A trinity of reality

[Runningman]

I don't need to explain something I don't believe in.

My apologies. I thought you were interested in the truth.

 

[Runningman]

Matt 3:17

Beginning at John's water baptism is when Jesus was anointed with the Holy Spirit and power? thats the Trinity?

Acts 10
37You yourselves know what has happened throughout Judea, beginning in Galilee with the baptism that John proclaimed: 38how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power, and how Jesus went around doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, because God was with Him.

and Matt 28:19 father, son, and spirit

Who have Jesus his authority?

 

[Mr GLee]

Then you are denying the Christian faith? And Christ who revealed it?

How am I denying the faith of Christ and Christ who reveals it ?

 

[Runningman]

The thing is, I believe 1 John 5:20 says that Jesus Christ is that true God too. And not only that, but John said that he is also: "the true Light" (John 1:9), "the true Bread" (John 6:32), "the true Vine" (John 15:1), "the true One" (Revelations 3:7), "the true Witness" (Revelations 3:14), and "true Sovereign and Lord" (Revelations 6:10). But for some reason when it comes to Jesus Christ being "the true God" (1 John 5:20) there is a denial. Why do you think that is?

1 John 5:20 mentions the Son of God so that would be two people. Son is Jesus and God is Father. That makes sense because in this way Jesus isn't his own Father nor his own God. When it says "He is the true God and eternal life..." it is referring back to the previously mentioned God which would be the Father, of course, because we already knew this from John 17:3. The grammar doesn't force the reader to assign deity to Jesus in this verse, but I know why one may mistakenly do that. Pronouns do not always refer back to the previously mentioned noun, such as is the case in Acts 4:10,11. There is always a context.

There is also no need to believe Jesus is the "Sovereign Lord" since in Acts 4:24-30, John and Peter prayed to God, calling Him the Sovereign Lord then in the same prayer they referred to Jesus as a servant of God. Furthermore, no one ever prayed to Jesus in the Bible.

I don't need to address each point of what you said, but you seem to be relying on clues and hints rather than something explicit about Jesus being God.

Yeah, yeah, I know, the blame game because you are in denial of the eisegesis. You know I can do the same eisegesis that Unitarians do by superimposing "One Lord Jesus Christ" (1 Corinthians 8:6, "one Lord" Ephesians 4:5, "same Lord" 1 Corinthians 12:5, "Christ is all, and is in all" Colossians 3:11, "and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord" Jude 1:4, "true Sovereign and Lord" Revelations 6:10) into Scriptures excluding out the Father and the Holy Spirit. And then restrict and isolate "THE ONLY ONE SAME LORD JESUS CHRIST IS ALL AND IN ALL" from the whole of Scriptures. But Trinitarians don't do eisegesis because we acknowledge that the Father is Lord and the Holy Spirit is Lord. You can't see the eisegesis because of your denial that Jesus Christ is God.

You can't really take the word "Lord" and automatically use that to assign deity to Jesus. 1 Corinthians 8:4-6 soundly rules Jesus out as being the One God, but yes Jesus is Lord of the church, but not the Lord of God. Furthermore, the Lordship of Jesus is temporary according to 1 Corinthians 15.

1 Corinthians 8​

4Therefore concerning the eating of the things sacrificed to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world and that there is no God except one. 5Truly even if indeed there are those called gods, whether in heaven or on earth, as there are many gods and many lords, 6yet to us there is one God the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we through Him.​

​

1 Corinthians 15​

24Then the end will come, when He hands over the kingdom to God the Father after He has destroyed all dominion, authority, and power. 25For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. 26The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27For “God has put everything under His feet.” Now when it says that everything has been put under Him, this clearly does not include the One who put everything under Him. 28And when all things have been subjected to Him, then the Son Himself will be made subject to Him who put all things under Him, so that God may be all in all.​

And here, you assumed Unitarianism. You have superimposed Unitarianism into the Trinity framework. Take off the blinders or that red lens glasses because you are only seeing the color red. In Trinitarianism, we don't restrict and isolate the Father-person being one God only. There are two more "persons" who is that one God too. We don't believe Jesus Christ is the Father, but we distinguish the Son and the Father in distinction. So, there is no conflation, the conflation is the result of you superimposing Unitarianism into the Trinity framework.

Then there is hope for you.

Interesting. When I say, "Jesus Christ is not the Father," you would agree. Because in your eyes that is equivalent to "Jesus Christ is not God" since you assumed that the "Father and "God" are used interchangeably.

That isn't an assumption. The Bible explicitly refers to the Father as God. I am not confused or assuming anything, I assure you. I don't have a horse in the race, so to speak, or gain any thing by pointing out the Father is the only true God. My duty is just to get the truth out there.

I cracked your color-coded terminology block.

Jesus isn't equal to God, greater than God, is not omniscient, is not omnipotent, and is not omnipresent. You would have a very hard time selling this your "Jesus is God" mantra to anyone with a working brain. Jesus is a human and he's still a human. He was born a human, resurrected as a human, was taken to heaven as a human, seen be Stephen as a human, and they kept calling him a human decades after his death such as in 1 Timothy 2:5.

Trinitarians superimpose their belief about Jesus being God into the Bible when the Bible doesn't actually say what they believe. You have a religion and indoctrination, but it isn't scripture. I hope a part of you knows this.

You lost me here. What literal, symbolic or metaphor? Maybe you are just saying that, just to be saying it. Since you have nothing else to say in the objection.

You quoted examples of Jesus literally not knowing everything and then you denied them and said Jesus is omniscient and knows everything God knows.

The Hypostatic Union teaches two natures in union by the Son-person. And attributes belong to the nature and not of the Person. What you are doing is making a category mistake. It's like asking me "ignorance" is the attribute of the Divine Nature or "omniscience is the attribute of the human nature."

Category Mistake:

Divine Nature is both omnipotent and powerless.​

or,​

Human Nature is both powerless and omnipotent.​

Sounds like nonsense. How about just believe Jesus is a human like the Bible plainly says rather than having a complex and difficult to understand theology about it? Don't most of you people just wind up saying the Trinity is an incomprehensible mystery?

For instance, the human attributes don't leave the human nature and place itself inside the Person or inside the Divine Nature. While the human nature no

It seems you think that Jesus is both a man and God. In that case, if he were both a man and God, you can't prove it using scripture. Jesus didn't demonstrate deity aside from his human nature. Can you give me an example from the Bible of Jesus acting as God?

Except that's not how the argument goes. Here is the answer:

If the Son is speaking from the standpoint of his Divine Nature, then this is where the Unitarian's argument is boiled down to and centered upon. Logically, the Unitarians cannot argue from the Hypostatic Unionists' position that "Jesus Christ lacks knowledge as a man," so some Unitarians will ride with "as God"

The son of God, son of man, Messiah, Lamb, Immanuel, etc are all names or titles of Jesus. A reference to one name is always a reference to Jesus. Jesus doesn't suddenly stop being Jesus and then becomes Son of God one moment then later when it's convenient he's back to being the Son of Man. This is how Trinitarians keep moving the goal posts. Actually, it's a bit slippery like jelly. Just when I think I got you a hold on Trinitarianism it slips through my fingers and reforms somewhere else. In this way, you keep yourself in in a continuous cycle of self-delusion. Not even you fully understand what you believe.

I'll leave you with another example of how Jesus isn't God. One can be forgiven for speaking against the son of man, but not for speaking against the Holy Spirit. If in your godhead each member F, S, and HS are God, then speaking against one should be equal to speaking against the others. This means Jesus isn't God. but let me guess... you're going to play the Hypostatic union card.

Matt 12
32Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the one to come.

 

[donadams]

Beginning at John's water baptism is when Jesus was anointed with the Holy Spirit and power? thats the Trinity?

Acts 10
37You yourselves know what has happened throughout Judea, beginning in Galilee with the baptism that John proclaimed: 38how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power, and how Jesus went around doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, because God was with Him.

Who have Jesus his authority?

Matt 3:16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:

17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

Father: speaking from heaven
Son: Jesus
Spirit: in the form of a dove

Acts 10 also
Father
Son
Spirit

 

[donadams]

How am I denying the faith of Christ and Christ who reveals it ?

You said you deny the trinity

The trinity is divine faith revealed by Christ and taught by the church Matt 28:19

First apostolic Vatican Council! “If anyone says that it is possible that at some time given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the Church which is different from that which the Church has understood and understands: let him be anathema.”[1]

“Fourth Anathema of the Second Ecumenical Council of Nicaea,” which reads: “If anyone rejects any written or unwritten Tradition of the Church, let him be anathema.”

34. In God there are Three Persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. Each of the Three
Persons possesses the one (numerical) Divine Essence.
35. In God there are two Internal Divine Processions.

36. The Divine Persons, not the Divine Nature, are the subject of the Internal Divine processions (in the active and in the passive sense).
37. The Second Divine Person proceeds from the First Divine Person by Generation, and therefore is related to Him as Son to a Father.
38. The Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and from the Son as from a Single Principle through a Single Spiration.
39. The Holy Ghost does not proceed through generation but through spiration.
40. The Relations in God are really identical with the Divine Nature.
41. The Three Divine Persons are in One Another.

42. All the ad extra Activities of God are common to all Three Persons.
*Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:

 

[Runningman]

Matt 3:16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:

17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

Father: speaking from heaven
Son: Jesus
Spirit: in the form of a dove

Acts 10 also
Father
Son
Spirit

That isn’t what the verses say. You’re projecting a theology into the scripture. The only who actually did the miracles was God. God used Jesu as a prophet and miracle worker. God also uses other people in the exact same ways. Jesus didn’t raise himself from the dead. There is only one God known as the Father. John 17:3

Acts 2
22Men of Israel, listen to this message: Jesus of Nazareth was a man certified by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs, which God did among you through Him, as you yourselves know. 23He was delivered up by God’s set plan and foreknowledge, and you, by the hands of the lawless, put Him to death by nailing Him to the cross. 24But God raised Him from the dead, releasing Him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for Him to be held in its clutches.

 

[Binyawmene]

1 John 5:20 mentions the Son of God so that would be two people. Son is Jesus and God is Father. That makes sense because in this way Jesus isn't his own Father nor his own God. When it says "He is the true God and eternal life..." it is referring back to the previously mentioned God which would be the Father, of course, because we already knew this from John 17:3. The grammar doesn't force the reader to assign deity to Jesus in this verse, but I know why one may mistakenly do that. Pronouns do not always refer back to the previously mentioned noun, such as is the case in Acts 4:10,11. There is always a context.

I'm aware that Unitarians takes the position for the "Two-Person View" argument: 1). He is the true God in reference to the Father, and 2). eternal life in reference to Jesus Christ, to be based upon eisegesis. The problem with the Two-person view is the fact that Jesus Christ is eternal in that viewpoint. That clearly affirms the Deity of Christ. So, either way, one-person or two-person, there is that annoying phrase Deity of Christ. I can only hope you don't scratch, scribble, and blot-out 1 John 5:20 from your Bible. After all, logically, the "Two-Person View" argument is a Fallacy of Denying a Conjunct, which is the result of eisegesis, for example:

Conjunction Introduction (^I): G, E |- G ^ E

Proposition A. Jesus Christ is God.
Proposition B. Jesus Christ is Eternal.
Proposition C. Therefore, Jesus Christ is both God and Eternal.​

Fallacy of Denying a Conjunct: ~(G ^ E), ~G |- E

Proposition A. It is not the case that Jesus Christ is both God and Eternal.
Proposition B. Jesus Christ is not God.
Proposition C. Therefore, Jesus Christ is Eternal.​

On the grammar level, the closest antecedent for “he” is Jesus Christ. According to the general rule on pronouns is that it modifies and refers to what is nearest or the last subject mentioned which is the immediate antecedent.This strongly favors Jesus Christ, rather than the Father, as the subject, since John style of writing uses this language repeatedly with regard to Christ (John 1:30, 33, 34; 4:29, 42; 6:14, 42, 50, 58; 7:18, 25, 26, 40, 41; 1 John 5:6; of the man born blind, John 9:8, 9, 19, 20; of the disciple, John 21:24; of the anti-Christ, 1 John 2:22; 2 John 1:7), but not once for the Father. Even John has just used this formula for Christ earlier in the same chapter (1 John 5:6). And of course, the “eternal life” is Jesus Christ (who was “with the Father"), an apparent example of a repetition of a theme or idea at the beginning and end of a text (1 John 1:1-3, 5:11-12).

I don't need to address each point of what you said, but you seem to be relying on clues and hints rather than something explicit about Jesus being God.

Runningman, I'm not going to go line by line with you too. That don't mean I'm ignoring, or I've have been debunked. I can give answers. I just don't have the time and patience. What I do address is enough information to demonstrate that "Jesus Christ is God." Just pick out what you feel is relevant to the topic of discussion that, "Is Jesus Christ God?"

That isn't an assumption. The Bible explicitly refers to the Father as God. I am not confused or assuming anything, I assure you. I don't have a horse in the race, so to speak, or gain any thing by pointing out the Father is the only true God. My duty is just to get the truth out there.

Your claim most certainly is an assumption. When a Trinitarian says, "Jesus Christ is not the Father" that is equivalent or tantamount to "Jesus Christ is not God." And it's based on eisegesis.

The assumption claim is, "Jesus Christ is not God." This gives off the illusion that a Trinitarian is 'denying that Jesus Christ is God' in the Unitarianism's worldview. That is what we call a terminology block on the title "God." Define God, right? Here is the thing, this idea is based upon the assumption that "the Father" and "God" are convertible and used interchangeably from these two verses ("One God and Father" Ephesians 4:6, "one God, the Father" 1 Corinthians 8:6). It's the color-coded meaning for God in Unitarianism context. Unfortunately, Unitarians are committing a Circular Reasoning Fallacy because they are convinced of their own assumptions true, and they take them as given must. Sad to say but assumptions is not evidence to a claim. But simply assuming a claim is true does not serve as evidence for that claim. Instead of offering evidence, it simply repeats the conclusion, rendering the argument as logically incoherent.

Circular reasoning fallacy.

A is true "Jesus Christ is not the Father," because B is true "Jesus Christ is not God."
B is true "Jesus Christ is not God" because A is true "Jesus Christ is not the Father."​

Just because we read Paul is mentioning the Father-person as a focus point in his contextual frame of reference doesn't exclude out the Son-person from being that one God too. This is why the whole of Scriptures is important. It's dangerous to restrict and isolate certain verses from the whole of Scriptures. Because we read other verses that mention that Jesus Christ is God. Here is an example of isolating a verse from the whole. The Unitarians are applying eisegesis by "importing" or "drawing in" into the text, for example of their "all-go-to" Scriptures, we read "for us there is but one God, the Father" (1 Corinthians 8:6) as a foundational presupposition for Unitarianism basis, that Father is one God only, and then taking that particular preconceived assumption into "our God and Savior Jesus Christ" (1 Peter 1:1) and arriving with "Two-person View" argument. Which suggest that "God" is the Father and "Savior" is Jesus Christ. That view doesn't logically and Grammarly make sense from the Greek.

 

[Binyawmene]

That isn’t what the verses say. You’re projecting a theology into the scripture.

Ironic. I've pointed out your eisegesis on the first page in post 12. And now you have the audacity to lash-out on other Trinitarians. Why do you think that is?

 

[donadams]

Christ performed the miracles in his own person and not in the name of the Father, or in the name of God!

Father and son have the same nature.

1 Jn 1: 1 1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Jn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

 

[Mr GLee]

You said you deny the trinity

The trinity is divine faith revealed by Christ and taught by the church Matt 28:19

First apostolic Vatican Council! “If anyone says that it is possible that at some time given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the Church which is different from that which the Church has understood and understands: let him be anathema.”[1]

“Fourth Anathema of the Second Ecumenical Council of Nicaea,” which reads: “If anyone rejects any written or unwritten Tradition of the Church, let him be anathema.”

34. In God there are Three Persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. Each of the Three
Persons possesses the one (numerical) Divine Essence.
35. In God there are two Internal Divine Processions.

36. The Divine Persons, not the Divine Nature, are the subject of the Internal Divine processions (in the active and in the passive sense).
37. The Second Divine Person proceeds from the First Divine Person by Generation, and therefore is related to Him as Son to a Father.
38. The Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and from the Son as from a Single Principle through a Single Spiration.
39. The Holy Ghost does not proceed through generation but through spiration.
40. The Relations in God are really identical with the Divine Nature.
41. The Three Divine Persons are in One Another.

42. All the ad extra Activities of God are common to all Three Persons.
*Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our liken

There is no defence against all things writen in the law and prophets , "the sword of the Holy Spirit of Christ", also called "sola scriptura".

You said I do, I say you clearly do despite to the fullness of grace the full price of salvation. Teaching the non-venerable pew warmers that only the queen of heaven received the fullness of grace . The rest of mankind a unknowable remnant of grace and they must continue to suffer and wonder wonder wonder in Limbo with no end to thier faith as the salvation of ones soul.

Vatican Council is a council is of dying mankind .The non venerable pew warmers or show time watchers must put their trust in dying mankind that they call fathers.

Again two kinds of fathers. One that worship a legion of fathers called patron saints as if they were our one Hoy Father not seen and the kind of fathers like Paul who worshiped the God of the fathers .Again not worship the legion as if it made up our one unseen Holy Father

Why not confess that you cannot prove sola scriptura is heresy made to no effect through the oral traditions of dying mankind .What's stopping you from be believing the gospel


Acts 24:13 Neither can they prove the things whereof they now accuse me. But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:

Not so I worship the legion of fathers as if they were a multitude of gods in the likeness of dying mankind

The first commandment is still no gods to include the legion (3500 and rising patron saints) before our one Holy Father

 

[donadams]

Christ performed the miracles in his own person and not in the name of the Father, or in the name of God!

Father and son have the same nature.

1 Jn 1: 1 1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

1 cor 8:4 God the father implies there could be God the something else.

There is only one LORD! Deut 6:4

Jesus is Lord! Jesus is God!

 

[donadams]

Christ performed the miracles in his own person and not in the name of the Father, or in the name of God!

Father and son have the same nature.

1 Jn 1: 1 1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

 

[donadams]

No one (humans) knows the son but the father
No one (humans) knows the father but the son

 

[Runningman]

Ironic. I've pointed out your eisegesis on the first page in post 12. And now you have the audacity to lash-out on other Trinitarians. Why do you think that is?

You've done no such thing. Everything I've seen you write is Trinitarian propaganda. It's all nonsense.

 

[Runningman]

I'm aware that Unitarians takes the position for the "Two-Person View" argument: 1). He is the true God in reference to the Father, and 2). eternal life in reference to Jesus Christ, to be based upon eisegesis. The problem with the Two-person view is the fact that Jesus Christ is eternal in that viewpoint. That clearly affirms the Deity of Christ. So, either way, one-person or two-person, there is that annoying phrase Deity of Christ. I can only hope you don't scratch, scribble, and blot-out 1 John 5:20 from your Bible. After all, logically, the "Two-Person View" argument is a Fallacy of Denying a Conjunct, which is the result of eisegesis, for example:

1 John 5:20 debunks the deity of Jesus. It mentions God the Father in this verse and then when it says "He is the true God" it's just a reference back to the last God mentioned. Jesus being God Himself isn't a Biblical doctrine. The Father is called the only God with frequency therefore it follows normal logic and basic reasoning that only one God would be the Father. If Jesus is God, too, it introduces too many lies and contradictions into the Bible. As far as I am concerned, the Trinity has already been debunked, but I will talk to you about it with you.

Conjunction Introduction (^I): G, E |- G ^ E

Proposition A. Jesus Christ is God.​

Proposition B. Jesus Christ is Eternal.​

Proposition C. Therefore, Jesus Christ is both God and Eternal.​

Fallacy of Denying a Conjunct: ~(G ^ E), ~G |- E

Proposition A. It is not the case that Jesus Christ is both God and Eternal.​

Proposition B. Jesus Christ is not God.​

Proposition C. Therefore, Jesus Christ is Eternal.​

On the grammar level, the closest antecedent for “he” is Jesus Christ. According to the general rule on pronouns is that it modifies and refers to what is nearest or the last subject mentioned which is the immediate antecedent.This strongly favors Jesus Christ, rather than the Father, as the subject, since John style of writing uses this language repeatedly with regard to Christ (John 1:30, 33, 34; 4:29, 42; 6:14, 42, 50, 58; 7:18, 25, 26, 40, 41; 1 John 5:6; of the man born blind, John 9:8, 9, 19, 20; of the disciple, John 21:24; of the anti-Christ, 1 John 2:22; 2 John 1:7), but not once for the Father. Even John has just used this formula for Christ earlier in the same chapter (1 John 5:6). And of course, the “eternal life” is Jesus Christ (who was “with the Father"), an apparent example of a repetition of a theme or idea at the beginning and end of a text (1 John 1:1-3, 5:11-12).

I think you are just confusing yourself into believing something the Bible doesn't say. You're seeing what you want to see and disregarding the truth.

This is how 1 John 5:20 refers to the Father because that's the only God mentioned:

1. Definite Article ("the"): The use of the definite article "the" before "true God" is significant. In English grammar, the definite article is used to specify a particular item and to indicate singularity. In this case, it reinforces the exclusivity of the Father as the only true God.
2. Predicate Nominative: The clause "He is the true God and eternal life" contains a predicate nominative. In English grammar, a predicate nominative follows a linking verb (in this case, "is") and renames the subject. Here, "the true God and eternal life" functions as a predicate nominative, identifying the Father with the attributes of the true God and eternal life.
3. Coordination and Subordination: The structure of the sentence involves coordination (joining similar elements with coordinating conjunctions like "and") and subordination (using subordinate conjunctions like "so that"). This grammatical structure helps convey a complex theological idea by connecting related concepts and indicating their logical relationships.

Runningman, I'm not going to go line by line with you too. That don't mean I'm ignoring, or I've have been debunked. I can give answers. I just don't have the time and patience. What I do address is enough information to demonstrate that "Jesus Christ is God." Just pick out what you feel is relevant to the topic of discussion that, "Is Jesus Christ God?"

Why do you argue in favor of the untenable and indefensible position of the Trinity? I think that if you actually had the Trinity described or stated in the Bible or something really straightforward about Jesus being God that couldn't be misunderstood or interpreted a different way then you would be fine. Personally, I would require an explicit declaration by Jesus that he is God. Since he didn't do that I will not assume a human being is God. Too many reasons why a human being as God is idolatry to even flirt with the idea.

Your claim most certainly is an assumption. When a Trinitarian says, "Jesus Christ is not the Father" that is equivalent or tantamount to "Jesus Christ is not God." And it's based on eisegesis.

It is not an assumption. In John 17:3, Jesus explicitly declares the Father is the ONLY true God. That word "only" there means there are no other Gods. Was Jesus assuming too?

3Now this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom You have sent.

The assumption claim is, "Jesus Christ is not God." This gives off the illusion that a Trinitarian is 'denying that Jesus Christ is God' in the Unitarianism's worldview. That is what we call a terminology block on the title "God." Define God, right? Here is the thing, this idea is based upon the assumption that "the Father" and "God" are convertible and used interchangeably from these two verses ("One God and Father" Ephesians 4:6, "one God, the Father" 1 Corinthians 8:6). It's the color-coded meaning for God in Unitarianism context. Unfortunately, Unitarians are committing a Circular Reasoning Fallacy because they are convinced of their own assumptions true, and they take them as given must. Sad to say but assumptions is not evidence to a claim. But simply assuming a claim is true does not serve as evidence for that claim. Instead of offering evidence, it simply repeats the conclusion, rendering the argument as logically incoherent.

Circular reasoning fallacy.

A is true "Jesus Christ is not the Father," because B is true "Jesus Christ is not God."​

B is true "Jesus Christ is not God" because A is true "Jesus Christ is not the Father."​

The Bible is circular because it's self-references itself to assert it's own truth without third-party verification. It would seem that Trinitarians enjoy the "argument from ignorance" fallacy. Nearly everything you believe is not really clearly stated in the Bible, therefore it's assumed that based on heavy eisegesis that God is a Trinity. Unitarians on the other hand enjoy explicit declarations about who God is. It's also extremely easy for Unitariains to proselytize non-believers because it's very logical and easy for the common person to understand that if the Son of God is Jesus then God is his Father. Trinitarians have to constantly fend off true accusations of polytheism and someone convince the most gullible that a human being is God. I couldn't do that. Trinitarianism is a stumbling block.

Just because we read Paul is mentioning the Father-person as a focus point in his contextual frame of reference doesn't exclude out the Son-person from being that one God too. This is why the whole of Scriptures is important. It's dangerous to restrict and isolate certain verses from the whole of Scriptures. Because we read other verses that mention that Jesus Christ is God. Here is an example of isolating a verse from the whole. The Unitarians are applying eisegesis by "importing" or "drawing in" into the text, for example of their "all-go-to" Scriptures, we read "for us there is but one God, the Father" (1 Corinthians 8:6) as a foundational presupposition for Unitarianism basis, that Father is one God only, and then taking that particular preconceived assumption into "our God and Savior Jesus Christ" (1 Peter 1:1) and arriving with "Two-person View" argument. Which suggest that "God" is the Father and "Savior" is Jesus Christ. That view doesn't logically and Grammarly make sense from the Greek.

Fine, then where is Jesus explicitly referred to as God? Did he ever admit it? Did anyone call him that for sure?

 

[Mr GLee]

Christ performed the miracles in his own person and not in the name of the Father, or in the name of God!

Father and son have the same nature.

1 Jn 1: 1 1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Jn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

Anointer , Christ ,. Teacher comforter guide and him who brings to our new born again memory the previous things he has taught each and every born again child of God .

John14:25-26 These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you. But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach (anoint. Christ the Hebrew for anoint) you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

What God as our Father does teach (anoint) through his teaching alone we come to the Son of man Jesus the creation.the testinmony the father spoke and moved his son to the good pleasure of the father

John6:45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

You simply show you have no idea what it is as a teaching attribute as to who the Christ our teaching master is ? He is not dying flesh and blood Peter ..

He is not dying mankind. the Son of man, Jesus

Those that followed a law of venerable fathers dying mankind they had no faith that could please God as it is writen (sola scriptura)

They denied Christ the anointing Holy Spirit of God . They insisted in looking to the temporal dying things seen (Popes) Rather than the faith the power of God's love of Christ the teaching authority as it is writen.

No Holy Father .no power of faith. Know the faith or power of Fathers labor of love. . know the understanding of God not seen.

Not like those who made Jesus into a circus seal. Work some magic,do a trick. . perform a miracle. . then when we see with the lust of the eyes then we will believe.. . . .not one microsecond before . Seeing is believing The cry of the athset fool .No God in thier thinking .

They thought it was silly for mankind to believe in a Holy Father not seen . .when they have a legion of dying fathers on earth right before their eyes that they must call patron saints. Patron saints not a doctrine of God. but is a doctrine of dying mankind. I heard it through the fathers grape vine

John 4:48 Then said Jesus unto him, Except ye see signs and wonders, ye will not believe

John 6:30 They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work?

I would think a person would first read the spirit of prophecy (sola scriptura) before they try and understand what God says to the churches denominations.

Define the word "Christ" and show the usage ?

 

[Binyawmene]

You've done no such thing. Everything I've seen you write is Trinitarian propaganda. It's all nonsense.

I am a Trinitarian and a Hypostatic Unionist. And when you are witnessing to Unitarians, then the discussions are always about the Deity of Christ. Example of their denial, if a Unitarian says, "Jesus Christ is not God," then that is equivalent or tantamount to "denying the Father and the Son" (1 John 2:22, 1 John 5:20). Because they are in denial of Jesus who is the Christ is God. Here are three examples of the Deity of Christ.

Jesus Christ is Omniscient
Jesus Christ knows all things (1 John 3:20 i.e. John 16:30, John 21:17).
Jesus Christ knows the Father (Matthew 11:27, John 7:29, 8:55, 10:15, 17:25).
Jesus Christ knows all people (Psalm 139:1-4 i.e. John 2:24-25, Matthew 9:4, Mark 2:8, Luke 5:22, John 6:64).
Jesus Christ knows where to catch fish, even a coin (Luke 5:4-6, Matthew 17:27).

Jesus Christ is Omnipresent
Jesus Christ fills the whole universe (Jeremiah 23:23-24, Psalms 139:7-10 i.e. Ephesians 4:10, 1:22-23, Colossians 3:11, Acts 17:27).
Jesus Christ is with and in all the regenerated (John 14:23 i.e. Matthew 18:20, 28:20, 2 Corinthians 13:5, Colossians 1:27, 1 John 3:24).

Jesus Christ is Omnipotent
Jesus Christ created all things (Jeremiah 32:17, Psalms 102:25 i.e. Hebrews 1:2-3, 10, 2:10, Colossians 1:16-17, John 1:1-3, 1 Corinthians 8:6, Romans 11:36, 1:20).
Jesus Christ declares all things are possible and able (Job 42:1-2, Jeremiah 32:27 i.e. Luke 18:26-27, Matthew 9:28, Philippians 3:20–21).
Jesus Christ performs miracles (John 2:11, Matthew 9:28, Luke 6:19, 8:46) and Divine titles (1 Corinthians 1:24, 2 Corinthians 12:9).

 

[Binyawmene]

1 John 5:20 debunks the deity of Jesus. It mentions God the Father in this verse and then when it says "He is the true God" it's just a reference back to the last God mentioned. Jesus being God Himself isn't a Biblical doctrine. The Father is called the only God with frequency therefore it follows normal logic and basic reasoning
that only one God would be the Father. If Jesus is God, too, it introduces too many lies and contradictions into the Bible. As far as I am concerned, the Trinity has already been debunked, but I will talk to you about it with you.

This is how 1 John 5:20 refers to the Father because that's the only God mentioned:

1. Definite Article ("the"): The use of the definite article "the" before "true God" is significant. In English grammar, the definite article is used to specify a particular item and to indicate singularity. In this case, it reinforces the exclusivity of the Father as the only true God.
2. Predicate Nominative: The clause "He is the true God and eternal life" contains a predicate nominative. In English grammar, a predicate nominative follows a linking verb (in this case, "is") and renames the subject. Here, "the true God and eternal life" functions as a predicate nominative, identifying the Father with the attributes of the true God and eternal life.
3. Coordination and Subordination: The structure of the sentence involves coordination (joining similar elements with coordinating conjunctions like "and") and subordination (using subordinate conjunctions like "so that"). This grammatical structure helps convey a complex theological idea by connecting related concepts and indicating their logical relationships.

Skipping pass your verbiage rhetoric soapbox rantings. It's nice that you want to use English grammar. But you forgot to add the English pronouns and their functions. In 1 John 5:20 is understood as referring to Jesus, it forms an inclusion with the prologue, which introduced the reader to “the eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested to us.” The pronoun "he" in 1 John 5:20 is a reference to Jesus Christ. The pronoun is so clear, in grammatical and exegetical point of view, that no sophistry or special pleading can evade or explain away.

Here is the Greek analysis: Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἀληθινὸς Θεὸς καὶ ζωὴ αἰώνιος (1 John 5:20). According to the general rule on pronouns is that it modifies and refers to what is nearest or the last subject mentioned which is the immediate antecedent.

1 John 5:20 We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true. And we are in him who is true by being in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life. (NIV).

a). The subject Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ (Jesus Christ)​

b). The pronoun οὗτός (He)​

c). The first conjunct ἀληθινὸς Θεὸς (true God)​

d). The conjunction καὶ (and)​

e). The second conjunct ζωὴ αἰώνιος (life eternal)​

f). That means "the last subject mentioned which is the immediate antecedent" Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ (Jesus Christ)​

g). Conclusion, "Jesus Christ is both God and Eternal."​

Binyawmene: Just because we read Paul is mentioning the Father-person as a focus point in his contextual frame of reference doesn't exclude out the Son-person from being that one God too. This is why the whole of Scriptures is important. It's dangerous to restrict and isolate certain verses from the whole of Scriptures. Because we read other verses that mention that Jesus Christ is God. Here is an example of isolating a verse from the whole. The Unitarians are applying eisegesis by "importing" or "drawing in" into the text, for example of their "all-go-to" Scriptures, we read "for us there is but one God, the Father" (1 Corinthians 8:6) as a foundational presupposition for Unitarianism basis, that Father is one God only, and then taking that particular preconceived assumption into "our God and Savior Jesus Christ" (1 Peter 1:1) and arriving with "Two-person View" argument. Which suggest that "God" is the Father and "Savior" is Jesus Christ. That view doesn't logically and Grammarly make sense from the Greek.

Runningman: Fine, then where is Jesus explicitly referred to as God? Did he ever admit it? Did anyone call him that for sure?

My Answer: You missed the point entirely. Why are you superimposing into Scriptures and resulting to a "Two-Person View" argument?

Here is the Greek analysis: τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (2 Peter 1:1), and also, τοῦ μεγάλου Θεοῦ καὶ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ (Titus 2:13). According to the Granville Sharp’s rule, "When you have two nouns that are not proper names, which the two nouns are describing a subject, while the nouns is connected by the conjunction "and," so the first noun has the article "the" and the second noun does not, both nouns are referring to the same subject."

1 Peter 1:1 Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours: (NIV).

a). The two nouns θεοῦ (God) σωτῆρος (Savior)​

b). The subject Ἰησοῦ (Jesus) Χριστοῦ (Christ)​

c). The conjunction καὶ (and)​

d). The first noun has a article τοῦ (the) θεοῦ (God)​

e). The second noun has no article σωτῆρος (Savior)​

f). That means "both nouns are referring to the same subject" Ἰησοῦ (Jesus) Χριστοῦ (Christ)​

g). Conclusion, "Jesus Christ is both God and Savior."​

Its straightforward that Jesus Christ is both "God and Savior". The verse is not dividing "God and Savior" into two different subject-persons. The same sentence structure occurs again in the same letter:

2 Peter 1:11 and you will receive a rich welcome into the eternal kingdom of our LORD and Savior Jesus Christ.​

​

2 Peter 2:20 If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our LORD and Savior Jesus Chris and are again entangled in it and are overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning.​

​

2 Peter 3:18 But grow in the grace and knowledge of our LORD and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and forever! Amen.[/indent[​

​

In each verse above has the phrase "LORD and Savior," which is not two subject-persons. The grammar sentence structure "LORD and Savior" is exactly the same as "God and Savior". Jesus Christ is identified as both God and Savior, and also, both Lord and Savior. What verse you use to superimpose into 2 Peter 1:11, 2 Peter 2:20, 2 Peter 3:18?​

 

[Runningman]

Skipping pass your verbiage rhetoric soapbox rantings. It's nice that you want to use English grammar. But you forgot to add the English pronouns and their functions. In 1 John 5:20 is understood as referring to Jesus, it forms an inclusion with the prologue, which introduced the reader to “the eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested to us.” The pronoun "he" in 1 John 5:20 is a reference to Jesus Christ. The pronoun is so clear, in grammatical and exegetical point of view, that no sophistry or special pleading can evade or explain away.

Here is the Greek analysis: Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἀληθινὸς Θεὸς καὶ ζωὴ αἰώνιος (1 John 5:20). According to the general rule on pronouns is that it modifies and refers to what is nearest or the last subject mentioned which is the immediate antecedent.

1 John 5:20 We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true. And we are in him who is true by being in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life. (NIV).

a). The subject Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ (Jesus Christ)​

b). The pronoun οὗτός (He)​

c). The first conjunct ἀληθινὸς Θεὸς (true God)​

d). The conjunction καὶ (and)​

e). The second conjunct ζωὴ αἰώνιος (life eternal)​

f). That means "the last subject mentioned which is the immediate antecedent" Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ (Jesus Christ)​

g). Conclusion, "Jesus Christ is both God and Eternal."​

Binyawmene: Just because we read Paul is mentioning the Father-person as a focus point in his contextual frame of reference doesn't exclude out the Son-person from being that one God too. This is why the whole of Scriptures is important. It's dangerous to restrict and isolate certain verses from the whole of Scriptures. Because we read other verses that mention that Jesus Christ is God. Here is an example of isolating a verse from the whole. The Unitarians are applying eisegesis by "importing" or "drawing in" into the text, for example of their "all-go-to" Scriptures, we read "for us there is but one God, the Father" (1 Corinthians 8:6) as a foundational presupposition for Unitarianism basis, that Father is one God only, and then taking that particular preconceived assumption into "our God and Savior Jesus Christ" (1 Peter 1:1) and arriving with "Two-person View" argument. Which suggest that "God" is the Father and "Savior" is Jesus Christ. That view doesn't logically and Grammarly make sense from the Greek.

Runningman: Fine, then where is Jesus explicitly referred to as God? Did he ever admit it? Did anyone call him that for sure?

My Answer: You missed the point entirely. Why are you superimposing into Scriptures and resulting to a "Two-Person View" argument?

Here is the Greek analysis: τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (2 Peter 1:1), and also, τοῦ μεγάλου Θεοῦ καὶ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ (Titus 2:13). According to the Granville Sharp’s rule, "When you have two nouns that are not proper names, which the two nouns are describing a subject, while the nouns is connected by the conjunction "and," so the first noun has the article "the" and the second noun does not, both nouns are referring to the same subject."

1 Peter 1:1 Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours: (NIV).

a). The two nouns θεοῦ (God) σωτῆρος (Savior)​

b). The subject Ἰησοῦ (Jesus) Χριστοῦ (Christ)​

c). The conjunction καὶ (and)​

d). The first noun has a article τοῦ (the) θεοῦ (God)​

e). The second noun has no article σωτῆρος (Savior)​

f). That means "both nouns are referring to the same subject" Ἰησοῦ (Jesus) Χριστοῦ (Christ)​

g). Conclusion, "Jesus Christ is both God and Savior."​

Its straightforward that Jesus Christ is both "God and Savior". The verse is not dividing "God and Savior" into two different subject-persons. The same sentence structure occurs again in the same letter:

2 Peter 1:11 and you will receive a rich welcome into the eternal kingdom of our LORD and Savior Jesus Christ.​

​

2 Peter 2:20 If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our LORD and Savior Jesus Chris and are again entangled in it and are overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning.​

​

2 Peter 3:18 But grow in the grace and knowledge of our LORD and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and forever! Amen.[/indent[​

​

In each verse above has the phrase "LORD and Savior," which is not two subject-persons. The grammar sentence structure "LORD and Savior" is exactly the same as "God and Savior". Jesus Christ is identified as both God and Savior, and also, both Lord and Savior. What verse you use to superimpose into 2 Peter 1:11, 2 Peter 2:20, 2 Peter 3:18?​

I won’t let you just dig your heels in and keep making up all sorts of nonsense just so you can shoehorn Jesus into the Bible as your god. The grammar of 1 John 5:20 does not force the deity of Jesus into the reading because two persons are mentioned in this verse.

There is already precedent for the Father being the only God. It’s mentioned too many times to count in the Old Testament at least 4 times plainly and clearly in the New Testament: John 17:3, 1 Cor. 8:6, Eph. 4:6, and 1 John 5:20.

What exegesis is is using Biblical precedent to inform the reader how to interpret the Bible. Since you don’t even have a single precedent for Jesus being the true God, then it doesn’t follow 1 John 5:20 is about Jesus being the true God. You’re employing eisegesis and I’ll prove it soon.

To drive this point home a bit more, the author himself didn’t believe Jesus is God. Apostle John prayed in acts Acts 4:23-31 to the sovereign Lord and God, referring to Jesus as His servant. That means John doesn’t believe Jesus is God. He’s a Unitarian like all other Jews are who believed in Messiah.

Your eisegesis is fundamental. In 1 John 5:20, the term "this," starting the final sentence, is "houtos." Examining it reveals that the context, rather than the nearest noun or pronoun, should establish the reference for "this."

Here’s an example from Acts 7. The king, not Joseph is the one verse 18 talks about, proving that the pronoun doesn’t always refer to the closest noun.

Acts 7​

18Till another king arose, which knew not Joseph. 19The same dealt subtilly with our kindred, and evil entreated our fathers, so that they cast out their young children, to the end they might not live​

The same thing happens in Acts 4:10,11. The man who was healed isn’t the cornerstone.

Acts 4​

10Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole. 11This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.​

​

Furthermore, if we follow your fail-logic and methodology for interpreting the Bible, then in 2 John 1:7 Jesus Christ himself would be a deceiver and antichrist.

2 John 1​

7For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist​

Now your misunderstanding has been dealt with. This is why you have came to the false conclusion that Jesus is God. I recommend you actually study up on these things. Your poor trinitarian theology just creates serious, and sometimes troublesome, theological problems. Therefore, in 1 John 5:20 the true God is the Father, not Jesus.