Who is Jesus to a Non-Trinitarian?
- Thread starter Rich R
- 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!
When I was still a student, I had a trinitarian professor for a class who was adamant about not using analogies for the Trinity. Under no circumstances, he told us, was it ever acceptable to use them. Why? Because they are all false and by using them we would be misleading our congregations and bearing false witness to the Triune God. Those are strong words, and they made quite an impression on me.
JAT, generally speaking, doesn’t know that and frequently uses them. Listen for them and we hear trinitarians unknowingly teaching against the doctrine (and the deity) they sincerely profess belief in.
This is captured in an article titled “‘The Trinity is Like 3-in-1 Shampoo’… And Other Stupid Statements” by another trinitarian, Dr. C. Michael Patton.
“Alternate title: ‘Trinitarian Heresy 101’
‘The doctrine of the Trinity is like an egg: three parts one thing.’ Ever heard that? How about this, ‘The doctrine of the Trinity is like a three leaf clover: three leaves, one clover.’ Or how about THIS, ‘The doctrine of the Trinity is like water: three forms (ice, steam, liquid) one substance.’ But the greatest I ever heard was by a guy in one of my classes. He said that he thought that the Trinity was like 3-in-1 shampoo: three activities, one substance.’
Stupid statements. Creative, but stupid. Don’t use them. Any of them. Ever.
Explanation coming … Hang with me. …
With this in mind, let me now cover the ‘stupid statements’ and why they don’t pass the test.
1. The Trinity is like 3-in-1 shampoo. This can only lead to modalism or tritheism …
2. The Trinity is like an egg. This is most definitely tritheism. …
3. The Trinity is like water. This is a modalistic illustration. …
4. The Trinity is like a four leaf clover. This is a form of tritheism. …
5. The Trinity is like a man who is simultaneously a father, son, and husband. This is an often used illustration, but it only serves to present a modalistic understanding of God that is false. …
6. The Trinity is like a person who is one, yet has a spirit, soul, and a body. This one, like the first, can commit either a tritheistic or modalistic error, but cannot be used to illustrate the orthodox definition of the Trinity. …
In the end, I do not believe there are any true to life illustrations that can or should be used to teach or describe the Trinity. The Trinity is not a contradiction (i.e. one God who eternally exists as three separate Gods), but it is most definitely a paradox (a truth that exists in tension). …
One more thing. I often tell my students that if they say, ‘I get it! or ‘Now I understand!’ that they are more than likely celebrating the fact that they are a heretic! When you understand the biblical principles and let the tensions remain without rebuttal, then you are orthodox. When you solve the tension, you have most certainly passed into one of the errors that we seek to avoid.
Confused? Good! That is just where you need to be.”
"The Trinity is Like 3-in-1 Shampoo". . . And Other Stupid Statements
JAT. Unwittingly, and unknowingly, a heretic.
How about that, Theology fans?
From the same article (see post #162) written by Dr. Patton,
“We often employ illustrations that help us to make the ineffable, effable, the abstract, concrete. But when it comes to the nature of God, especially with regard to the Doctrine of the Trinity, illustrations should only be used to show what the Trinity is not.”
Thinking to illustrate what the Trinity is, JAT, by using analogies for the Trinity, is actually illustrating what the Trinity is not. And what the person using them is not.
Will JAT disavow then and refrain from using analogies for the Trinity? Not very likely. Maybe some will after reading Dr. Patton and carefully thinking it over. Dr. Patton, a trinitarian, hopes so. I, a Jewish monotheist, hope so too.
“I’m a trinitarian!” [but I believe things about the Trinity which are false and heretical.]
Such a person - entitled to his or her belief - is trinitarian in name only.
“We often employ illustrations that help us to make the ineffable, effable, the abstract, concrete. But when it comes to the nature of God, especially with regard to the Doctrine of the Trinity, illustrations should only be used to show what the Trinity is not.”
Thinking to illustrate what the Trinity is, JAT, by using analogies for the Trinity, is actually illustrating what the Trinity is not. And what the person using them is not.
Will JAT disavow then and refrain from using analogies for the Trinity? Not very likely. Maybe some will after reading Dr. Patton and carefully thinking it over. Dr. Patton, a trinitarian, hopes so. I, a Jewish monotheist, hope so too.
“I’m a trinitarian!” [but I believe things about the Trinity which are false and heretical.]
Such a person - entitled to his or her belief - is trinitarian in name only.
Jesus is not a human person - in trinitarian theology.
Are there any Baptists in the house?
“There is only one person who is Christ, and that person is divine. Thus, there is no human person named ‘Jesus of Nazareth.’ Jesus is a divine person, and medieval theologians were careful never to refer to Jesus as a human person.”
(William Lane Craig, “Is Worship of Jesus Idolatry?)
Is Worship of Jesus Idolatry?
Bold is mine.
Dr. Craig. Baptist.
“There is a human person named ‘Jesus of Nazareth’” - a non-trinitarian belief.
Are there any Baptists in the house?
“There is only one person who is Christ, and that person is divine. Thus, there is no human person named ‘Jesus of Nazareth.’ Jesus is a divine person, and medieval theologians were careful never to refer to Jesus as a human person.”
(William Lane Craig, “Is Worship of Jesus Idolatry?)
Is Worship of Jesus Idolatry?
Bold is mine.
Dr. Craig. Baptist.
“There is a human person named ‘Jesus of Nazareth’” - a non-trinitarian belief.
Jesus is not a human person - in trinitarian theology.
Are there any Catholics in the house?
“Some months ago, after writing ‘Did the Incarnation Cause God to Change?’ I received an excellent follow-up question. Wrestling with my article, one of our readers could not get past how we can say that Christ was truly and fully man and yet not a ‘human person.’ He asked if we could say that somehow Christ could be both a human person and a divine person in the sense of his human person being a ‘partaken’ in the divine person?
In short, the answer is no. There is only one person, or subject, in Christ and that person is God! A divine person cannot change into a ‘divine-human’ mix.”
(Tim Staples, Catholic Answers, “Is Jesus a Human Person?”)
Is Jesus a Human Person?
After defining terms, Staples continues -
“… there is no reason why we couldn’t have a being that was truly human, or, more accurately, possessed a human nature, but was not a human person. … And according to the revelation we have been given in Scripture and Tradition, Jesus is an example of a divine person who possesses a fully human nature but is not a human person.”
Bold is mine.
Staples. A Baptist convert to Roman Catholicism.
How satisfied is the reader with the proposition that “Jesus is truly and fully man and yet not a human person”?
That’s what one must believe - Catholic and Protestant alike - in order to truly be a trinitarian.
I reject it. That’s one reason, but not the only reason, why I’m an ex-trinitarian.
Are there any Catholics in the house?
“Some months ago, after writing ‘Did the Incarnation Cause God to Change?’ I received an excellent follow-up question. Wrestling with my article, one of our readers could not get past how we can say that Christ was truly and fully man and yet not a ‘human person.’ He asked if we could say that somehow Christ could be both a human person and a divine person in the sense of his human person being a ‘partaken’ in the divine person?
In short, the answer is no. There is only one person, or subject, in Christ and that person is God! A divine person cannot change into a ‘divine-human’ mix.”
(Tim Staples, Catholic Answers, “Is Jesus a Human Person?”)
Is Jesus a Human Person?
After defining terms, Staples continues -
“… there is no reason why we couldn’t have a being that was truly human, or, more accurately, possessed a human nature, but was not a human person. … And according to the revelation we have been given in Scripture and Tradition, Jesus is an example of a divine person who possesses a fully human nature but is not a human person.”
Bold is mine.
Staples. A Baptist convert to Roman Catholicism.
How satisfied is the reader with the proposition that “Jesus is truly and fully man and yet not a human person”?
That’s what one must believe - Catholic and Protestant alike - in order to truly be a trinitarian.
I reject it. That’s one reason, but not the only reason, why I’m an ex-trinitarian.
Last edited:
Jesus is not a human person - in trinitarian theology.
Are there any Catholics in the house who didn’t convert from Baptist (or another Protestant denomination)?
The hour is late. I’ll be brief. Please see the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
“Jesus is Not a Human Person (466)”
(Mary Foundation at CatholiCity.com, “True God and True Man”)
True God and True Man
If you’re satisfied with, convinced that, “Jesus is not a human person” then stay where you are.
Good night.
P.S. I was raised Baptist. If I were ever to become satisfied with, and convinced that, “Jesus is not a human person” then I would very likely convert to Roman Catholicism, as Tim Staples did. That’s where the post-biblical, historical, orthodox doctrine of the Trinity came from.
P.P.S. What do you think about that @theefaith?
Are there any Catholics in the house who didn’t convert from Baptist (or another Protestant denomination)?
The hour is late. I’ll be brief. Please see the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
“Jesus is Not a Human Person (466)”
(Mary Foundation at CatholiCity.com, “True God and True Man”)
True God and True Man
If you’re satisfied with, convinced that, “Jesus is not a human person” then stay where you are.
Good night.
P.S. I was raised Baptist. If I were ever to become satisfied with, and convinced that, “Jesus is not a human person” then I would very likely convert to Roman Catholicism, as Tim Staples did. That’s where the post-biblical, historical, orthodox doctrine of the Trinity came from.
P.P.S. What do you think about that @theefaith?
Last edited:
Brakelite
Well-Known Member
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” John 1:1 The words of John 1:1 are probably the most debated in Scripture. Volumes have been written attempting to explain them. Most of the discussions concern what John meant by the phrase “and the Word was God”. Some have said that John meant to say that Christ was divine or had a divine nature but the fact is if this is what he wanted to say then other Greek words were available to Him. One of these, amongst others, is θεῖος (theios). The beloved physician Luke wrote (note the difference in the three translations of this same verse) “Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead [ θεῖος – theios] is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.” Acts 17:29 KJV εῖος – theios] "Being then the children of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature [θ is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and thought of man.” Acts 17:29) NASB εῖος – theios] “So, since we are children of God, we shouldn't suppose that God's essence [θ resembles gold, silver or stone shaped by human technique and imagination.” Acts 17:29 The Complete Jewish Bible In order to translate θεῖος, both the New American Standard Bible and the Complete Jewish Bible, like other modern translations, do not use the word Godhead. Instead they say “Divine Nature” and “God’s essence” etc. The word θεῖος therefore, if John had wanted to use it, was available to him. In fact it is quite possible that John had read what Luke had written. It is also possible he had read the other Gospels, also what Paul and Peter had written. Remember, John’s Gospel was written around the end of the 1st same Greek word (θεῖος) is translated here “According as his divine [ century. Notice how this θεῖος] power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue: Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature [ θεῖος] , having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.:” 2 Peter 1:3-4 As we can see, Peter refers to “divine nature [ θεῖος]”. If at John 1:1c John had only meant to say that Christ had a divine nature then this is the way he could have written it. As it was he used theos. This is the same word, although without the definite article, that he used at John 1b. Even if John had written that Christ was divine (or had a divine nature etc.), it would still mean that He is God. Someone cannot have a divine nature and not be God. Pertaining to personal beings we are only aware of three classes of nature. This is divine nature, the nature of angels, and human nature. In His pre-existence, Christ was none of the latter two therefore He could only be divine. In personality though, He was not the Father. He was the Son of God.
Some have maintained that because John said “the Word was with God ( τὸν Θεόν – ton theon), which can be translated as ‘the Word was with the God’, that when He wrote, “the Word was God ( Θεὸς - theos)” (without the definite article), he is saying that “the Word” is not actually God. This I believe is a misunderstanding of the thought that the Holy Spirit was leading John to convey. I believe that John was ensuring that his readers would take him to mean that the Word was God but not the same person as the Father. To put it another way: John was delineating between God the Father (whom the Word was with) and the Word (who became flesh) yet saying at the same time they were both God.
Terry Hill
Some have maintained that because John said “the Word was with God ( τὸν Θεόν – ton theon), which can be translated as ‘the Word was with the God’, that when He wrote, “the Word was God ( Θεὸς - theos)” (without the definite article), he is saying that “the Word” is not actually God. This I believe is a misunderstanding of the thought that the Holy Spirit was leading John to convey. I believe that John was ensuring that his readers would take him to mean that the Word was God but not the same person as the Father. To put it another way: John was delineating between God the Father (whom the Word was with) and the Word (who became flesh) yet saying at the same time they were both God.
Terry Hill
Brakelite
Well-Known Member
“From eternity there was a complete unity between the Father and the Son. They were two, yet little short of being identical; two in individuality, yet one in spirit, and heart, and character.”
There is a difference between the Father and the Son. They are not exactly the same. One difference is that the Father is unbegotten whilst the Son is begotten.
“Yet have I set my King upon my holy hill of Zion. I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.” The Father in heaven has a voice and person which Christ expressed.”
There is a difference between the Father and the Son. They are not exactly the same. One difference is that the Father is unbegotten whilst the Son is begotten.
“Yet have I set my King upon my holy hill of Zion. I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.” The Father in heaven has a voice and person which Christ expressed.”
Jesus is not a human person - in trinitarian theology.
“The perfect human is not a human person; the perfect human has no specific human self.”
(Henry Karlson, “God Became Man Without a Human Self (Hypostasis)”)
God Became Man Without a Human Self (Hypostasis)
The “perfect human” our trinitarian (Catholic) author is speaking about is Jesus.
Trinitarian Jesus - man without a human self.
This should be preached from every trinitarian pulpit in the land.
It isn’t, and it won’t be. Why?
“The perfect human is not a human person; the perfect human has no specific human self.”
(Henry Karlson, “God Became Man Without a Human Self (Hypostasis)”)
God Became Man Without a Human Self (Hypostasis)
The “perfect human” our trinitarian (Catholic) author is speaking about is Jesus.
Trinitarian Jesus - man without a human self.
This should be preached from every trinitarian pulpit in the land.
It isn’t, and it won’t be. Why?
Truthfully, I need to go back to my hypostasis notes and see if I really emphasized that not only does it mean that Jesus had/has an impossible dual nature of divinity and humanity, his natural born male human personality became absent as well in the process of his creation and as others would say, incarnation. I need to go over it more and see beyond it for other ramifications of all this entire thought as one whole. I admit I did not apply the hypostasis model to Jesus, that also lacks a human personality.
I do also agree with that Trinity teacher you wrote about, that analogies of the Trinity model are useless and very confusing, and do not serve its cause that it's a true apostolic model of the nature of God and the Son.
I seen to think that the Gnostics of the late 1st and into the 3nd centuries AD, with their pagan Greek pagan backgrounds, were directly responsible for Modalism, Binitarianism, Bi-theism, Tritheism and Trinitarianism. The mother therefore was a mixture of Paganism and Gnosticism.
@Matthias one more thing from your post #162 that I forgot to comment on..
This 'tension,' that must be forever present and in play for even a JAT (Trinitarian), left drifting and tugging within the mind and heart's core is like an inoperable cancer that eats away slowly, little by little. It defines who one worships and believes in. It must be resolved and yet it can never be. It is a type of spiritual suicide of ones own making, where one cannot ever have complete confidence and trust, with no real faith in a real substance of the Creator God that saves one's soul. These souls have caused their own demise and death.
This 'tension,' that must be forever present and in play for even a JAT (Trinitarian), left drifting and tugging within the mind and heart's core is like an inoperable cancer that eats away slowly, little by little. It defines who one worships and believes in. It must be resolved and yet it can never be. It is a type of spiritual suicide of ones own making, where one cannot ever have complete confidence and trust, with no real faith in a real substance of the Creator God that saves one's soul. These souls have caused their own demise and death.
GRACE ambassador
Well-Known Member
Whew! Must be time (Rom 16:17-18) to go, eh? @Enoch111? @Brakelite? Since:
2Ti_3:7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of The Truth.
+
2Co_10:12 For we dare not make ourselves of the number, or compare ourselves with some that commend themselves: but they measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise.
GRACE And Peace...
2Ti_3:7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of The Truth.
+
2Co_10:12 For we dare not make ourselves of the number, or compare ourselves with some that commend themselves: but they measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise.
GRACE And Peace...
ChristisGod
Well-Known Member
Besides all the above rhetoric I have 1 simple reason why God regardless if you are a unitarian, binatarian or trinitarian should not compare anything in creation to the Creator. God forbids it as it becomes an idol.
Isaiah 40:18
To whom will you liken God? To what image will you compare Him?
Isaiah 40:25
To whom will you compare me? Or who is my equal?” says the Holy One.
And one just needs to read Job chapters 38-41 to see how God interacts with Job on the question who is God and to what will you compare.
hope this helps !!!
“The anhypostasia, impersonality, or, to speak more accurately, the enhypostasia, of the human nature of Christ. This is a difficult point, but a necessary link in the orthodox doctrine of the one God-Man; for otherwise we must have two persons in Christ, and, after the incarnation, a fourth person, and that a human, in the divine Trinity.”
(Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, §142. The Orthodox Christology - Analysis and Criticism)
HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH*
(Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, §142. The Orthodox Christology - Analysis and Criticism)
HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH*
This is the first time I've ever heard someone attacking historical orthodox trinitarianism by attacking historical orthodox trinitarianism. Maybe we should just let it happen; it's much like chewing off one's own extremities... It is encouraging, though, that Jews believe in trinitarianism, misunderstanding notwithstanding. Some thoughts:
- Orthodox Jewish trinitarianism, which continues to refute that Jesus is the Christ, supposing erroneously that the Christ is still yet to come. This is a result of the partial hardening that is now upon Israel, which Paul writes about in Romans 9-11.
- Jesus is both the Son of God and the Son of Man. At least two things should be noted here:
- "Son" does not literally mean male offspring in the human understanding of 'son.' If it were to be understood in that way, it would mean that Jesus literally had/has two fathers, which no one would think the case, and rightly so.
- Son of God and Son of Man are parallel in at least two ways:
- Jesus was/is fully of God and fully of Man.
- In the title Son of Man, Man is obviously a singular plurality; such is also the case with 'God' in Son of God.
I'm pretty sure that everyone here would say the same of themselves, Mattias; I certainly would. More importantly, though, God requires it. Those would teach are certainly held to a higher standard, as James tells us:
"Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness." (James 3:1)
We all would agree with this. So this issue, then, is what you, or I, or anybody regards as accurate, which may not really be accurate at all.
Matthias: "If a person truly wants to be a trinitarian then that person must know and believe what the doctrine of the Trinity actually teaches."
Agreed again.
Matthias: "When they express what they believe they express ideas which run counter to trinitarian doctrine."
Well, again, the Jewish idea of trinitarian doctrine. See above.
Matthias: "I would lose all credibility, and rightly so, if I said what @PinSeeker and @Enoch111 said about the doctrine of the Trinity... "
Credibility among Jews who deny that Jesus is the Messiah, sure. But that would be a good thing. Maybe you shouldn't be so concerned ~ or boastful (falsely) ~ about your own "credibility," Mattias. Paul obviously was not, especially when he wrote and said things like "...I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes" (Romans 1:16) and "...far be it from me to boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world" (Galatians 6:14).
Matthias: "There is no possibility that I could have functioned in the halls of academia, nor in my pastoral position, if I had taught about the Trinity what they are teaching about it. My employers, both trinitarian and non-trinitarian, would have terminated me on the spot if I had."
Yes, and your employers were... Sure. 
See above.
See above.APAK: "I do not like being labelled as any denomination."
Right, which means you are part of the non-denominational denomination... ... which is essentially Baptist...
Grace and peace to all.
... which is essentially Baptist... Grace and peace to all.
Last edited:
This is a very useful source for all believers, of whatever stripe or label they wished to be identified and what peculiarities they believe is the truth. All should have a grounding into the history of the 'Christian' Church.
We all ~ at least most everyone here, as I can only really speak for myself ~ agree that Christ Himself is not two separate persons, Matthias. But He was both of God (fully God in essence; possessing the same nature as the Father and the Spirit) and of man (fully man; of man's essence; possessing the same nature as all men). So at least in this sense, we would ~ seemingly, at least ~ be in full agreement with Schaff (and you, apparently).
Grace and peace to you.
You presume too much PS and about me, my non-denominational label as you pronounced for me, and then as a Baptist indeed, hilarious and lol.This is the first time I've ever heard someone attacking historical orthodox trinitarianism by attacking historical orthodox trinitarianism. Maybe we should just let it happen; it's much like chewing off one's own extremities... It is encouraging, though, that Jews believe in trinitarianism, misunderstanding notwithstanding. Some thoughts:Mattias: "...personal integrity requires that I accurately inform the reader what the doctrine and theology itself informs the reader."
- Orthodox Jewish trinitarianism, which continues to refute that Jesus is the Christ, supposing erroneously that the Christ is still yet to come. This is a result of the partial hardening that is now upon Israel, which Paul writes about in Romans 9-11.
- Jesus is both the Son of God and the Son of Man. At least two things should be noted here:
- "Son" does not literally mean male offspring in the human understanding of 'son.' If it were to be understood in that way, it would mean that Jesus literally had/has two fathers, which no one would think the case, and rightly so.
- Son of God and Son of Man are parallel in at least two ways:
- Jesus was/is fully of God and fully of Man.
- In the title Son of Man, Man is obviously a singular plurality; such is also the case with 'God' in Son of God.
I'm pretty sure that everyone here would say the same of themselves, Mattias; I certainly would. More importantly, though, God requires it. Those would teach are certainly held to a higher standard, as James tells us:
"Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness." (James 3:1)
We all would agree with this. So this issue, then, is what you, or I, or anybody regards as accurate, which may not really be accurate at all.
Mattias: "If a person truly wants to be a trinitarian then that person must know and believe what the doctrine of the Trinity actually teaches."
Agreed again.
Mattias: "When they express what they believe they express ideas which run counter to trinitarian doctrine."
Well, again, the Jewish idea of trinitarian doctrine. See above.
Mattias: "I would lose all credibility, and rightly so, if I said what @PinSeeker and @Enoch111 said about the doctrine of the Trinity... "
Credibility among Jews who deny that Jesus is the Messiah, sure. But that would be a good thing. Maybe you shouldn't be so concerned ~ or boastful (falsely) ~ about your own "credibility," Mattias. Paul obviously was not, especially when he wrote and said things like "...I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes" (Romans 1:16) and "...far be it from me to boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world" (Galatians 6:14).
Mattias: "There is no possibility that I could have functioned in the halls of academia, nor in my pastoral position, if I had taught about the Trinity what they are teaching about it. My employers, both trinitarian and non-trinitarian, would have terminated me on the spot if I had."
Yes, and your employers were... Sure.
APAK: "I do not like being labelled as any denomination."
Right, which means you are part of the non-denominational denomination...
Grace and peace to all.
And who do you think these Jews you cite are really? You may be in for a big shock if you really delved into and read up on our modern day Jews and their roots and original teachings. And why do have to bring in these Jews as your support is beyond me. And to say they are all Trinitarians, now that's a joke indeed. You wont get any sympathy or comfort for these people. Kind of a weak and an argument gone awry. I really believe you do not know who the Jews of the first century were, the 6th century Jew, the 10th century Jew and the 21st century ones. This is your Achilles heel in your post, that you do not really know the people you are using as your main support in your argument; and you have it all wrong.
I’m just parroting what trinitarian theologians / scholars say about the doctrine. I agree that what they are saying is what trinitarianism teaches.
The quote from Schaff explains why trinitarianism teaches - has to teach - that Jesus is not a human person.
This is not what trinitarians believe, APAK. Not at all. Yes, agreed; such a belief is completely wrong. That's what non-trinitarians believe... Jehovah's Witnesses in particular.
Grace and peace to you.
Similar threads
