Scriptures that trinitarians Don't Want You to Know About - #7
- Thread starter BroRando
- 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!
Well, both statements are true, so I'd say forcing a choice between them is a false dichotomy. Trinitarians claim Jesus is God, and, well, generally speaking, as not all who call themselves Christian hold to what the Bible says about Jesus, but generally speaking, Christians claim God made Jesus both Lord and Christ.
It's all there in Philippians 2, where Jesus emptied Himself, and took on the form of a servant, taking on flesh, being found in fashion as a man.
You have to be some other thing to take on the form of some thing, and to take on the form of a servant, that other thing can't have been a servant. And of course, it wasn't. Jesus, the Last Man, is the Lord of heaven.
But after emptying Himself, no, he would not then "make Himself" both Lord and Christ. He submitted to His Father, even to the point of calling Him His God, as Jeremiah had said the LORD is the God of all flesh.
Jesus took on flesh, and He took on all that went with it. But He was not of the First Man, He was Himself the Last Man, so, without sin.
Jesus took on the form of a servant, humbling Himself to death, even the death of the cross. And because of that God gave Him, Jesus, a Name Higher than any other Name, that at the Name of Jesus, every knee will bow, every tongue confess, that Jesus Christ is LORD, to the glory of God the Father.
Much love!
You say that there are more that the two choices listed above. What are the other choices? And if you list more, then what is your choice? And if you cannot find any more after further thought, then are you saying that God made Jesus/Yahshua both (our) Master/Lord and (our) Savior according to Acts 2:36? Then a simple yes or no would make it all clear.
Thanks
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
Contradictions are not both true. But that is dualism for you!
In my experience trinitarians deliberately conflate the one and only LORD God, almighty, our Father, with the many lords of the Bible. Yes, Jesus is our lord; a lord among many in the monotheist Bible. This makes them unconsciously read the verse as 'God from God.'
The other choice is that both are true.
The false dichotomy is that EITHER Jesus is God, OR God made Jesus both Lord and Christ. Option 3 is that God made Jesus, Who is God incarnated, both Lord and Christ.
Much love!
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
Option 3 is illogical. The subject of sentences are not the object of sentences. God does the acting. Jesus is acted upon. These are not the same Being.
To support your doctrine, you have to abuse language. '<God> <made> <Jesus both Lord> and <Christ>' is analogous to other expressions we commonly say, such as
'<Biden> <made> <the US troops pull out of Afghanistan dishonorably> and <that lead to American deaths & loss of moral authority>.
Both follow the logic Being A made Y. No one but trinitarians take Y, the effect acting, to be Being A.
Biden is not US troops in Afghanistan. And Biden is not American deaths. And Biden is not a loss of moral. Biden is a being. A loss of moral authority is the EFFECT of ACTION from a being. Similarly, God is not Jesus. God is not one of many lords in the Bible (but the LORD). God is not the Christ. What is Christ? Christ means Anointed. Christ is the passive object, acted upon. Who did the acting? Christ is the servant man anointed by God.
Other verses say the same thing, that again, explicitly destroy the fallacious trinitarian doctrine. He has fixed a day of accountability, when the whole world will be justly evaluated by a new, higher standard: not by a statue, but by a living man. God selected this man and made Him credible to all by raising Him from the dead. Acts 17:31 (Voice)
- Who is He? He is God - in his unitarian nature.
- Who is the higher standard, a living man? Jesus.
- Who selected this man? God.
- How was this man made credible to all? By being raised from the dead.
- Who raised this man, Jesus, from the dead? God raised Jesus from the dead.
So, one can see Acts 17:31 and 2:36 are both explicit and in harmony and both destroy the false doctrine of the trinity, as the entirety of Scripture does. This is why trinitarians must synthesize their doctrine by piecing together many verses, the more ambiguous and figurative, the more it fits their agenda to attempt to impose their doctrine onto unitarian text.
There are no hidden meanings in our letters
2 Corinthians 1:13 (CJB)
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
So I got your answer then. Acts 2:36 reads and is understood by you to mean your Option 3 ....that God made Jesus, Who is God incarnated, both Lord and Christ.
You know it does not say that in this particular verse. You have intentionally altered scripture and added in new words and a new meaning into the verse.
Why would you do such a thing?
I wonder why we do not have one translation of Acts 2:36 that say God made him, who is God incarnated, both Lord and Christ?
It is like saying "The Father of John made John, who is also John, the same Father of John in the flesh, both (our) Lord and (our) Christ.
Makes no sense at all!
And then why not stop there. You should now be free to find many verses like this one, and add in the expression "who is God incarnated" or a similar applicable expression as your personal Bible translation and text.
If you really believe in, at least mentally, in adding this above expression to all applicable scripture as you see fit, then you should do it literally at a bold annotation as least, as a footnote for all the applicable verses at their sourced pages.
I didn't present that as a quote. So perhaps an edit is in order?
You obviously don't know me.
You should now be free to find many verses like this one, and add in . . .
Maybe best to delete the whole thing?
Much love!
Last edited:
OK, I see your issue with this. Not the use of "made", rather, that God the Father made God the Son both Lord and Christ. And you figure the Father cannot be the Son, there is no "God the Son".
So your objection is to the Trinity itself rather than the grammar of the passage. Nothing in the passages prohibits God being Triune, but to those who think God is not Triune, the passage appears to agree with their thinking.
If though God is Triune, and One of the Trinity, the Son, were to empty Himself of everything, and take on the form of a servant, then it would be up to others to exalt Him. Up to the Father. The Father, Who made Him Lord and Christ, roles He expressly would not take for Himself, having been found as a man.
Much love!
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
That is where you are totally wrong. Everything in the passage prohibits God being triune!
Logic
Definition
Language Usage
The verse does not say anything about the Father! It refers to God, in his unitarian nature.
This unitarian God made Jesus something is what the passage says. Trinitarians deny Jesus was made, a creation, in violation of Acts 2:36. It is beautiful that @BroRando quoted Hebrews 1:4 @ post #116 in #5 that Jesus has a better name because he inherited it. This can only mean it is not his essential nature but a gift from God.
Last edited:
Similar threads
