JW's are just one group of people who sneaked into the Christians Only sections, among other non-Christian groups. Moderators have been tolerating it and so created a situation in which Christians seem to be in minority, almost. And leaving the site.
Can One Be Christian and Not Believe In The Trinity?
- Thread starter GodsGrace
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
- Status
Seriously? I only see a concentration in certain topics. sigh
I would say that non-Christians are the most active group generally, here. But I do not have the metrics.
Because unitarians reject the explicit biblical and Christian teaching that Jesus is God, I do not think your prayers would be effective. But you can pray as much as you wish of course.
It is not explicit and seems pagan Hellenistic in areas.
It is explicit on many places in the Bible. But I know you are inventing your own Greek rules to reject it. But it is just your absurd invention, nobody agrees with you on Greek.
I noticed that various sectarians and cult members simply need to reject mainstream scholarship and rationality to make their ideas work.
Language is not something you can privately redefine after it has been in use for centuries or even more. You can only accept how it works.
So, why trust you? You are doing it only because you do not want to believe that Jesus is God, this is your motivation for changing the Greek rules. This is obviously quite a bias and an unethical motivation.
Last edited:
Scholarly are wrong about the Greek article. It is an indefinite article. I can argue it is them which don't accept the reality. Granted, it is an honest mistake based on middle age English syntax.
Regarding Greek articles, vocabulary and syntax, the scholars are right and you are wrong. And remember, Greek is not some theoretical language, it has been continuously in use for thousands of years. So no, it is not based on middle age English syntax.
You are just trying to find support for Jesus not being God, so your motivation for this language "rediscovery" is highly unethical. No wonder you do not want to call yourself a scholar.
Last edited:
So you disagree with the doctrine of the Trinity?
Stick to what Thomas clearly stated:
Joh 20:28 Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!”
You should stick to what the Bible says and not change any words, as that is how errors come about.
First, it was for man and woman to "be fruitful and multiply." Second, it is a metaphor for Christ and the church:
Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her,
Eph 5:26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word,
Eph 5:27 so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.
Eph 5:28 In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.
Eph 5:29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church,
Eph 5:30 because we are members of his body.
Eph 5:31 “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.”
Eph 5:32 This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church.
Given that we are made in the image of God, then it follows that the use of Father and Son in the Bible is for our understanding of that relationship. We know that human sons are human because their father (and mother) are human; they are all of the same nature. Since we are made in God's image, the father and son relationship we personally experience is analogous to God.
That tells us at least three things about the Father and the Son: 1) the Son came from the Father, 2) the Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Father, and 3) the Son is of the very same nature as the Father, meaning he is true deity and, therefore, has existed for as long as the Father has.
So, we have the Father and the Son who are both truly God in nature, yet they are not the same person. Given that the Bible is clear that there was and ever will be only one true God, that gives us at least a "binity."
Please, keep learning the syntax. There is no Greek "indefinite article," just a definite one. The lack of the definite article is what may determine whether the word is being used in an indefinite sense or some other sense; context determines the meaning.
Assuming that you're referring to John 1:1c, it simply cannot be "a god" because the context does not allow it. Therefore, theos is not being used in an indefinite sense, but a qualitative one, that is, it's stating something about the nature of the Word.
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
First, we know there is only one true God and no other "gods." That alone precludes the Word from being "a god." Second, "the Word was God" follows from the first two clauses, which state that when the beginning began, the Word was already in existence, in a close, interpersonal relationship with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Third, we can see in verse 3 the basic logic that because 1) "all things were made through" the Word and 2) "without him was not any thing made that was made," that, therefore, the Word has necessarily always existed. The fully supports what was already stated in verse 1 (and more succinctly in verse 2).
TrevorHL
Active Member
- Jul 17, 2024
- 617
- 174
- 43
- 82
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- Australia
- Gender
- Male
Greetings Justified,
Luke 1:30-35 (KJV): 30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. 31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. 32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: 33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. 34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? 35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
Kind regards
Trevor
Jesus received the title "the Son of God" because the One God, Yahweh, God the Father was the father through his creative power, the Holy Spirit and Mary the mother in the conception/birth process. As such, Jesus was born a human and had human nature. God did not beget another God. There is no mention of shrinking God the Son into the womb of Mary.
Luke 1:30-35 (KJV): 30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. 31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. 32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: 33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. 34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? 35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
Kind regards
Trevor
The verse simply says that is what he will be called, that is, who he will be known as, not that his being the Son of God is only a result of the Holy Spirit coming upon Mary. You're reading too much into the text.
Jesus certainly was human, there is no disagreement there. However, the Bible makes it clear that he is also truly God in nature. To suggest that Trinitarians are somehow saying that God the Son was shrunk "into the womb of Mary" is a straw man and lacks biblical understanding.
As for God begetting another God, we know that the Son was begotten by the Father, and that the Son is truly and fully God, just as the Father is. It's a matter of having a proper understanding of what "begotten" means within the contexts it is used in reference to the Son.
Most Christians who struggle to wrap their mind around the Trinity still believe in the diety of Christ. It is the third personage of the Holy Spirit which typically causes problems for people when contemplating the Trinity. At least from my own personal experience, and that of many other believers I have met through the years. Honestly, I don't think I've ever met a believer who didn't know that Christ is Divine.
TrevorHL
Active Member
- Jul 17, 2024
- 617
- 174
- 43
- 82
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- Australia
- Gender
- Male
Greetings again Justified,
Kind regards
Trevor
I suggest that the "therefore" is stating the fact that as God the Father was his father then Jesus is the Son of God. That is reading the text simply and correctly.
Biblical understanding? To claim he had two natures is a contradiction and an impossibility. How did God the Son implant himself into the child for the 9 months before birth and/or after birth? Did Jesus have two minds? What about the clear teaching that Jesus was educated and grew in wisdom?
The phrase "only begotten" is given in John 1:14 and refers to the narratives of the event in Matthew 1:20-21 and Luke 1:34-35. God the Father did not beget another God.
Kind regards
Trevor
That's fine, we can leave it at that, but that does not mean he wasn't already the Son of God. Jesus clearly thought he had pre-existed with the Father, and so did his disciples.
How, exactly, is that a "contradiction and an impossibility"? You made the claim, now prove how it is the case.
Through the Holy Spirit. You provided the verse. Don't go beyond that and try to solve the mystery.
Of course not. He was one person with two natures.
What about it? What should we expect if the Son came and took on human flesh through being born? That he have immediate infinite knowledge? No, we see precisely what we should expect.
Except that isn't what John has in view. You must keep things within the context of what John has already stated in John 1:1-13. And he makes it clear that the Son is the incarnate Word who has always existed in an interpersonal relationship with God and who is God in nature.
Of course not. There was and is only one God.
- Status
Similar threads
