Argument against the Doctrine of the Trinity. (And keep it clean, please.)

[Josheb]

I'm answering questions..........

pfffffft!

 

[Josheb]

his Jesus though is same one of the JW

For the sake of my observation that is irrelevant. The problem that exists anytime Jesus' ontology is discussed is the problem of ambiguity. Non-Trins and Trins do not assign identical meaning s to words. The word "Jesus" or "Christ" has an entirely different meaning to the Jew than it does to the LDS and neither use the words the same way a modalist or a classic Trinitarian use the words. The result is two (or more) participants speaking past one another, wrongly imagining something of substance has been communicated to the other person when that is not the case.

@Paul claims he is not a JW, so he should not be treated as such (although if it quacks like a duck..... ). Might help if someone asked, and he provided a statement regarding who and what he believes Jesus is (in addition to merely saying he is the Son of God).

 

[makesends]

If you seen the Son you have seen the Father because the Father is living in Him doing His work. They are one.

A being with no beginning cannot be from another as a Son nor would such a being have a God. As is the Father alone the only true God

Only Jesus' physical body had a beginning. The Son of God did not. You are looking at it backwards.

 

[makesends]

I'm answering questions but it's getting to a point where I'm going to stop as I have better things to do.

Gotta have the last word, then?

 

[John Bauer]

So which heresy are you part of then? seems like Arianism or the JW.

A brief note on Eusebian subordinationism​

I don’t know if this is what @Paul is affirming but this ancient view is what I’m hearing in his posts.

After Origen but before and around Nicaea (early 300s CE), many eastern bishops held what historians call subordinationist Christology. Eusebian subordinationism is the theological position, associated primarily with Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 260–339 CE)—influenced by Origen and Arius—that within the Godhead the Son (Jesus Christ) is subordinate to the Father in his being, rank, and authority. The Son is divine, but his divinity is derived, conferred, or delegated from the Father who is autotheos (“God of himself”).

Key Characteristics:​

• The Father alone is unbegotten and supreme: The Father is the ultimate, unoriginated source of all things—the “Monad.” He is truly God in the highest sense.
  
  ​
• The Son is generated by the Father: The Son is not co-eternal with the Father. There was a time (at least logically) before the Son was begotten or generated by the Father’s will. This makes the Son a creature, albeit the first and highest creation.
  
  ​
• A derived divinity: Because the Son derives his being from the Father, his divinity is delegated or derivative. He is God in a secondary sense—a “second God” (deuteros theos)—who acts as the Father’s agent in creating and governing the universe. Eusebius used metaphors like a “ray” from the “sun” or a “stream” from a “fountain” to describe this relationship.
  
  ​
• The Son is the image and will of the Father: The Son is the perfect image and likeness of the Father and the executor of the Father’s will. He is the means through which the transcendent, unknowable Father interacts with creation.

Historical Context:​

Eusebius was a central figure in the Arian controversy. While he was a sophisticated theologian in his own right and not a mere follower of Arius, his views did align closely with the subordinationist core of Arianism. He opposed the teaching of Alexander (of Alexandria) and his deacon Athanasius, who argued for the Son’s co-equality and co-eternity with the Father (homoousios, “of the same substance”). At the Council of Nicaea, Eusebius initially found the term homoousios problematic because it sounded Sabellian or Modalist to him (erasing the distinction between Father and Son) and contradicted his subordinationist view.

He ultimately signed the Nicene Creed—likely for political and ecclesiastical peace—but his subsequent writings show he continued to interpret it in a subordinationist way.

Why It Matters:​

Eusebian subordinationism is crucial for understanding:

• The pre-Nicene landscape: It represented a powerful and sophisticated theological position that existed before the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity was formally and fully defined.
  
  ​
• The motivation for Nicaea: The teachings of Arius and Eusebius were the direct catalyst for the Council of Nicaea. The Nicene Creed, with its “true God from true God, begotten not made, consubstantial (homoousios) with the Father,” was formulated explicitly to reject subordinationism of this kind.
  
  ​
• The doctrine of the Trinity: The eventual orthodox formulation—one God in three co-equal, co-eternal persons—was developed in opposition to subordinationist ideas like those of Eusebius.

In short, Eusebian subordinationism is the “defeated alternative” to the classic doctrine of the Trinity. It insisted on the distinct personhood of the Father and Son but at the cost of making the Son a lesser deity, a position ultimately condemned as heretical by the whole church from Nicaea onward.

 

[Eleanor]

Is from the doctrine of the trinity

And you still have not addressed the following Biblical teaching:
(your failure to do so speaks so loudly, I can't hear what you say)

One God. . .in three distinct persons:
the Son being subject to the Father, for the Son is sent by the Father (Jn 5:23, 36, 43),
the Spirit being subject to the Father, for the Spirit is sent by the Father in the Son's name (Jn 14:26), and
the Spirit being subject to the Son as well as the Father, for the Spirit is sent by the Son as well as the Father (Jn 15:26, 16:7, 14:26, Ac 2:33).

One doesn't send oneself, one sends another person.

It is Jesus in the above who shows three distinct persons in disclosing the mystery of the Trininty, which mystery is the heart of Christian faith in God.
And that mystery is three distinct persons in one God--the Son doing the will of the Father, and the Spirit doing the will of the Father and the Son.

 

[Josheb]

A brief note on Eusebian subordinationism​

I don’t know if this is what @Paul is affirming but this ancient view is what I’m hearing in his posts.

After Origen but before and around Nicaea (early 300s CE), many eastern bishops held what historians call subordinationist Christology. Eusebian subordinationism is the theological position, associated primarily with Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 260–339 CE)—influenced by Origen and Arius—that within the Godhead the Son (Jesus Christ) is subordinate to the Father in his being, rank, and authority. The Son is divine, but his divinity is derived, conferred, or delegated from the Father who is autotheos (“God of himself”)...................................

​

Well done.

The problem can be summarized fairly succinctly. Simply put, if the progeny of a God is another God then an instant contradiction is created because neither God can be almighty (one is not mighty over the other). It instantly negates the premise of divinity as asserted in the Bible.* Two big-G Gods is an oxymoron. They attempt to say one is a Father and the other is a Son to create a subordinate relationship when scripture expressly states Jesus is Creator, sovereign, and almighty does not solve the inherent contradiction.

However, @Paul hasn't been clear. He stands on Jesus being the firstborn of creation. That implies Jesus is created. Paul was unable to address the question of how anything could be born before creation and born as the first part of creation; how something, someone, anything, anyone could be at the beginning of creation and also the beginning of creation. Then there's the matter of Jesus being made (firstborn) before either angels or humans were made. He is not angel, and he is not human. He must be something else; a third type of creature (or non-creature) that is not elsewhere accounted for, elaborated upon in scripture, or detailed (which would be odd considering he is what scripture is all about). As far as @Paul's contribution to the thread goes, the truth of Jesus being "firstborn" was taken out of context. The term is primarily soteriological. Relevant to creation, Jesus is firstborn. Relevant to eternity, Jesus is without origin. His is the firstborn, which scripture describes as the one who receives a double portion of the inheritance, which includes the position of head representation of the family. Being firstborn is also couched in the "tithe," or the first fruits that are gathered at the beginning of a harvest, a gathering that is entirely given to God in devotion, having been gathered from among both the crop planted and the weeds in which the crop grows. Jesus is all of that, but also more, and the attempts to get at the more proved fruitless.​

* Polytheism cannot be supported by whole scripture.
.