The Trinity

[Aunty Jane]

It is this tectonic shift in the ages that is the context of this hymn of praise. We are looking at a whole new order of things. The waves of this continental shift from the resurrection of Christ are rolling towards the distant shoreline of the coming Kingdom of God with tsunami-like power.

I especially like how you describe this.....the “tsunami” is indeed rolling in...and nothing can stop it....

 

[farouk]

The Father
The Son
The Holy Spirit

That's the Trinity .
Three of something .
Of what?

God in Three Persons; plenty of Scripture to back this up exists...

 

[GodsGrace]

Jesus is God's agent through whom God accomplishes His plan for our lives. This is a consistent pattern all the way through the N.T. God
the Father is the source, the origin of all blessings, and Jesus His Son brings those blessings of salvation to us:

"Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ" (2 Cor.5:18).

Not to much to disagree with here.
You can believe Jesus is God's agent.
But what is an agent?
Is he God?

Jesus is the Savior...the 2nd Person of the Trinity is the Savior...The Son is the 2nd Person and is Jesus, God in the flesh.
Isaiah 9:6
For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.

As to 2 Cor 5:18...
See
2 Corinthians 5:19
19namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation.

God was IN CHRIST.
And Paul and the Apostles are Christ's Ambassadors, His agents... 2 Cor 5:20a
I'd say that Christ is more than an agent.
God gave to Him the authority to judge the living and the dead...no one else has this authority because no one else is deity in the flesh.
John 5:27
27and He gave Him authority to execute judgment, because He is the Son of Man.

Jesus is our Savior.
The O.T. tells us that God is our Savior, as only God can be.
Isaiah 45:21-22
Jeremiah 2:28 and many more...

"God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ… has blessed us… in Christ. He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to himself” (Eph.1:3-5).

"For God has not destined us for wrath, but for obtaining salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ" (1 Thess.5:9).

"God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus” (Rom. 2:16).

"For God… has saved us, and called us... according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity" (2 Tim 1:9).

"Blessed be God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has caused us to be born-again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead" (1 Peter 1:3).

"To the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen" (Jude 25).

"Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which god performed through him in your midst" (Acts 2:22).

Joh 14:10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.

I agree with all of the above.
It's scripture. I agree with scripture.
Where does it say above that Jesus is not God?

Jesus came to earth for a specific reason.
To reconcile man to God after man fell.
This, in fact, is the work of the 2nd Person of the Trinity, the Son.

Paul tell us in 1Co 8:6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through (dia) whom we exist.

Always God the Father is the source and origin of all works, deeds and salvation which come to us through the mediatorship of his son. From Him comes all to us through our Lord Jesus Christ so that to God the Father made all the praise be directed. The Father is the sole origin and Creator of "all things." In contrast, Jesus is the Father's commissioned Lord Messiah through whom God's plan for the world is coming to completion. The whole Bible from cover to cover categorically states that God created the universe and all the ages with Jesus Christ at the center of his eternal purpose. Jesus is the diameter running all the way through.

Agreed.
Just want to say that God IS the creator.
How did He create?
He SPOKE all things into creation. See Genesis 1, all the times it states AND GOD SAID...
God spoke a word...He spoke.
Jesus is that WORD...THE LOGOS.
John 1:1
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was in the beginning with God. 3All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.

So, yes, everything you posted above is correct.
Jesus is the diameter...?

So what’s this through (dia) about in all these verses???

Through or Dia is the “preposition of attendant circumstances" and signifies instrumental agency. Put simply, this means that dia denotes the means by which an action is accomplished. And Scripture tells us that God the originator is bringing His purpose, His logos to fulfillment through Jesus Christ. Jesus is the Agent, the Mediator of God's master plan. Jesus is always seen as secondary, or subordinate to the Father. There are occasional exceptions to this general use of the preposition dia. Sometimes blessings are said to come to us through God (e.g. 1 Cor 1:9; Heb.2: 10). But usually there is a clear distinction made between God’s initiating activity and the means through which God brings that activity to pass. The prepositions used of God's action are hypo and ek which point to primary causation or origin.
Let's cement this idea in our minds by looking at one or two verses that highlight the difference: “yet for us there is but one God, the father, from [ek,‘out from’ ] whom are all things, and we exist for [ eis, ‘to’ ] Him; and one lord, Jesus Christ,through [dia] him” (1Cor.8:6).

I agree.
You're repeating what I said above but in different words.
Jesus IS secondary to the Father.
God creates through the Logos, the Word.
Jesus is that Word or Logos. Jesus was called Logos at the beginning of Christianity.

Prepositions are the signposts that point out the direction of a passage. Ek indicates something coming out from its source or origin, and indicates motion from the interior. In other words, all things came out from the loving heart of God, or God's “interior”, so to speak.

This agrees with Genesis 1:1 which says, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth”. Both verses say that the source of “all things” is the one true God, the Creator of the heavens and the earth and the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ. In contradistinction to this "one God and Father" out of Whom all things originate, the "one Lord, Jesus Messiah” is giving the preposition dia which means "through." In other words, Jesus is God's agent through whom God accomplishes His plan for our lives. This is a consistent pattern all the way through the N.T. God the Father is the source, the origin of all blessings, and Jesus His Son brings those blessings of salvation to us

Act 17:30 "Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent, because He (God) has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead."

I've noticed on this forum that some just love Acts 17:30...the Apostles were preaching and called Jesus a man, which He was while on earth...and all the other verses that show Him to be deity are ignored.

I agree with the above.
Who do you think Jesus is?
Just an agent of God?
Was He just a man?

 

[GodsGrace]

......................................
A NT language expert highly respected by trinitarians tells us that Bible phrases beginning “in the name of...” indicate that the secondary meaning of “authority” or “power” was intended by the Bible writer. - p. 772, Vine. Therefore, Matt. 28:19 actually means: “baptizing them in recognition of the power [or the authority] of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy spirit.”

That W. E. Vine specifically includes Matt. 28:19 in this category can be further shown by his statement on p. 772 of his reference work. When discussing the secondary meaning of “name” (“authority,” “power”) he says that it is used
“in recognition of the authority of (sometimes combined with the thought of relying on or resting on), Matt. 18:20; cp. 28:19; Acts 8:16....”

Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol.1, p. 245, makes the same admission when discussing Matt. 28:19:
“The use of name (onoma) here is a common one in the Septuagint and the papyri for power or authority.”

Noted trinitarian scholars McClintock and Strong say in their Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature concerning Matthew 28:18-20:
"This text, however, taken by itself, would not prove decisively either the personality of the three subjects mentioned, or their equality or divinity." (1981 reprint, Vol. X, p. 552)

And trinitarian scholar Kittel in his Theological Dictionary of the New Testament:
"The N[ew] T[estament] does not actually speak of triunity. We seek this in vain in the triadic formulae [including Matthew 28:19, of course] of the NT."

It shouldn’t be surprising, then, if the holy spirit is not a person, to find this single instance of the word “name” being used with “the holy spirit” where it is used in the phrase beginning with “in the name of...” which is specifically linked to the minority meaning of “authority,” “power,” etc.

What should be surprising (beyond all credibility, in fact) would be that the holy spirit is a person, equally God, who never has the word onoma (“name”) used for “Him” in its most-used sense of “personal name” (as do the Father and the Son—hundreds of times).

Yes, as we have already seen, the holy spirit is never called by a personal name, and Matt. 28:19 is the only instance of onoma being applied to the holy spirit at all!

Tigger
WHY do we need Greek lessons to understand the N.T.?
Are we professors here? Scholars studying the N.T. down to every jot and tittle?
You post one expert, I post the other saying the opposite.

Write in your own words.
Write what you're convicted of.
I mean, you can do the above too,,,but I'm not sure many really read it.

Is the Holy Spirit ever referred to as a HE in the N.T.?
We are told not to grieve the Holy Spirit...so what IS the Holy Spirit?
Could a THING be grieved?

1 Cor 6:19
Romans 8:26
John 14:17
Matthew 12:31-32

Doesn't that sound like a person to you?

 

[GodsGrace]

God in Three Persons; plenty of Scripture to back this up exists...

Amen.
Scholars in the beginning going through the letters and gospels studied this.
They weren't dumb, to put it bluntly.

 

[GodsGrace]

Wow... she hit you up with so much data it's hard for you to even begin to reply... Let me help with Colossians

In so far as it is used by the "traditionalists" to justify belief in a personally preexistent Christ, the passage in Colossians 1:15-19 ranks right up there with John 1 and Philippians 2. It is easy to see how this conclusion is reached, when the passages read in the gridlock of "orthodoxy."

Paul wrote:
Col 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things were created through him and for him.17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 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. 19 For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell,

We must carefully examine both the overall context and the particular phrases before rushing to the conclusion that the apostle is teaching that Jesus the Son of God created the heavens and the earth, and that he is therefore coequal with God the Father, the second member of the Trinity.

Everything we have looked at so far would indicate that Paul has not suddenly done a back flip from his clearly stated belief that there is "one God, the Father… and one Lord, Jesus the Messiah" (1 Cor. 8:6; Eph. 4:5-6, etc.).

The overall context must be clearly borne in mind. Observe in Colossians 1 that "all things" created are not "the heavens and the earth" as per Genesis 1:1, but rather "all things in the heavens and [up]on the earth." These things are defined as "thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities." Evidently, Jesus has been given authority to restructure the arrangements of angels as well as being the agent for the creation of the body of Christ on earth, the Church.

The apostle Paul is "giving thanks to the Father" because He "has qualified us to share in the inheritance of the saints in light," which is to say that God the Father has "delivered us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved son" (v. 12-13). Paul is thus speaking of the new creation that God has effected through His Son Jesus. He is speaking of things that relate to "redemption, the forgiveness of sins" (v.14) and "the church" (v.18) and how through the Son of the Father God has "reconciled all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of his cross" (v.20).

Kuschel in his book "Born Before All Time? p.331. Says, "the direct context of the Colossians hymn is itself of an eschatological kind and represents the ‘shift of the ages.’" G.E. Ladd in his book A Theology of the New Testament, p.323. states. “In other words, ‘the New Testament does not merely picture the resurrection of Jesus as the resurrection of a corpse, but as the emergence within time and space of a new order of life.’"

When the Father raised Jesus to life again it was not only an isolated historical event. It was more importantly the injection into history of the beginning of "the eschatological resurrection." Eternal life-the life of the ages to come-is guaranteed in Christ who is "the first fruits" of all who
will follow. (1Cor.15:23). Jesus is the first of a whole crop of new-life first to come! A new order of things now exist. A new age in prospect has already begun. If "anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old things [have] passed away; behold, new things have come" (2 Cor. 5:17).

To be baptized into Christ is to already in prospect be "in the likeness of his resurrection" (Rom.6:5). We are already "seated with Christ in the heavenlies" (Eph. 2:6). Because Christ has been raised to the glory of the Father, we are already in promise "glorified" (Rom. 8:30). We have been transferred into "the kingdom of His beloved Son" (Col. 1:13).

It is this tectonic shift in the ages that is the context of this hymn of praise. We are looking at a whole new order of things. The waves of this continental shift from the resurrection of Christ are rolling towards the distant shoreline of the coming Kingdom of God with tsunami-like power.

Old authorities and structures have been rattled, for Christ is now the head of God's of new creation. A new dynasty in God universe has been inaugurated. This is the cosmological contexts of the individual phrases we will now see.

SHE hits ME up with a lot of data!!
Guess you haven't been following along.
I've BEGGED her to slow down!

I skimmed over the above and I always think we agree.
Can It Be??!

 

[Aunty Jane]

God in Three Persons; plenty of Scripture to back this up exists...

There is actually no scripture that says Jesus is God Almighty....not a single one.

There are two "persons" at best, both have a name, and one is the "servant" of the other. (Acts 4:27)

They can talk to each other despite being in different places. One prays to the other and is comforted by angels sent by the other. One is the Father of the other. So logically these two are "one" at unity of purpose with each other, but they not one God. No scripture says so unless there is poor or biased translation.

The trinity was invented to obscure the true nature of God....look how many people accept it without question...without ever examining the scriptural evidence against it. But Jesus said that "few" are actually on the road to life....so where does that leave the "many", do you think? No need to wonder...Jesus tells us straight out...
Matthew 7:13-14...
“Go in through the narrow gate, because broad is the gate and spacious is the road leading off into destruction, and many are going in through it; 14 whereas narrow is the gate and cramped the road leading off into life, and few are finding it."

And then in verses 21-23 he says...
“Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the Kingdom of the heavens, but only the one doing the will of my Father who is in the heavens will. 22 Many will say to me in that day: ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and expel demons in your name, and perform many powerful works in your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them: ‘I never knew you! Get away from me, you workers of lawlessness!’"

So "many" are going to claim Jesus as their "Lord" come the judgment....but only the ones "doing the will of the Father" will gain entry into the Kingdom of God. So what are the "many" doing that causes Jesus to reject them outright? How can Christians be "lawless" whilst imagining that they are still in good standing with him? Whose laws are they breaking? It is important to answer these questions because the "broad road" leads to "destruction"......there is no coming back to try again.

I believe that acceptance of the trinity is a clear breach of the First and most important Commandment....so because Jesus says "I NEVER knew you"....we can see that when the "church" adopted this blasphemy, Christ left the building....to be overgrown with the "weeds" that he foretold. It is so clear to see for those who aren't blinded by God's adversary. (2 Corinthians 4:3-4)

Now is the time to wake up.....the world is heading down the slippery slope to Armageddon....time is running out.

 

[Aunty Jane]

Scholars in the beginning going through the letters and gospels studied this.
They weren't dumb, to put it bluntly.

Not dumb....but blinded...misled, just like the Pharisees were...they had God's word too, but Jesus said that they 'invalidated' it by their traditions.....history repeats because the devil never changes his tactics. He knows they work because they always have. Human nature does not alter...he can count on it.

 

[tigger 2]

Tigger
WHY do we need Greek lessons to understand the N.T.?
Are we professors here? Scholars studying the N.T. down to every jot and tittle?
You post one expert, I post the other saying the opposite.

Write in your own words.
Write what you're convicted of.
I mean, you can do the above too,,,but I'm not sure many really read it.

Is the Holy Spirit ever referred to as a HE in the N.T.?
We are told not to grieve the Holy Spirit...so what IS the Holy Spirit?
Could a THING be grieved?

1 Cor 6:19
Romans 8:26
John 14:17
Matthew 12:31-32

Doesn't that sound like a person to you?

.......................................
Personification of things is very common in the NT.

Ro 8:26 - the pronoun auto is neuter and refers back to a noun (‘spirit’ in this case) which is also in the neuter case. So KJV and a few others properly translate auto in this verse as “itself.”

“Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself [auto] maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.” - KJV.

John 14:17 is the same with the addition of O which means “which.” Os is used for masculine nouns.

“the Spirit of truth, which [O] the world cannot accept, because it neither sees nor knows it [auto]. But you know it, [auto] because it remains with you, and will be in you.” - NAB (1991).

Lesson 6 (ntgreek.net) see "3rd person pronoun" halfway down the page.

Bible writers (understandably) translate using their own beliefs whenever they think it is possible. We can only be sure of their translation if we take a little time and effort to examine the NT Greek which they have translated.

There are interlinears, Beginner's NT Grammars, NT texts (USB; Nestle; W&H, etc.) online. I one really wants the truth of the inspired writings, one needs to do a little actual research.

For an extreme example, I spent hundreds of hours and many years just to examine the grammar of John 1:1c. I bought a number of interlinears, NT Grammars, Commentaries, etc.

Here is what I discovered before I decided to become a non-trinitarian:

Examining the Trinity: DEFinite John 1:1c - First and longest.

Examining the Trinity: John 1:1c Primer - For Grammatical Rules That Supposedly "Prove" the Trinity ---my first attempt to shorten the first one.

Examining the Trinity My final attempt to make it shorter and simpler.

So, are you saying that the most important part of seeking eternal life (John 17:3) isn't worth whatever effort is needed to thoroughly search?

 

[GodsGrace]

Sorry...it’s how my mind works....I have to know the why and how of everything....I have been this way since childhood and hence my exit from Christendom in my early twenties because their beliefs were logically incomprehensible to me as was their idea of God. If God gave us our sense of logic, then he was not going to end up being a person whose existence is totally illogical.
I scrutinized the scriptures, using different translations and the translation was all over the place....nothing was the way Christ taught things.
Thankfully as time has progressed, all the information I needed was available on the internet....now there is no excuse for spiritual laziness or ignorance.


Yes he was.....but not one time did Jesus ever say that he was Almighty God or even his equivalent. Not once did the apostles teach that Jesus was Almighty God, because they too would have been guilty of blasphemy.....a capital offense.


No, sorry...you are reading into their words what they NEVER ONCE said. Christ never once said he was God....please provide scripture that says he did. Not from the lying Jews who wanted an excuse to kill him...but from the man himself.


NO you don't. If there is "God the Father", "God the Son" and "God the Holy Spirit" then you have three gods.

Never once does it say in scripture that the Holy Spirit is God. Both Jesus and God's spirit came from God, but neither ARE God.
It is God's spirit than emanates from him, but is itself not a person, but God's power, directed to whatever or whomever God wishes it to go.


Again you are reading into scripture what you want it to say.....not one of these texts says that Jesus is God.


What translation are you using?

In this verse the word "theotēs" occurs only once in the whole Bible, therefore there is no other verse to compare it to.
Translators were free to translate it as they wished, believing that it is derived from G2316 ("theos") and giving the meaning of "divinity (abstractly):—godhead."
But here is no such word as "godhead" in the Bible. It is a trinitarian invention.

Without the trinity forcing the translation, it can read also as..."all the fullness of the divine quality dwells bodily."
As Colossians 1:19 says...(Mounce Interlinear)
"For hoti God was pleased eudokeō to have all pas his ho fullness plērōma dwell katoikeō in en him autos".

"πλήρωμα plḗrōma, play'-ro-mah; from G4137; repletion or completion, i.e. (subjectively) what fills (as contents, supplement, copiousness, multitude), or (objectively) what is filled (as container, performance, period):—which is put in to fill up, piece that filled up, fulfilling, full, fulness." (Strongs)
So Jesus was filled with Holy Spirit just as others before him were....only in a different way, in a different role.
As the apostle Peter said....Acts 2:22 (NCB)
“Men of Israel, hear these words. Jesus of Nazareth was a man commended to you by God by means of miracles and portents and signs that God worked through him, as you yourselves know."


"Only begotten" when referring to Jesus carries no special meaning in that this term simply refers to an "only child".
No one said that Jesus was "made" but he was "created" as the scriptures clearly show. Only a created being can be called a "son of God".

A "firstborn" is the first of others that come after....otherwise it makes no sense to call Jesus a "firstborn" (Colossians 1:15) or an "only begotten" unless there were other 'sons' or a 'begetter' who caused their existence. The Father/Son relationship is what is established by Jesus himself, but Jesus was a "son" before he became a human. He was the first of many "sons of God" according to the Bible.
His uniqueness is because he was the only "Son of God" who was a direct creation of his Father.


What else does that scripture say? "all things were created through him and for him."
You underlined it yourself....."through him and for him" makes no sense if God is speaking of himself.
How does one part of God create things "through" another equal part of himself? How does one part of God create things "for" the other equal part of himself.....if you really think it through, what is suggested by the trinity is absolutely ridiculous.


I have explained this so many times.....
Of course he was "before all things"....he was the very "beginning of God's creation" (Revelation 3:14)
All things came "through" the son from the Father.


All spirit beings are glorious.....even satan the devil is described as such before his defection. (Ezekiel 28:13-15)


Again...what translation are you using? It is terrible!

Read that verse in the Greek Interlinear....
"No one oudeis has horaō ever pōpote seen horaō God theos. The only monogenēs Son , himself God theos, the ho one who is eimi in eis the ho bosom kolpos of the ho Father patēr, he ekeinos has made him known exēgeomai."
Here is a classic example of adding words to the text that simply are not there...."Son himself" is added and distorts the verse completely.....skewed towards the trinity by those who should have known better.
Apart from telling us that "no one has ever seen God" it also says that "monogenes theos" has made him known. That is correctly translated "only begotten god" as the NASB renders it.
Trinitarians shied away from that translation because it raised the inconvenient question of "how can God be begotten?"

We are not at liberty to add to the text in a deliberate attempt to distort its meaning.


I hope I have stuck to the script for you.....

LOL
@Pierac thinks I give YOU too much data!!

Yes. All of the above is misunderstood when the Trinity is not accepted.
At least you believe Jesus is divine (to use your word) and at least you don't think He was just a man. (as some do).

I just wrote to another poster regarding the Holy Spirit being a person.
Do you think the following verses speak of the Holy Spirit as a person?
1 Cor 6:19
Romans 8:26
John 14:17
Matthew 12:31-32

I think you might have taken MY words for the verse text when you say I added words.
When I quote scripture it is always in bold.
My words are just trying to explain it.

The bible used above is the NLT.
I've always used the NASB which is an excellent study bible, (40 years)
but about 2 months ago I tried posting the NLT because it's easier to understand and I hate wasting time
on trying to TRANSLATE a verse...but you're the second complaint I've received...so we'll see.

I also feel like you might have been Catholic and resent that you were not taught properly.
I had the same problem, if this is the case with you.
I think this because you seem to particularly not like the CC.
If you left it for the Witnesses, I feel like you jumped out of the frying pan and into the fire.

 

[GodsGrace]

.......................................
Personification of things is very common in the NT.

Ro 8:26 - the pronoun auto is neuter and refers back to a noun (‘spirit’ in this case) which is also in the neuter case. So KJV and a few others properly translate auto in this verse as “itself.”

“Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself [auto] maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.” - KJV.

John 14:17 is the same with the addition of O which means “which.” Os is used for masculine nouns.

“the Spirit of truth, which [O] the world cannot accept, because it neither sees nor knows it [auto]. But you know it, [auto] because it remains with you, and will be in you.” - NAB (1991).

Lesson 6 (ntgreek.net) see "3rd person pronoun" halfway down the page.

No thanks Tigger!

Auto means SELF....
it could be a HIM, HER, IT
It's up to the reader/scholar to determine what it means in context.

For instance, how do you grieve an IT?

What do you believe the Holy Spirit is?
And who is Jesus to you?

I'm having a difficult time trying to figure out who states that Jesus is just a man...
and who believes He is divine/diety in some way.

 

[GodsGrace]

Not dumb....but blinded...misled, just like the Pharisees were...they had God's word too, but Jesus said that they 'invalidated' it by their traditions.....history repeats because the devil never changes his tactics. He knows they work because they always have. Human nature does not alter...he can count on it.

We each see things our own way Jane.
I truly don't believe the early fathers were blinded.
They were taught by the Apostles, which I've stated many times and which you know.

Russell was NOT taught by the Apostles.
Who do YOU trust?

 

[GodsGrace]

There is actually no scripture that says Jesus is God Almighty....not a single one.

There are two "persons" at best, both have a name, and one is the "servant" of the other. (Acts 4:27)

They can talk to each other despite being in different places. One prays to the other and is comforted by angels sent by the other. One is the Father of the other. So logically these two are "one" at unity of purpose with each other, but they not one God. No scripture says so unless there is poor or biased translation.

The trinity was invented to obscure the true nature of God....look how many people accept it without question...without ever examining the scriptural evidence against it. But Jesus said that "few" are actually on the road to life....so where does that leave the "many", do you think? No need to wonder...Jesus tells us straight out...
Matthew 7:13-14...
“Go in through the narrow gate, because broad is the gate and spacious is the road leading off into destruction, and many are going in through it; 14 whereas narrow is the gate and cramped the road leading off into life, and few are finding it."

And then in verses 21-23 he says...
“Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the Kingdom of the heavens, but only the one doing the will of my Father who is in the heavens will. 22 Many will say to me in that day: ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and expel demons in your name, and perform many powerful works in your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them: ‘I never knew you! Get away from me, you workers of lawlessness!’"

So "many" are going to claim Jesus as their "Lord" come the judgment....but only the ones "doing the will of the Father" will gain entry into the Kingdom of God. So what are the "many" doing that causes Jesus to reject them outright? How can Christians be "lawless" whilst imagining that they are still in good standing with him? Whose laws are they breaking? It is important to answer these questions because the "broad road" leads to "destruction"......there is no coming back to try again.

I believe that acceptance of the trinity is a clear breach of the First and most important Commandment....so because Jesus says "I NEVER knew you"....we can see that when the "church" adopted this blasphemy, Christ left the building....to be overgrown with the "weeds" that he foretold. It is so clear to see for those who aren't blinded by God's adversary. (2 Corinthians 4:3-4)

Now is the time to wake up.....the world is heading down the slippery slope to Armageddon....time is running out.

1. Why would the early theologians want to obscure the nature of God?

2. You want God to be logical. If we understood everything about God,,,we would have to be on the same par as God.
We have a faith that is reasonable...but not all of it can be logical.
We do not have the mind of God.
Can an ant understand You?

 

[GodsGrace]

.......................................
Personification of things is very common in the NT.

Ro 8:26 - the pronoun auto is neuter and refers back to a noun (‘spirit’ in this case) which is also in the neuter case. So KJV and a few others properly translate auto in this verse as “itself.”

“Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself [auto] maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.” - KJV.

John 14:17 is the same with the addition of O which means “which.” Os is used for masculine nouns.

“the Spirit of truth, which [O] the world cannot accept, because it neither sees nor knows it [auto]. But you know it, [auto] because it remains with you, and will be in you.” - NAB (1991).

Lesson 6 (ntgreek.net) see "3rd person pronoun" halfway down the page.

Bible writers (understandably) translate using their own beliefs whenever they think it is possible. We can only be sure of their translation if we take a little time and effort to examine the NT Greek which they have translated.

There are interlinears, Beginner's NT Grammars, NT texts (USB; Nestle; W&H, etc.) online. I one really wants the truth of the inspired writings, one needs to do a little actual research.

For an extreme example, I spent hundreds of hours and many years just to examine the grammar of John 1:1c. I bought a number of interlinears, NT Grammars, Commentaries, etc.

Here is what I discovered before I decided to become a non-trinitarian:

Examining the Trinity: DEFinite John 1:1c - First and longest.

Examining the Trinity: John 1:1c Primer - For Grammatical Rules That Supposedly "Prove" the Trinity ---my first attempt to shorten the first one.

Examining the Trinity My final attempt to make it shorter and simpler.

So, are you saying that the most important part of seeking eternal life (John 17:3) isn't worth whatever effort is needed to thoroughly search?

Sorry Tigger, I didn't catch your last line and question.

I believe that the N.T. can be read and understood by everyone.
I used it to teach kids 9 to 12 and they understood most of it except the very theological stuff.
Scholars translated the original Greek and even if they got one word wrong (or more) the general message still comes through.

Why do YOU think you need to know Greek?
There are also books explaining why Jesus is God.
Who is this Jesus to you anyway?

 

[Pierac]

Just want to say that God IS the creator.
How did He create?
He SPOKE all things into creation. See Genesis 1, all the times it states AND GOD SAID...
God spoke a word...He spoke.
Jesus is that WORD...THE LOGOS.
John 1:1
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was in the beginning with God. 3All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.

John 1:1
I have another train of thought for you think about. Is what you're reading into John 1 mostly church tradition? For almost 400 years, we have a read John 1 through the eyes of the Catholic Church. (reinforcing the Trinity). In the New Testament, “the Word” (Logos) happens to be of the masculine gender. Therefore, it's pronoun -"he" in our English translations - is a matter of interpretation, not translation. Did John write concerning “the word” that “he” was in the beginning with God or did he write concerning “the word” that “it” was in the beginning with God? As already stated, in the NT Greek the logos or word is masculine noun. It is okay in English to use “he” to refer back to his masculine noun if there is good contextual reason to do so. But is there good reason to make “the word” a “he” here?

It is a fact that all English translations from the Greek before the King James version of 1611 actually read this way: (notice Him and He are now “It”).

Tyndale 1534:
Joh 1:1 In the beginnynge was the worde and the worde was with God: and the worde was God. 2 The same was in the beginnynge with God. 3 All thinges were made by it and with out it was made nothinge that was made. 4 In it was lyfe and the lyfe was ye lyght of men

Cranmer 1539
John 1:1 IN the begynnynge was the worde and the worde was wyth God: and God was the worde. 2 The same was in the begynnyng with God. 3 All thynges were made by it and without it, was made nothynge that was made. 4 In it was lyfe and the lyfe was the lyght of men

Bishops 1568:
Joh 1:1 In the begynnyng was the worde, & the worde was with God: and that worde was God. 2 The same was in the begynnyng with God. 3 All thynges were made by it: and without it, was made nothyng that was made. 4 In it was lyfe, and the lyfe was the lyght of men,

Geneva 1587:
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was that Word, and that Word was with God, and that Word was God. 2 This same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by it, and without it was made nothing that was made. 4 In it was life, and that life was the light of men.

And now our modern Concordant Literal Version:

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the word, and the word was toward God, and God was the word. " 2 This was in the beginning toward God. 3 All came into being through it, and apart from it not even one thing came into being which has come into being." 4 In it was life, and the life was the light of men."


The word logos appears many, many more times in this very Gospel of John. And nowhere else do the translators capitalize it or use the masculine personal pronoun "he" to agree with it !

The rest of the New Testament is the same. Logos is variously translated as "statement" (Luke 20:20), “question" (Matt 21:24), "preaching" (1 Tim 5:17), "command" (Gal 5:14), "message" (Luke 4:32), "matter" (Acts 15:6), "reason" (Acts 10:29), so there is actually no reason to make John one say that "the Word" is the person Jesus himself, unless of course the translators
are wanting to make a point to. In all cases logos is an “it.”

In the light of this background it is far better to read John's prologue to mean that in the beginning God had a plan, a dream, a grand vision for the world, a reason by which He brought all things into being. This word or plan was expressive of who he is.

"The Word" for John is an “it” not a "he." On one occasion, Jesus is given the name "the word of God" and this is in Revelations 19:13. This name has been given to him after his resurrection and ascension, but we will not find it before his birth. It is not until we come to verse 14 of John's
prologue that this logos becomes personal and becomes the son of God, Jesus. "And the Word became flesh." A great plan that God had in his heart from before the creation at last is fulfilled. Be very clear that it does not say that God became flesh.

There is even strong evidence suggesting that John himself reacted to those who were already misusing his gospel to mean that Jesus was himself the Word who had personally preexist the world. When later he wrote his introduction to 1 John, he clearly made the point that what was in the beginning was not a “who” he put it this way:

"What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we beheld and our hands handled, concerning the
word of life…"

Logos - This word is translated in English as "Word". This word has an actual meaning which has been almost completely lost due to the Greek philosophical interpretation of John 1:1-3 & 14.

who testified to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw. (Rev 1:2)

"I also saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their testimony to Jesus and for the word (logos) of God." (Rev 20:4)


Notice that they were beheaded for their testimony to Jesus AND for the logos of God. Jesus and the word of God are not the same thing.


John 12:48 "He who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings, has one (God) who judges him; the word (logos) I spoke is what will judge him at the last day.

Again… Jesus spoke the Logos, as He is not the Logos!

 

[Pierac]

You can believe Jesus is God's agent.
But what is an agent?
Is he God?

I put this together about 10 years ago from multiple sources when I was studying the Trinity. Can't remember all the sources but Dr Juan Baixteras was one of them.
Agency
Part 1

The foundation of our Bible is the OT. It contains the first three-quarters of our Bible. It stands to reason that if we misunderstand this Hebrew foundation then we construct a system of error. The art of successful reading is generally to let the last quarter of a book agree with the first three-quarters. As the grand finale of the Bible, the NT agrees with and is consistent with its OT heritage. It might sound like an over-simplification to say that the Bible is a Hebrew book and must be approached through “Hebrew eyes;” however, it was written within the culture and thought-forms of the Middle East. In order to understand its message we must become familiar with the thought-forms, the idioms, the culture and the customs of those who lived in Biblical times. Every sincere reader of the Bible understands this. Doing it is the challenge. With the passing of many centuries since Scriptures were written much of the original intent has been buried under the accretions of generations of human tradition. According to some scholars a lot of Bible confusion can be cleared up by understanding “The Principle of Agency.”

A common feature of the Hebrew Bible is the concept (some even call it the “law”) of Jewish agency. All Old Testament scholars and commentators recognize that in Jewish custom whenever a superior commissioned an agent to act on his behalf, the agent was regarded as the person himself. This is well expressed in the Encyclopedia of the Jewish religion. Thus in Hebrew custom whenever an agent was sent to act for his master it was as though that lord himself was acting and speaking. An equivalent in our culture to the Jewish custom of agency would be one who is authorized to act as Power of Attorney, or more strongly one who is given Enduring Power of Attorney. Such an agent has virtually unlimited powers to act on behalf of the one who appointed him.

Let's look at one of the stories in the Old Testament with this new mindset. In the story of Moses and the burning bush in Exodus 3, “who” is it who appears to Moses and talked to him? My answer once was typical of the vast majority in the Church. Of course it was God himself, Yahweh, who spoke to Moses. After all, the text states that “’God’ called to him from the midst of the bush and ‘said’, ‘Moses, Moses!’” (v4). Verse 6 is even more convincing when the same speaker says, “’I am’ the ‘God’ of your father, ‘the God’ of Abraham, ‘the God’ of Isaac, and ‘the God’ of Jacob.’ Then Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look at ‘God’.” Surely it was Jehovah God himself who appear to Moses and who personally spoke? But what do we make of verse 2 that prefaces this narrative by stating that “’the angel of the LORD’ appeared” to Moses from the midst of the bush? Many scholars have declared this angel to be God himself, even the pre-existing Christ. They make much of the definitive article and point out that this was a particular angel not just any angel.
This is a fancy bit of footwork that disregards the Hebrew text as we shall see. If we turn to the New Testament’s commentary on this incident, we will see how Hebrews understood their own Scriptures.

Let us now turn to answer our question: Who is it who appears to Moses and talks to him? The martyr Stephen was a man “filled with the Holy Spirit.” Let's listen to his commentary on the burning bush incident. He clearly states that it was “an angel who appeared to him in the wilderness of Mount Sinai, in the flame of a burning bush” (Acts 7:30) As Moses approached this phenomenon, “there came the voice of the Lord: I am the God of your father. The Lord said to him, ‘Take off the sandals from your feet, for the place on which you are standing is holy ground. (31-33).

Quite clearly this is an example of agency. It is an angel who appears to Moses and it is the angel who speaks. But note that this angel evens speaks for God in the first person. The angel of the Lord says, “I am God.” The angel is distinguished from God yet identified with him. In Hebrew eyes, it is perfectly natural to consider the agent as the person himself. In Hebrew thought, homage given to God's agent or representative is homage ultimately given to God Himself.

Let's look at just one more example. In Acts 12, the apostle Peter is in jail about to be executed. But while he was asleep, “behold, an angel of the Lord suddenly appeared, and a light shone in the cell; and he struck Peter’s side and roused him, saying, ‘Get up quickly.’ And his chains fell off his hands. And the angel said to him, ‘Gird yourself and put on your sandals… and follow me’” (Acts 12:7-8). Peter thought he was dreaming. As he followed the angel past the guards, out through the iron gate which “opened for them by itself,” Peter “did not know what was being ‘done by the “angel”’ was real, but thought he was seeing a vision”(v.9).

Now the Church was meeting in a house and praying for Peter's release. Peter started banging on the house door and Rhoda, the servant girl went to open the door… Once Peter was eventually inside you can imagine the stir in that place. Peter motions with his hand for everyone to be quiet. He told them his incredible story. And what did he say? “He described to them how ‘the LORD’ had led him out of prison” (v.17).

So who really did get Peter out of jail? The angel or the Lord? The text says both did. But we know that the Lord sent the angel to do the actual work. To the Hebrew mind, it was really the Lord who rescued Peter.

There are many such OT examples. An agent of God is actually referred to as God, or the Lord himself. In Genesis 31:11-13 Jacobs said to his wives, “’The angel’ of God ‘said’ to me in a dream…’I am the God’ of Bethel.” Here is an angel speaking as though he was God Himself. He speaks in the first person: “I am the God of Bethel.” Jacob was comfortable with this concept of agency.

In the next chapter, Jacob wrestled with “a man” until dawn, but he says he had “seen God face to face” (Gen 32:24-30). So was at this time when God appear to Jacob as a man? Perhaps as some have suggested it was actually the Lord Jesus himself, as the second member of the triune God, who wrestled with Jacob.

Not at all according to Hosea 12:3-4 which says, “As a man he [Jacob] struggled with God; he struggled with “the angel” and overcame him. So the one who is called both “a man” and “God” in Genesis is identified as an angel in Hosea. This is a perfect example of Jewish agency where the agent is considered as the principal.

There is another instance of agency in Exodus 7. God tells Moses he will make him “God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron shall be your prophet” (Exodus 7:1). Moses is to stand before the king of Egypt with the full authority and backing of heaven itself. Then God says, By this you shall know that I am the LORD: behold, I will strike the water that is in the Nile with the staff that is in “My hand”, and it shall be turned to blood” (v.17). But observe carefully that just two verses later the LORD says to Moses, “Say to Aaron, take your staff and stretch out your hand over the waters of Egypt… that they may become blood” (v.19). God says He Himself will strike the waters with the staff in His own hand. Yet, it was Aaron’s hand that actually held the rod. Aaron is standing as God's agent in the very place of God himself. There is identification of the agent with his Principle. In Biblical terms, Moses and Aaron are “God” (Heb. elohim) to Pharaoh!

Sometimes this concept of agency has caused the translators of our Bible difficulties. The Hebrew word for “God”(elohim) has a wide range of meanings. Depending on context, it can mean the Supreme Deity, or “a god” or “gods” or even “angels” or human “judges.” This difficulty is reflected in verses like Exodus 21:6
The KJV reads… “Then his master shall bring him unto the judges;”

The NIV reads… “then his master must take him before the judges.”

But

The NASB reads… “then his master shall bring him to God”

So too the RSV… “then his master shall bring him to God”

Clearly, because the judges of Israel represented God as His agents, they are called “God,” elohim. As the slave gave his vow before these representatives of God, he was in fact making a binding vow before Jehovah. The agents were as God.

 

[Pierac]

Agency
Part2

Another example that we have time for in this brief overview, is in Judges 6:11-22. “The angel of the LORD came and sat under the oak tree while Gideon was threshing wheat”. As ‘the angel of the LORD appeared to him,’ he greeted Gideon with the words, “The LORD is with you, O valiant warrior.” We can hear Gideon's disbelief when he says to the angel, “Oh my lord, if the LORD is with us, why then has all this happened to us?” Now notice a change in the text at Judges 6:14: “And the LORD looked at him and said, ‘Go in this your strength and deliver Israel from the hand of Midian. Have not I sent you?” At this point Gideon murmurs and throws up excuses as to why he could not rescue Israel from their enemies. “But the LORD said to him, ‘Surely I will be with you, and you shall defeat Midian as one man.’” Notice how the angel who is speaking on God's behalf actually uses the first person personal pronoun. And the text clearly says that when the angel looked at Gideon it was God himself who looked at him: And the LORD looked at him.” Gideon is not confused regarding who he is looking at or who is speaking to him. For as “the angel of the LORD vanished from his site,” he exclaimed, “I have seen the angel of the LORD face-to-face.” (V.22). We know that the angel of the LORD is the agent and not literally God, because the Scriptures are absolutely clear that no one has ever seen God himself (John 1:18; 1 Tim 6:16; 1 John 4:12). Many scholars have failed to take this very Hebrew way of looking at things into account. They have literally identified the angel of the LORD with God Himself. All confusion is dissipated when we understand the Jewish law of agency: “a person’s agent is regarded as the person himself.” So was this “Angel of the Lord” actually “the Lord” — that is, Yahweh himself? The answer is no! This angelic personality appeared only “in the name” of Yahweh (as he had done to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob); He was simply acting with power of attorney to carry out the commands of Yahweh. The Jews have long recognized this fact. Jewish authorities record in their Mishnah of the third century that “a man’s agent is as himself” (Berekoth 6:6). And this same principle of interpretation applied to matters dealing with God.

There is one very clear OT example of Hebrew Principle of Agency. It comes from Deuteronomy 29. Moses summons all of Israel and says to them, "You have seen all that the Lord did before your eyes in the land of Egypt to Pharaoh and all his servants and all his land; the great trials which your eyes have seen, those great signs and wonders" (v.2-3). Moses continues to recite for the people all that God has done for them. But notice that in verse 6, while still reciting all God's wonders, Moses suddenly changes to the first person and says, "You have not eaten bread, nor have you drunk wine or strong drink, in order that you might know that I am the LORD your God." It is obvious that God himself is not personally speaking to the people. Moses is preaching. But Moses as the agent of God can speak as though he is the Lord himself. What is happening here? God is speaking through His man, His appointed representative. Therefore, he can move from speaking in the third person, “the LORD did this and that for you" to the first person: "I am the LORD your God doing this and that."

Knowing this principle helps us with other apparent difficulties, even seeming contradictions through the Scriptures. Lets look at one New Testament example. The story that has created a problem to many minds is the one concerning the healing of the Centurion’s servant. In Matthew's account (Matt 8:5-13), it is the Centurion himself who comes to Jesus and begs him to heal his servant. The Centurion himself says, "Lord, my servant is lying paralyzed at home, suffering great pain" (v.6).

However, the parallel account in Luke (Luke 7:1-10) states that the Centurion did not personally go and speak to Jesus. He actually sent or commissioned as his agents “some Jewish elders.” These Jewish elders pleaded with Jesus on behalf of the Centurion saying, "He is worthy for you to grant this to him; for he loves our nation, and it was he who built us our synagogue" (v.4-5)

So who actually went to Jesus here? Did these gospel writers get confused? Are the detractors perhaps right to say that the Bible is full of errors and contradictions? Not at all! The difficulty is cleared up when we understand the Hebrew mind behind these Scriptures. The answer to who actually stood before Jesus is the elders. They had been sent by the Centurion. Matthew in typical Hebrew idiom has the Centurion himself there and speaking in the first person before Jesus. The agent is as the principal himself.

Jesus claimed to represent God like no other before or after him. He claimed to be the unique spokesman for God his Father and to speak the ultimate words of God. He claimed to act in total accord and harmony with God like no other. He claimed to be the Son of God, the Christ or Messiah, and the agent of the Father. The NT claims that he who sees Jesus sees the Father. He who hears Jesus the Son hears the words of God Himself.

Now let's review one last example and look at Exodus 23:20-23. Notice 'my name is in him!' (agency)

"Behold, I send an angel before thee, to keep thee by the way ... Take ye heed of him, and hearken unto his voice; provoke him not (be not rebellious against him): for he will not pardon your transgression; for my name is in him" "But if you truly obey his voice and do all that I say, then I will be an enemy to your enemies and an adversary to your adversaries. "For My angel will go before you… (Exodus 23:20-23).

In this passage the angel was to be for Israel in the place of God; he was to speak God's words, and judge them. In fact the angel expressed God's name; he was God for them. Now if this was true of an angel of the Lord, how much more of the Son of God himself? Hence these sayings:

"This is life eternal, that they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent ... I (Jesus) have manifested thy name unto (the disciples) ... Holy Father, keep in thy name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, even as we are one" (John 17:3,6,11).

"I and my Father are one" (John 10:30).

Jesus, then, enjoyed a unity of mind and Spirit with the Father, so that he could say, "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father" (John 14:9). For the disciples Jesus was in the place of God; he spoke God's words, proclaimed God's truth, and pronounced His judgements.

Hebrews 1:1 makes more sense now:
God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, 2 in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world (ages).

[The Net bible adds… The temporal (ages) came to be used of the spatial (what exists in those time periods). See Heb_11:3 for the same usage.]

Heb 11:3 By faith we understand that the worlds (ages) were prepared by the word (ρημα G4487) of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible.

"Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which god performed through him in your midst" (Acts 2:22).

 

[tigger 2]

No thanks Tigger!

Auto means SELF....
it could be a HIM, HER, IT
It's up to the reader/scholar to determine what it means in context.

For instance, how do you grieve an IT?

What do you believe the Holy Spirit is?
And who is Jesus to you?

I'm having a difficult time trying to figure out who states that Jesus is just a man...
and who believes He is divine/diety in some way.

........................................

"Auto means SELF....
"it could be a HIM, HER, IT"

Look it up, please:
Mastering New Testament Greek (biblicalelearning.org) See 3rd person pronouns
Lesson 6 (ntgreek.net) see 3rd person pronouns
Greek Pronouns | New Testament Greek Study

"For instance, how do you grieve an IT?"
Examining the Trinity: HS (Part 2)

 

[Wrangler]

I put this together about 10 years ago from multiple sources when I was studying the Trinity. Can't remember all the sources but Dr Juan Baixteras was one of them.
Agency

Outstanding analysis!

It reveals a deep seated deliberate attempt by trinitarians to misinterpret Scripture, which is full of Being A/Person A doing things through Being B/Person B but pretending Jesus is an exception to this common use of language.

I point out how we use language this way today. For instance, we say that Hitler killed 4 M Jews when in actuality, he killed no one; rather, as sovereign head of State, he ordered others to do the killing. These other people, we do not equate with Hitler as trinitarians do with Jesus and God.

Scripture is explicit that Jesus was sent by God, told what to say by God, knows less than God, is not as great as God, given all authority by God, raised from the dead by God, refused the bitter cup to be passed and gave the resurrected Jesus in heaven a revelation by God in Rev 1:1.

All angels and prophets say God’s words. It does not make them God. Agency is common use of language still used today, which undermines the Trinity.

How did Jesus teach us to pray? Thy will be done. Whose will? Not Jesus’ will. This is because Jesus is not God incarnate, not the sovereign Creator of the universe, not the Agency of which God’s servants are the Agents for.

 

[Brakelite]

Outstanding analysis!

It reveals a deep seated deliberate attempt by trinitarians to misinterpret Scripture, which is full of Being A/Person A doing things through Being A/Person B but pretending Jesus is an exception to this common use of language.

I point out how we use language this way today. For instance, we say that Hitler killed 4 M Jews when in actuality, he killed no one; rather, as sovereign head of State, he ordered others to do the killing. These other people, we do not equate with Hitler as trinitarians do with Jesus and God.

Scripture is explicit that Jesus was sent by God, told what to say by God, knows less than God, is not as great as God, given all authority by God, raised from the dead by God, refused the bitter cup to be passed and gave the resurrected Jesus in heaven a revelation by God in Rev 1:1.

All angels and prophets say God’s words. It does not make them God. Agency is common use of language still used today, which undermines the Trinity.

How did Jesus teach us to pray? Thy will be done. Whose will? Not Jesus’ will. This is because Jesus is not God incarnate, not the sovereign Creator of the universe, not the Agency of which God’s servants are the Agents for.

Except you omit the absolute essential ingredient to this seeming conundrum. Jesus is God's Son. God sent His Son into the world. His only begotten Son. His only begotten Son. Not created as are the angels. Not redeemed as are people. Begotten. Brought forth of the Father before creation, the express image of His person. And throughout creation, from beginning to end, like begets like. So if the Father didn't beget a Son like unto Himself, then what?