Jesus was never prayed to once in the Bible

[Arial]

If you're saying Jesus emptied himself of "being God" then that means the hypostatic union is false and Jesus isn't God. One can't have their cake and eat it too, here.

Philippians 2
7but emptied Himself,
taking the form of a servant,
being made in human likeness.

He didn't empty Himself from being God! That too would be an impossibility.

What does Philippians 2 say that you quoted? "Taking of the form of a servant----being made in human likeness."

So don't ignore what was said to you and deflect onto something else. What was said was that a human/creature cannot make themselves. Only God who is eternal and self existent can do that. So if Jesus was made in human likeness ("being made in human likeness") then He was something before He was made that, and if He made Himself, He would have to be eternal and self existent---God iow.

He "emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant." If He took the form of a servant in human likeness, then He was something else before He did that, and that would be spirit, as God is spirit. He did not empty Himself of being God, He did not display all the attributes of God all the time, such as the omni's, though he could have. But He did not, but rather came as a man and a servant and as such, and for the purpose of being a sinless offering, did and said only what was told Him by the Spirit. In part, He did this so that He would not be glorified by men while He accomplished His mission.

The hypostatic union remains intact.

 

[Runningman]

??? I said nothing about eisegesis and I know what it is. It is all you ever do. Do you know what exegesis is and how to do it?

I gave no circumstantial evidence so what are you referring to?

I am telling you what eisegesis is and the logical fallacies you're employing to come to false conclusions about what the Bible says.

Those passages do say that and I agree 100%. So what is your point?

In those passages it mean Jesus isn't God. Let's break this down.

Person 1 = the Father
Person 2 = the Son

The only true God is the Father. Therefore Jesus isn't God. I am not sure where your disconnect is. You seem to agree, but I am not sure why you actually disagree. Do you believe the only true God is the Father? Is God a title that applies to more than one person? Do you consider yourself a polytheist or do you believe you're a monotheist?

The One who dies to pay for the sins of people for all eternity, must be eternal Himself. Therein is logic. And the one who dies to pay for the sins of a people for all eternity, must also be of the same kind as those He substitutes for. Again, therein is logic. Your problem is that you have no clue what Jesus actually did (accomplished) on the cross, beyond His having died. You have Him being created, a creature, who God created to vent His wrath on. Which of course, in no way resembles what God reveals about Himself or the Son.

God made Jesus both the Lord of the church and the Christ. That means God sanctified him and anointed him as the messiah in order to make atonement for the sins of people. It was necessary for Jesus to not only not be a sinner, but to be, symbolically a sacrificial lamb who was an acceptable sacrifice.

Applying sin to God is unacceptable doctrine for a number of serious reasons. When Jesus is a man who sin was applied to there is no problem. If you insist Jesus is God then you must admit that God became sin and died and therefore there was no God to resurrect Him and, in effect, you are still in your sins.

2 Corinthians 5
21God made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God.

You have abandoned logic and decides to go literal and eathly in the places where it is spiritual things that are being shown and spoken.

You believe in an "incomprehensible mystery" that isn't even explained, described, or explicitly stated in the Bible and you have the audacity to tell me I am the one who has abandoned logic. Brilliant.

(And surely you know what Jesus says about a person only being able to understand spiritual things if they have been reborn of the Spirit and have the Spirit indwelling them.) And yet you will not go to what is explicitly stated when it is inconvenient. You do not gouge out your eyes, or cut off your arms when you sin.

I understand spiritual things. Glory to God.

The Trinity is a mystery. That does not mean it is not real, when evidence within the Bible makes it mandatory.

I am not going to use a mystery than I cannot understand and then immediately turn and try to explain the Bible. You have no business representing the Bible if your foundation is nothing more than a mystery that you cannot even clearly explain.

The mystery is no different in type than is eternity and God's self existence are to the human finite mind. It is so completely other than anything within our finiteness that we have no way of describing it in any way other than the ways it is shown, but not in how it truly is. I doubt you even understood what I said.

Jesus said he revealed God and that his disciples had both seen him and know Him. You're saying God is a mystery than our finite human minds cannot undertand. Sorry, I am going with what Jesus says.

 

[Arial]

Funny you ask me about if I read the Bible when I may ask you the very same thing. Did you read Hosea 11-12? They say that God isn't a man and that the one who Jacob wrestled is an angel. You think Jacob could stand a chance in a wrestling match with God and/or an angel?


Hosea 11
9I will not execute the full fury of My anger;
I will not turn back to destroy Ephraim.
For I am God and not man—
the Holy One among you—
and I will not come in wrath.

God isn't a man and I never said He was, but why don't you put that statement into its context of the whole chapter. Do you just google a search for a scripture you can use as a contradiction to those I quote? That is called proof texting and it proves nothing. It also does not mean you read the Bible.

In giving those scriptures of Jacob wrestling with God (and they do say it was God He wrestled with) I even told you it was a theophany, and gave you the definition of theophany. That does not mean He did not appear as a man. He even ate, as men do, but God does not. And you missed my point----(and the point of Jacob wrestling with God and why it led to Jacob's name being changed to Israel). My point was that nothing is impossible with God. He can appear as a man for His purposes. He can appear as a burning bush. He can bring a man walking out of a tomb swaddled in grave clothes after four days dead and decomposing, on command. He can part the sea and leave dry ground where it was, He can make the sun stand still, cause a virgin to conceive, create everything out of nothing. And you are going to sit there and tell Him He cannot be triune, and he cannot come as a man, with the nature of a man, and also the nature of God!! And your reason is, "It doesn't make sense."

 

[CrowCross]

The above is false.


The Jews said he was claiming to be God. You, a trinitarian, are saying he is claiming to be God. The Jews wanted to kill him. You have way more in common than Jesus' murderers than I do. I would have been defending him just like I do doing here.

And you being of the spirit of anti-christ would have killed Jesus. In fact you still continue to try and kill the true Jesus.

 

[Arial]

I am telling you what eisegesis is and the logical fallacies you're employing to come to false conclusions about what the Bible says.

List the logical fallacies I have made. From now on, every time I make one, point it out and tell me what type of logical fallacy it is. You have pointed out none so far even though you claim that is what I am employing. Borrowing words from people who know what they are talking about and what they are doing, does not support your position anymore than straw man fallacies, false dichotomies, red herrings etc., used as support for your premises do. But thanks for the compliment of imitating my words.

In those passages it mean Jesus isn't God. Let's break this down.

Person 1 = the Father
Person 2 = the Son

The only true God is the Father. Therefore Jesus isn't God. I am not sure where your disconnect is. You seem to agree, but I am not sure why you actually disagree.

There is no disconnect. That is the straw man you use. And I do not believe that you don't know why I disagree. If that is true you are the first Unitarian I have encountered that didn't know. Trinitarians believe that God in His being is triune, therefore one God who is triune. God is a triune being.

Do you believe the only true God is the Father? Is God a title that applies to more than one person? Do you consider yourself a polytheist or do you believe you're a monotheist?

1. I believe there is one true God--Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Three distinct "persons" in one God.
2.God is a title that belongs to God, just as all His other titles that are also applied to Christ, belong only to God. And lets not forget, that before Unitarian go to grammar and translations to deny it, Thomas explicitly called Jesus God.
3.I don't just believe that I am a monotheist, I am one.

God made Jesus both the Lord of the church and the Christ. That means God sanctified him and anointed him as the messiah in order to make atonement for the sins of people. It was necessary for Jesus to not only not be a sinner, but to be, symbolically a sacrificial lamb who was an acceptable sacrifice.

Do you think Lord of the church and Christ are two separate things? Jesus was not symbolically anything. Being referenced as the sacrificial lamb identifies Him as what was shadowed in the lamb being killed and its blood marking the door post of the Israelites to spare their life prior to the exodus, out of slavery in Egypt. That was a symbol. Jesus' death and the shedding of His blood is not. He is the One who died for the forgiveness of sins that His people would be brought out of their bondage/slavery to sin, there sins forgiven, and brought into His kingdom.

However, Jesus did much on the cross and in His death, than simply make a way for this deliverance, and simply by the act of dying and rising again to life. Something was actually taking place. He was paying a ransom to God to free the prisoners. And He was taking upon Himself the just penalty of their sins, satisfying the penalty of sin, that God remains just in forgiving. His justice uncompromised. He died the death of the believer in their place. In all this, because He was Himself without sin, but had the sins of His people imputed to Him, death had no power to hold Him. He defeated the power of sin and the power of death for the believer so that it has no power to condemn him or remove him from Christ. He did not do this for the church or as head of the church. He did it to become head of the church and for the individuals who make up the body of the church.

In order for this to be effective for all believers of all time and for all of eternity, the One doing this had to Himself have the same dignity, the same excellence and nobility as God. He Himself would have to be eternal and self existent, equal to God. One human creature has no such thing and not even close. But He had to also have flesh to die in their place, be buried in their place, rise to life that they may also rise to life. I have said this before in a less comprehensive way, and it has never been addressed head on. Maybe this time you will understand and address it.

 

[Arial]

Applying sin to God is unacceptable doctrine for a number of serious reasons. When Jesus is a man who sin was applied to there is no problem. If you insist Jesus is God then you must admit that God became sin and died and therefore there was no God to resurrect Him and, in effect, you are still in your sins.

I admit no such thing. What I insist is that Jesus had two natures, and those two natures were never mixed together but always distinct. It is His flesh that took the punishment for our sins, and it is His flesh that died, and it is His flesh that rose again from the grave.Don't overlay you perceptions and assumption on mine and then argue your point as though they were mine.

You believe in an "incomprehensible mystery" that isn't even explained, described, or explicitly stated in the Bible and you have the audacity to tell me I am the one who has abandoned logic. Brilliant.

God is incomprehensible---therefore much about Him is a mystery. Have you walked inside of Him. Read Job chapters 38 on, and break as Job did. We know what He tells us of Himself. Nothing more. Does that mean we comprehend Him in all His fullness? If you say yes, then you have not even begun to know Him. The Trinity isn't explained in the Bible because it is beyond human finite abilities to comprehend. It is bigger than us. Other than us or anything we have ever experienced to compare it to. It is however made known in the Bible. Everytime it speaks of the Father (God) doing distinct things, the Son doing distinct things, and the Holy Spirit doing distinct things. And all of these things being things only God can do, and all working in unity for the same purposes. BTW, we are not to walk by logic, but by faith. ANd without faith it is impossible to please God. If everything was fully comprehensible, and if all things could be acquired by our finite human logic, there would be no need of faith.

I understand spiritual things. Glory to God.

If you do not even believe in the deity of Christ, then you do not understand spiritual things. The Pharisees had that same problem.

I am not going to use a mystery than I cannot understand and then immediately turn and try to explain the Bible. You have no business representing the Bible if your foundation is nothing more than a mystery that you cannot even clearly explain.

My foundation is not nothing more than a mystery. My foundation is the Rock. And I walk by faith in God, not faith in a creature.

 

[Runningman]

And you being of the spirit of anti-christ would have killed Jesus. In fact you still continue to try and kill the true Jesus.

You believe that "God came in the flesh." The Bible says that Jesus Christ came in the flesh. According to your beliefs, not only are you anti-christ but since Jesus didn't say he is God who came in the flesh then you also believe Jesus is anti-christ.

2 John
7For many deceivers have gone out into the world, refusing to confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.

 

[Runningman]

God isn't a man and I never said He was,

Then Jesus isn't God.

but why don't you put that statement into its context of the whole chapter. Do you just google a search for a scripture you can use as a contradiction to those I quote? That is called proof texting and it proves nothing. It also does not mean you read the Bible.

There are certain tuths that regardless of the context do not change. God who does not change is not a man. God is a Spirit. These single points are about the nature of God and need to be understood to rightly divide the word.

Besides, the collateral damage you absorb when you say someone who quotes the Bible is proof texting is that you also have to assign it to people in the Bible who cited specific lines of text from the Old Testament in order to supplement their points. Just because you disagree with your debate opponents doesn't mean you should apply a different standard to them than you would to someone else you do agree with.

In giving those scriptures of Jacob wrestling with God (and they do say it was God He wrestled with) I even told you it was a theophany, and gave you the definition of theophany. That does not mean He did not appear as a man. He even ate, as men do, but God does not. And you missed my point----(and the point of Jacob wrestling with God and why it led to Jacob's name being changed to Israel). My point was that nothing is impossible with God. He can appear as a man for His purposes.

The premise you're trying to build in saying that God appeared as a man is that if God appeared as a man and wrestled with Jacob then that is the excuse you need to believe God appeared as Jesus. As Hosea 11 and 12 say, the person who directly wrestled Jacob is an angel. There is plenty of precedent all over the Bible as angels manifesting as humans, yet God directly denied being a man.

He can appear as a burning bush.

???

Not according to scripture.

Exodus 3
1Meanwhile, Moses was shepherding the flock of his father-in-law Jethro, the priest of Midian. He led the flock to the far side of the wilderness and came to Horeb, the mountain of God. 2There the angel of the LORD appeared to him in a blazing fire from within a bush. Moses saw the bush ablaze with fire, but it was not consumed.

He can bring a man walking out of a tomb swaddled in grave clothes after four days dead and decomposing, on command.

Do you know where Jesus got his power from, friend? Here. I'll just show you.

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.

Acts 4
30as You stretch out Your hand to heal and perform signs and wonders through the name of Your holy servant Jesus.”

He can part the sea and leave dry ground where it was, He can make the sun stand still, cause a virgin to conceive, create everything out of nothing.

Correct.

And you are going to sit there and tell Him He cannot be triune, and he cannot come as a man, with the nature of a man, and also the nature of God!! And your reason is, "It doesn't make sense."

I didn't tell God that. Jesus said God is one, not three.

Mark 12
29Jesus replied, “This is the most important: ‘Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One.

 

[Runningman]

List the logical fallacies I have made. From now on, every time I make one, point it out and tell me what type of logical fallacy it is. You have pointed out none so far even though you claim that is what I am employing. Borrowing words from people who know what they are talking about and what they are doing, does not support your position anymore than straw man fallacies, false dichotomies, red herrings etc., used as support for your premises do. But thanks for the compliment of imitating my words.

For starters, in post #423 you said, "And your reason is, "It doesn't make sense." Which isn't something I directly said. I could say that's a logical fallacy, to be nice I could just call it a strawman.

I actually do understand your trinity enough to know it trips over its own shoelaces and contradicts itself off the starting line. If we are going to talk about the trinity, let's make sure we aren't referring to one of the miscellaneous versions of it that trinitarians hold.

I am referring directly to what the Athanasian Creed describes as the trinity.

For example, among it's many heresies the Athanasian Creed says God is three persons and one essence:

"That we worship one God in trinity and the trinity in unity, neither blending their persons nor dividing their essence."​

Of Jesus the creed says:

"He is God from the essence of the Father, begotten before time;"​

What this does is de-person God, splits Him into three persons with the essence of God in them. In effect, the essence is itself God not the actual persons in whom God inhabits. As a result, none of them are God, but rather the God is the essence and therefore God isn't a person, but rather God is an it.

This is just one of the many heresies of the trinity. Yes. There are many hardcore trinitarians who don't believe God is a person, that God is an it. You may not be one of them, but none the less it's true.

There is no disconnect. That is the straw man you use. And I do not believe that you don't know why I disagree. If that is true you are the first Unitarian I have encountered that didn't know. Trinitarians believe that God in His being is triune, therefore one God who is triune. God is a triune being.

1. I believe there is one true God--Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Three distinct "persons" in one God.

The persons are in God then who is God exactly? God is a being in whom the persons exist? Do you follow the Athanasian Creed?

Thomas explicitly called Jesus God.

He didn't say "You are God."

Besides, in John 20:17 Jesus said that the God of his brothers is the Father. When Thomas said "my God" he was referring to the Father.

3.I don't just believe that I am a monotheist, I am one.

I don't believe trinitarians are monotheists in the traditional sense of the word.

Do you think Lord of the church and Christ are two separate things? Jesus was not symbolically anything. Being referenced as the sacrificial lamb identifies Him as what was shadowed in the lamb being killed and its blood marking the door post of the Israelites to spare their life prior to the exodus, out of slavery in Egypt. That was a symbol. Jesus' death and the shedding of His blood is not. He is the One who died for the forgiveness of sins that His people would be brought out of their bondage/slavery to sin, there sins forgiven, and brought into His kingdom.

Yes and God doesn't have blood according to anything in scripture.

However, Jesus did much on the cross and in His death, than simply make a way for this deliverance, and simply by the act of dying and rising again to life.

There are a lot of nuanced things that you are glossing over. Jesus didn't just suddenly raise to life, God the Father raised him from the dead. Jesus died, completely, even his soul was scarified. When Jesus died there was literally no Jesus left until God resurrected him.

Isaiah 53​

10Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him;​

he has put him to grief;​

when his soul makes an offering for guilt,​

he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days;​

the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.​

11Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied;​

by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant,​

make many to be accounted righteous,​

and he shall bear their iniquities.​

12Therefore I will divide him a portion with the many,​

and he shall divide the spoil with the strong,​

because he poured out his soul to death​

and was numbered with the transgressors;​

yet he bore the sin of many,​

and makes intercession for the transgressors.​

Something was actually taking place. He was paying a ransom to God to free the prisoners. And He was taking upon Himself the just penalty of their sins, satisfying the penalty of sin, that God remains just in forgiving. His justice uncompromised. He died the death of the believer in their place. In all this, because He was Himself without sin, but had the sins of His people imputed to Him, death had no power to hold Him. He defeated the power of sin and the power of death for the believer so that it has no power to condemn him or remove him from Christ. He did not do this for the church or as head of the church. He did it to become head of the church and for the individuals who make up the body of the church.

Exactly. He did all of that even though he didn't want to, but because his God and Father wanted him to do it, he did it.

Matt 26​

39Going a little farther, He fell facedown and prayed, “My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me. Yet not as I will, but as You will.”​

In order for this to be effective for all believers of all time and for all of eternity,

True

the One doing this had to Himself have the same dignity, the same excellence and nobility as God. He Himself would have to be eternal and self existent, equal to God.

But that's where we will have to part ways on the grounds of this not being what the scripture says. Please show me where the Bible says this.

One human creature has no such thing and not even close. But He had to also have flesh to die in their place, be buried in their place, rise to life that they may also rise to life. I have said this before in a less comprehensive way, and it has never been addressed head on. Maybe this time you will understand and address it.

Exactly, you seem to understand that the physical of body of Jesus wasn't sacrifice, but rather according to Isaiah 53:10-12, the sinless soul of a perfect human; a sacrificial lamb who isn't himself God.

Revelation 21​

22But I saw no temple in the city, because the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple.​

 

[Arial]

Then Jesus isn't God.

Jesus came from God as a man to redeem man.

There are certain tuths that regardless of the context do not change. God who does not change is not a man. God is a Spirit. These single points are about the nature of God and need to be understood to rightly divide the word.

Even so, they remain consistent with the whole counsel of God, never contradictory. The context will not change a truth but present a truth. God did not change when the second person of the Trinity came as a man. It was not a change and it was not a subtraction. Did God change who He is when He appeared as a burning bush? You are imposing limits on Him. And you are not using your proof texts as single points on the nature of God. You are using them in a way that contradicts His being, and using them in a way that they are not being used in the context from which you pull them.

Besides, the collateral damage you absorb when you say someone who quotes the Bible is proof texting is that you also have to assign it to people in the Bible who cited specific lines of text from the Old Testament in order to supplement their points. Just because you disagree with your debate opponents doesn't mean you should apply a different standard to them than you would to someone else you do agree with.

I don't apply a different standard for those I agree with and those I don't. And I don't use a different standard for myself than I request of you. When a NT writer quotes a single verse from the OT, he is interpreting the OT in light of it's being fulfilled in the NT. They aren't using it as proof texts. When I quote a single verse, I am not using it as a proof text. I am using it in a way that is consistent with the whole counsel of God, how it is being used within its context. I never ever quote, for example, a scripture where Jesus calls God Father and then say, "See. It is explicit. Jesus is not God." That is the type off thing you do, and everyone who is promoting a false teaching that the Bible won't support does.

I will get to the rest later. I have things to do.

 

[CrowCross]

You believe that "God came in the flesh." The Bible says that Jesus Christ came in the flesh. According to your beliefs, not only are you anti-christ but since Jesus didn't say he is God who came in the flesh then you also believe Jesus is anti-christ.

2 John
7For many deceivers have gone out into the world, refusing to confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.

Hey anti-Christ preacher.....why are you still trying to kill Christ Jesus?

 

[Runningman]

Hey anti-Christ preacher.....why are you still trying to kill Christ Jesus?

Sounds like something a demon would say to a Christian such as myself. I am not surprised to see such foul things come from the mind of a trinitarian. Thanks for the screen shot.

 

[Runningman]

Jesus came from God as a man to redeem man.

That's true.

Even so, they remain consistent with the whole counsel of God, never contradictory. The context will not change a truth but present a truth. God did not change when the second person of the Trinity came as a man.

One problem. We still haven't even found the trinity in the Bible. Yes, the words "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" exist in scripture, but their relationship and/or function isn't explained the way the miscellaneous trinitarian creeds do.

It was not a change and it was not a subtraction. Did God change who He is when He appeared as a burning bush?

You're losing me. The Bible says the angel of the LORD, not the LORD Himself, appeared in the burning bush.

You are imposing limits on Him.

I can't put limits on God even if I wanted to. It seems your last hope is wishful thinking in what you think God did.

And you are not using your proof texts as single points on the nature of God. You are using them in a way that contradicts His being, and using them in a way that they are not being used in the context from which you pull them.

I prefer to quote choice verses and short passages to give you what you important parts you need to hear. They are not prooftexts, they harmonize perfectly with all of scripture. The Bible is a Unitarian's book.

I don't apply a different standard for those I agree with and those I don't. And I don't use a different standard for myself than I request of you. When a NT writer quotes a single verse from the OT, he is interpreting the OT in light of it's being fulfilled in the NT. They aren't using it as proof texts. When I quote a single verse, I am not using it as a proof text. I am using it in a way that is consistent with the whole counsel of God, how it is being used within its context. I never ever quote, for example, a scripture where Jesus calls God Father and then say, "See. It is explicit. Jesus is not God." That is the type off thing you do, and everyone who is promoting a false teaching that the Bible won't support does.

It would seem that when you or someone in the Bible quote single verses it's okay, but when I do it it's not okay. For the record, I don't have a problem with anyone who wants to just quote a single verse because at least it's a starting point and I absolutely will open a Bible and read the context and investigate something I need to know more about.

I think the bottom line with the miscellaneous sects of Christianity is that very few of us actually agree with each other. It ends up being "my book against your book," but I am not pitting scripture against itself, but rather I am understanding the Bible based on the unchanging and explicit declarations about who God is. I also am not afraid to think critically about the Bible, challenge interpretations, research translations, etc. I am a true Berean.

 

[Dave_Regenerated]

That's true.



One problem. We still haven't even found the trinity in the Bible. Yes, the words "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" exist in scripture, but their relationship and/or function isn't explained the way the miscellaneous trinitarian creeds do.


You're losing me. The Bible says the angel of the LORD, not the LORD Himself, appeared in the burning bush.


I can't put limits on God even if I wanted to. It seems your last hope is wishful thinking in what you think God did.


I prefer to quote choice verses and short passages to give you what you important parts you need to hear. They are not prooftexts, they harmonize perfectly with all of scripture. The Bible is a Unitarian's book.


It would seem that when you or someone in the Bible quote single verses it's okay, but when I do it it's not okay. For the record, I don't have a problem with anyone who wants to just quote a single verse because at least it's a starting point and I absolutely will open a Bible and read the context and investigate something I need to know more about.

I think the bottom line with the miscellaneous sects of Christianity is that very few of us actually agree with each other. It ends up being "my book against your book," but I am not pitting scripture against itself, but rather I am understanding the Bible based on the unchanging and explicit declarations about who God is. I also am not afraid to think critically about the Bible, challenge interpretations, research translations, etc. I am a true Berean.

Do you believe you are also a god?

 

[Arial]

One problem. We still haven't even found the trinity in the Bible. Yes, the words "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" exist in scripture, but their relationship and/or function isn't explained the way the miscellaneous trinitarian creeds do.

If you have seen the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit in the Bible, then you have found the Trinity of the Bible. They aren't just words. When reading the Bible we are required to use our God-given minds to suss out what it is saying and what it means. Ask questions, in this case, "Who are these three mentioned throughout the scriptures?" And look for the answers within the Scriptures.

We will find a curious thing if we are diligent in our pursuit of the answer. In everything of their mention they are directly related to God and the fulfilling of redemption. They are each interacting in the process, in various ways and at various times, depending on what "stage" the redemption is in, within our realm of time, and yet distinct in these actions. We see that there would be no redemption if any of these distinct actions did not take place. We see also that only God as the eternal and self existent and holy, holy, holy, being, could do any of the things that are done in redemption. They are actions completely outside the purview of a created being---such as man or animal or plant.

Having arrived at that conclusion, after intense scrutiny of all of the scriptures, including but not limited to, the Servant, and the Messiah in the Prophets; The Rock, and the pillar of fire and the cloud, in the account of the exodus; the sacrifices in the Mosaic covenant; the one like Moses who would bring an eternal deliverance from a different bondage, a spiritual bondage. And then moving to the NT where these things are said to be shadows of what was to come, and Jesus and the apostles interpreting those shadows, and Jesus, known in NT scripture as both Son of God and Son of Man, to be not the shadow, but the reality, we recognize that in some way, beyond anything of our own finite experience, these three must all be equal. And since there is only one true God, for that is abundantly clear from the scriptures, these three must be that one God all together and yet distinct.

In this post modern era, there are not that many persons who would do the work that was given above. Fortunately the ancients were more inclined to as they saw the supreme importance of it. It was a matter of life and death to them, not for themselves, though indeed many died for their efforts, so intent is the enemy against God and those He has sent the Shepherd to gather into the flock, through those crying out the gospel in this wilderness. (How magnificent and perfect is it, His making the foolish things of the world wisdom and salvation. To use the voices of mere men to announce the good news!). What was more important to them than their own lives, was the lives of others. That the gospel preached would be in full agreement with the mouth of God in His word. So, we rely heavily on their work, to set our own minds on the right track, and hopefully, we do the checking of what we read or hear, within the scriptures.

In their mission to get it right and keep the plumb line straight, it became necessary to put what they had found into words as best as is humanly possible for words to perfectly describe the concept of something whose full form of existence is way outside the realm of words. We can only use the words we have, and the words we have are confined to our boundaries, and our boundaries are finite, held within our experiences. And within that finiteness there is no triune being. Nothing to compare it to in our realm. The creeds do as well as it is possible to do. It is enough so that the Holy Spirit embeds the concept and the truth of it, in our hearts as a part of our faith in God.

 

[Runningman]

Do you believe you are also a god?

I'm a human like Jesus, but Jesus is the model for what is attainable for a glorified child of God. What is something Jesus did or had that makes him God?

 

[Runningman]

If you have seen the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit in the Bible, then you have found the Trinity of the Bible

The Bible doesn't say that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three persons who are God though. It doesn't say anything about God being in them, or them being in God's being, or there being an "essence of God" that inhabits them.

There are far too many examples of God being referred to explicitly as the Father while maintaining total silence about there being additional members of a three-person godhead.

There's nothing explicit about Jesus being God. There is nothing explicit about the Holy Spirit being an additional member of the trinity.

The trinity only exists in creeds. It isn't really a Biblical doctrine and that's just, frankly, how it is. The trinity is far too easy to challenge, there are not explicit declarations about it, no descriptions of it, Jesus or the disciples didn't quote any scripture about what verses to look at to find it, etc.

There's nothing in the Old Testament explicit about a trinity. Furthermore, trinitarianism is polytheism. Having a god aside from YHWH is idolatry. The Son isn't YHWH, in fact the Son of created via procreation; he's a begotten Son. Please read Hebrews 1:5.

I was a trinitarian once before. Long story, but here I am now. What do you do with all of the evidence against the trinity? Why does the Bible not help it much? Interested in your thoughts on that.

 

[Dave_Regenerated]

I'm a human like Jesus, but Jesus is the model for what is attainable for a glorified child of God. What is something Jesus did or had that makes him God?

so you do believe you are potentially a god. I thought so. Jesus is no different to you. And you are divine. Talk about egotistical! A glorified son of God is not "THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON", no matter which way you try to claim you created the entire universe, Mr Unitarian!

 

[Arial]

The Bible doesn't say that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three persons who are God though. It doesn't say anything about God being in them, or them being in God's being, or there being an "essence of God" that inhabits them.

There are far too many examples of God being referred to explicitly as the Father while maintaining total silence about there being additional members of a three-person godhead.

Well, you don't do your homework,the necessary and proper work to arrive at biblical doctrine. And you don't do it most likely, because you simply don't care. You completely dismissed everything I said as though it were never said. You did not ponder it or give it a seconds serious thought. Whatever you think is the truth is good enough for you. Two words for that are complacency and lukewarmness.

Here is why Jesus calls God, Father. He was actually teaching us and giving to us a marvelous gift, and you have missed it. I am fairly certain I have presented this before but it hit blind eyes and deaf ears, and indifference to truth. But I will say it again, and then I am done talking with you---or rather being talked at.

Jesus, Son of God came into this fallen world and lived in it, as Son of Man, so that He could redeem sons of men. Sinners. As one of us, in His human nature that is like ours, He did what humanity was created to do and commanded to do. He fully trusted in God and from that trust came full obedience.

As Son of man, He called God, Father, that we might know that through Christ the believer too has God as a Father in His relationship and His relating to us. It is the covenant name for God in the New Covenant, as YHWH was His name for the Old Covenant people. He said that He was a father to Israel, in the sense that He created them, but the people did not address Him as Father. And the Old Covenant was not a covenant unto eternal life.

The New Covenant is a covenant unto eternal life, and those He gives to the Son, and the Son dies for, He adopts as His children, in His kingdom, and He is their Father. Jesus calling God His Father does not mean He is not deity. It means in His position as Son for the sake of redemption, and in His human nature, yes, the relationship was Father and Son. Just as God is Father to those Jesus died for.

 

[Runningman]

so you do believe you are potentially a god. I thought so. Jesus is no different to you. And you are divine. Talk about egotistical! A glorified son of God is not "THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON", no matter which way you try to claim you created the entire universe, Mr Unitarian!

Hilarious. That isn't even what I said. Are you going to answer my question about what Jesus did that means he's God? Anything?