A Curious Question For Non-Trinitarians
- Thread starter Hidden In Him
- 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
And it was, because He became human and had to rely on the Spirit then.
Exactly! You haven’t noticed that about scripture??
Is God merciful or is He severe?
Never answer a fool or answer a fool?
Has God forgiven or will He not forgive you if you don’t forgive?
Does He remove the righteous first or the wicked first?
If you haven’t put together verses that seem to contradict each other but rather insist half of them do not mean what they appear to say or are always bad translations, then you are the one who needs to dig deeper.
No, actually, I haven’t. I may sometimes go with the preponderance of evidence until He works one or two outliers into my total understanding. It’s usually because I’m trying to mash verses together that are in different timeframes or trying to mash righteousness and holiness together or trying to mash something into my preconceived notions, that causes a problem.
Brakelite
Well-Known Member
How do you suppose the Great Awakening took such a hold on 19th century America at a time bereft of the internet, radio, and television? That said, when Jesus commissioned His disciples to go from village to village and town to town He wasn't forbidding the use of other means by which to share the good news of the kingdom. Otherwise you wouldn't be here right?
Brakelite
Well-Known Member
I live within the city boundaries but an outer suburb, and have nearly run into kangaroos on several occasions. One immediately round the corner from home. Here's a church camp...Are you saying those kangaroos are locals?
And a local golf course, well into suburbia...
Attachments
Brakelite
Well-Known Member
My failing when discussing the issue of the nature of God and His Son, is being utterly unable to consider the possibility of God bringing forth an only begotten Son that has a different nature to His Father.
Human children are children. A cows calf grows to be a cow. But still bovine in nature. The Son of God? A Son in the highest sense can only be of the same nature as His Father. What kind of being is the Father? How can His Son not be the same?
Human children are children. A cows calf grows to be a cow. But still bovine in nature. The Son of God? A Son in the highest sense can only be of the same nature as His Father. What kind of being is the Father? How can His Son not be the same?
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
If you are not ignoring, then why are you claiming I have not cited many Scripture verses, when, in fact, I cited many?
Regarding your lack of understanding; did you even watch the video I provided? It went into depth explaining that words are WHAT's not WHO's and translations get it correct in John 6:60, "that word" is a hard teaching to understand. The verse does not invoke "who word" like it is abused in 1:1.
Luke 3:38 - "the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God." Adam was not the same nature as God.
In Genesis 6 angels are called the "sons of God".
Jesus was the only being created by God, but his spirit being nature was different - like the angels he was not immortal. Jesus was begotten as God's Son at his baptism, and at his resurrection he was born again with the same divine nature as his Father, God. Since his resurrection Jesus has been immortal, but previous to that he was not.
Acts 13:32-33 (ESV):
(32) And we bring you the good news that what God promised to the fathers,
(33) this he has fulfilled to us their children by raising Jesus, as also it is written in the second Psalm, “‘You are my Son, today I have begotten you.’
(33) this he has fulfilled to us their children by raising Jesus, as also it is written in the second Psalm, “‘You are my Son, today I have begotten you.’
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
That's just a great point! The trinitarian claim is John 1:1 reveals more about GE 1:1. Even more significantly, they attach some kind of duality to each Gospel, such as these Gospel's testify to Jesus humanity and this one testifies to Jesus's divinity. Huh?
The Gospels testify to the life and ministry of Jesus. The 'beginning' of every Gospel, including John 1:1, is the beginning of Jesus life and ministry. Let's take a look at the beloved John 1 through the eyes of a non-trinitarian and see how it flows.
In the beginning (of Jesus' life and ministry) the Word (of God) already existed. NLT (Emphasis added)
In the beginning of Jesus ministry, the word of God already existed. See Deuteronomy 18:15-18. (I recently learned when Jesus told what is the most important and 2nd most important commands, he was quoting Deuteronomy 6:4 and Leviticus 19:18. Even his last words on the cross are from Ps 22.)
The Word (of God) was with God,
and the Word (of God) was God.
2 It or that or those words existed in the beginning with God.
3 God created everything through him (or it or that),
and nothing was created except through him (or it or that). NLT (Emphasis added)
The only way God could create everything 'through him' (or it or that) is that (God's words or) Jesus is NOT God. This is normal language usage. God (or God's word) is the subject of John 1:1-3, not Jesus. The object of the sentence of 1:3 is Jesus (or it or that word), implying God created Jesus (or words) before everything else, which is exactly what GE 1:1 states.
What about 1:1 saying the word was God? This is figurative use of language. Words are WHAT's - an attribute of a being or a person. Words are not WHO's, their use does not create a new being or person.
To use this figurative prologue of John to support Jesus is God is reaching beyond what the text says. Worse, is this claim goes against 1,000's of verses that God is alone, the Father and many verses in John. For instance, 20:31 explicitly states nothing John wrote was to support the claim that Jesus is God but everything John wrote was to prove something else; namely, that Jesus is the son of God.
This begs the question of why do trinitarians rely so passionately on 1:1 to make their case? Because there is no explicit teaching in Scripture of their claim, they have to rely on figurative verses being interpreted the way they prefer and rule out other valid interpretations without just cause.
Without going through all the verses in John that undermine the claim that verse 1 means Jesus is God, two in particular should be pointed out. As @stunnedbygrace stated yesterday, ALL of God's words have to be understood - not just take a figurative John 1:1 and demand it can only mean one thing.
In 17:3 Jesus says his Father is the only true God. And in 20:17, the resurrected Jesus says he has not yet gone to his God. Why would Jesus refer to his God, in his unitarian nature, if Jesus were part of a tri-une God? It makes no sense from a language usage perspective. (Of course, trinitarians come up with silly rationalizations and appeals to duality, imposing their doctrine onto unitarian text, expanding beyond what the word of God actually says.) Jesus' God, who is the Father, is the only God. Also, 20:17 is explicit that Jesus equates "Father" with "God, in his unitarian nature."
14 So the Word became human
NOTE: Another figurative expression. It does not say, as trinitarians allege, that God became flesh. Rather, the word (of God) became flesh - in Jesus' ministry - as the word of God became flesh with every single prophet that came before. In short, @Aunty Jane said is well, Jesus is divine but not a deity. A simple and foundational distinction - consistent with the 1C.
18 No one has seen God at any time. The only Son, who is at the Father’s side, has made Him known. (MEV)
A final nail in the trinitarian coffin of John's prologue is v 18. NOTE: No reference to the non-existent 3rd person, this verse reveals the dynamic duo, God and his Son, and sets up the rest of John's Gospel. It reinforces the fact that no one has ever seen God but people have seen Jesus. Again, this necessarily means Jesus is not and cannot be God.
The only way the son can be at the Father's right side (God's side) is that Jesus cannot be God. Ps 110:1, Ephesians 1:20, Hebrews 10:12. This is because one cannot be on one's own right side.
Last edited:
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
One cannot answer a question with a question.
This is just another example of you not answering questions, joking to avoid the uncomfortable subject of self-examination (why you believe what you believe).
Revelation 5:14, KJV:
(14) And the four beasts said, Amen. And the four and twenty elders fell down and worshipped him that liveth for ever and ever.
WEB:(14) The four living creatures said, “Amen!” Then the elders fell down and worshiped.
The Cambridge Bible Notes says:
And the four and twenty … for ever and ever] We should read simply, “and the elders fell down and worshipped”—in silence. The brevity of the phrase, imitating their silent adoration, is really grander than the completer sentence of the A. V.
Vincent's Word Studies likewise says that "four and twenty" and "Him that liveth forever and ever" should be omitted.
Note that verse 7 says that the Lamb (resurrected Jesus) approached the throne and "he took it [book/scroll] out of the right hand of him who sat on the throne [God]". The four beasts and the twenty-four elders then fell before Jesus, but they didn't worship him - they sang a song declaring him to be worthy to take the book/scroll. When the four beasts and the elders again fall down in verse 14, they would be worshiping the person sitting on the throne, i.e. God. Compare with Revelation 19:4 (WEB):
(4) The twenty-four elders and the four living creatures fell down and worshiped God who sits on the throne, saying, “Amen! Hallelujah!”
(Hallelujah meaning "praise Yah", or in full, "praise Yahavah (YHVH)".)
And yes, Jesus and God will share the throne for eternity, after the Millenium has been completed - Revelation 22:3 (WEB):
(3) There will be no curse any more. The throne of God and of the Lamb will be in it [New Jerusalem], and his servants will serve him.
Last edited:
What scriptural proof text do you have to support that "The Angel of the LORD was none other than the pre-incarnate Christ"?
Amen!
Perhaps not everyone can do as I strive to do. Each and every morning my purpose is to go to that lowest room [Luke 14:8-12] as empty as I am able of any and all preconceived notions or doctrines or beliefs. I do believe that without God's help even this is not possible, if we can only allow God to change or add or subtract as He sees fit. Nothing held back on my part!
Sometimes He makes a change that I can see. To do it really, I believe, I have to admit to the possibility that anything I already hold to may be wrong. No ATs [Absolute Truths]! Are ATs included in our faith?
1. Did Jesus call Himself "I AM"? Absolutely
2. Did the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob call Himself "I AM"? Absolutely
3. Does Scripture show that the same person who appeared to Moses in the burning bush was "the Angel of the LORD"? Absolutely
Now Moses kept the flock of Jethro his father in law, the priest of Midian: and he led the flock to the backside of the desert, and came to the mountain of God, even to Horeb. And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed... (Exodus 3:1,2)
In that entire chapter this very special "angel" is called:
1. "God"
2. "the God of thy father"
4. "the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob"
5. "the LORD"
6. "the God of your fathers"
7. "I AM THAT I AM"
8. "I AM"
There are other passages in the OT where the Angel of the LORD is treated as God and worshipped. And Jesus told the Jews "Before Abraham was I AM" (John 8:58) and "if ye believe not that I AM [he], ye shall die in your sins." (John 8:24) Note: "he" is in italics and should not have been inserted, while "AM" should have been capitalized as shown below.
International Standard Version
That is why I told you that you will die in your sins, for unless you believe that I AM, you'll die in your sins."
Jubilee Bible 2000
Therefore I said unto you that ye shall die in your sins, for if ye do not believe that I AM, ye shall die in your sins.
Okay, well you seemed to think it was a good thing to say to backlit, so I tried it out on you.
- Status
Similar threads
