

I noticed you gave up rather quickly in trying to force your three angels' theory? Something tells me you won't give up on your false notions on John 1 that easily.

I could spend countless hours showing you how Jesus became the Word made Flesh but I'm guessing you are not interested in the original Gospel.

Leave it with you.

 

[Brakelite]

A confession destroying the trinity. Thanks for your honesty.

I've stated many times, I'm not here to defend the trinity. How the 3 members of the Godhead inhere with each other isn't our business. God has seem fit to keep that information to Himself... and would we understand it if He did share it?
What i will defend is the real biblical fact that Jesus is the Son of God, Creator, and Savior.

 

[Hiddenthings]

What i will defend is the real biblical fact that Jesus is the Son of God, Creator, and Savior.

He is the New Creation who has a beginning, an end and now lives for evermore. Remove "Creator" from your sentence and you have Biblical truth.

 

[PS95]

I’m not asking whether John knew the divine name — of course he did. I’m asking whether you accept what John says about the Logos. In John 1:1–3 the Logos already exists “in the beginning,” is “with God,” and “all things were made through him.” Then John 1:14 identifies this Logos as the One who “became flesh.” And in John 17:5 Jesus speaks of the glory He had with the Father “before the world existed.”


So the issue isn’t why John used “Logos.” The issue is: do you agree that John teaches Christ’s preexistence with the Father prior to creation? If yes, then “Jesus did not yet exist” can only mean “the incarnation had not yet occurred,” not that the Son/Word was nonexistent.


When John says “the Word became flesh” (John 1:14), do you believe that Word existed before becoming flesh — yes or no?

I hear your frustrations. Been there with this poster. I will answer for hiddenthings since hidden it is..
NO Hiddenthings does not believe that the Word of God existed as a spirit person in heaven who became flesh as Jesus.
@Hiddenthings is a Christadelphian. They teach that Jesus was merely a part of God's plan.

 

[HealthyShape]

Case closed...or mind closed? The mind is a gateway to the heart....a closed mind results in a closed heart.

Present your evidence rather than unsubstantiated claims...

This is unending with you. You have been given plenty of evidence, you just reject it and then ask for it again. It is like with flat earthers and other people who are closed minded.

People who reject education, the consensus of experts and critical thinking are impossible to convince. You simply blindly trust your Jehovah Witnesses sect.

 

[Hiddenthings]

I hear your frustrations. Been there with this poster. I will answer for hiddenthings since hidden it is..
NO Hiddenthings does not believe that the Word of God existed as a spirit person in heaven who became flesh as Jesus.
@Hiddenthings is a Christadelphian. They teach that Jesus was merely a part of God's plan.

That would be the whole truth of the matter.

 

[Hiddenthings]

Imagine if a Christian didn't believe the promised Son wasn't part of God's plan.

 

[HealthyShape]

Imagine somebody who labels himself a Christian does not believe that the Son existed as a person before He was born as a man.

 

[TrevorHL]

Greetings PS95 and Hiddenthings,

They teach that Jesus was merely a part of God's plan.

That would be the whole truth of the matter.

Rather, the central focus of God's Plan.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Hiddenthings]

Imagine somebody who labels himself a Christian does not believe that the Son existed as a person before He was born as a man.

That person would understand the true meaning of a promised Son.

 

[Hiddenthings]

Greetings PS95 and Hiddenthings,


Rather, the central focus of God's Plan.

Kind regards
Trevor

Agree...which is why he is the New Creation.

 

[HealthyShape]

That person would understand the true meaning of a promised Son.

That person would not be a Christian in the common meaning of the word. Completely outside of the church and outside of the apostolic teachings.

 

[Hiddenthings]

That person would not be a Christian in the common meaning of the word.

It depends on whether someone has invented their own definition of the word “Christian.”

 

[HealthyShape]

It depends on whether someone has invented their own definition of the word “Christian.”

Decided by the apostolic church. It is not an individual free definition anybody can create for themselves.

 

[Hiddenthings]

Decided by the apostolic church. It is not an individual free definition anybody can create for themselves.

Back during the time of the Apostles while teaching the true original Gospel they were called in the Greek christianous meaning “Christ-like ones” or “belonging to Christ.” The term was originally used by opponents, but it affirmed the believers’ identity and was later adopted by the brethren themselves (Acts 26:28; 1 Pet. 4:16). It indicates that the disciples were followers of the Anointed One. The name was evidently coined by Gentiles in Antioch, since unbelieving Jews would not have acknowledged a living Christ with followers. Instead, Jews typically referred to believers as “those of this way” (Acts 9:2) or “Nazarenes” (Acts 24:5).

Today it’s a generic term applied to over 45,000 denominations, many of which hold varying doctrinal positions.

What we can agree on is very few of them know the true Eph 4:4-5.

When the Master returns this truth comes with him.