Welcome!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

SignUp Now!
  • Welcome to Talk Jesus Christian Forums

    Celebrating 20 Years!

    A bible based, Jesus Christ centered community.

    Register Log In

Trinity: Is Jesus really God?

Actually, in a hierarchy the opposite of what you said would be the case. If he is understanding this to be true, he would have to make that distinction because Jesus is also fully human!
Not so. By making the distinction He is acknowledging that Jesus is not God.
Exactly! They are all in agreement!
But it's not talking about agreement. It's talking about power. The word means All might. Three different coequal persons cannot have all might. They would each have certain amount of might. Only one can have all might.
You failed to understand what I wrote to you, or you don't want to understand it, because I have said nothing about them not being co-eternal or co-equal because they are. Did you look at the graphic? If you look at that, then you'd understand how that is so.
Yes, I looked at the graphic. I'm familiar with it. It makes no sense.
So, before Creation what was He? He won't need a name and has one that we might understand if but a little bit, who He Is.
You are correct it is only a Title! The essence is Father, Son, Holy Spirit. They actually don't even need that distinction because they know each other fully. The distinction exists that we might understand who He is.
He was the same being He is now. If there is no one and nothing to rule over there would be no need for the title god. I disagree that there are three that know each other fully.

27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him. King James Version, Mt 11:27.

This is one of the verses that disproves the doctrine. The word "man" is not in the Greek text, it was added by translators. The passage reads none know the Son but the Father. And vice versa. And Jesus uses the Greek word epiginosko, which means to fully know. One has to wonder if the Holy Spirit is a third person how is it that He doesn't know the Father or the Son? However, if the Holy Spirit is a reference to the Father this passage makes perfect sense.


Yes, and the Father and Son are from the same essence doing so by the Holy Spirit that is of the same essence for there was nothing else. So, it would be impossible for one to be less than the other. And so is the beginning of the Trinity & Hierarchy.

Note: Please don't think of begotten in human terms of procreation, because if you do than you'll go down the rabbit hole of those who see the Holy Spirit as Mother! Which we had a new member who had been part of a church that believes that, and sadly has been chased away, by one of our not so loving members.
That's what the word means. I can't change it to make it fit something preconceived. You don't have to worry about the mother issue. As I see it the Holy Spirit is a reference to God the Father, just as Jesus said.
When I converse with God, I address all three persons of the Trinity. However, when I speak specifically to the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit, I am still communicating with God, but with a particular focus within the divine hierarchy.
I'm confused. When you converse with God, you're addressing all three, but when you speak to just one, you're still speaking to God? So that would mean that when you're speaking to just one, you're actually speaking to all three, correct?
Why not if they are the same essence? That is why I believe it was in this thread, or might have been another, I said "A rose by any other name is still a rose." The inherent qualities are not changed at all no matter what you title it. This is where hierarchy comes into play. Each choose to willingly be who they are in the Godhead/Divinity. Which is why they are always in agreement. Father, Son, Holy Spirit is positional only and why they are God when acting on behalf of each other.
Because essence doesn't confer title. I gave an example. If the president has a son the son is of the same essence however, the son is not president. You agreed the word god is a title. Essentially, it's a ruler. If Jesus is begotten yet has no kingdom or people to rule over, how is He a ruler or God? He can't be. The title requires a kingdom and people to rule over.


If this doesn't make sense to you, I'm truly sorry in failing to explain this to you in such a way that you would know. It is also the reason I sought some outside references that would be able to communicate to you and others in words that would be able to answer the questions you might have concerning this topic. And the reason I provided the link to the .pdf in my last post.
Don't be sorry Nick. You're trying to explain that which can't be explained. It's been 1500 years, and no one has been able to explain it. That was one of the big red flags to me. I don't understand how people have a doctrine that no one can explain, isn't in Scripture, and yet they so adamantly defend. It's bewildering.
All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew [it] unto you. John 16:15 KJV

Note: Which includes the Holy Spirit in this verse!


It all makes sense if you understand that God is out of "Time" and sees (maybe lives) it all in the "Now". Past, present, future, is in the "Now" until Jesus/Son of God as Son of Man was manifested in the flesh and He laid the attributes He had since before Time in order to do so.

The rest is just going back over what is covered above.

With the Love of Christ Jesus.
YBIC
Nick
\o/
<><
I have to disagree. The "God is outside of time" argument is just speculation. God may be outside of time; however, no one knows what that entails. I know some claim that to God, past, present, and future are all simultaneous, however that is mere speculation. As I see it, there is no way it makes sense. The doctrine simply requires me to suspend reality to accept it and I can't do that. God is not a God confusion.
 
Апологетика — Вікіпедія


There are different types of images that reflect this. So, I'm not particular to these two :) Still the point is made that you can see visually.
This makes it simple for you to see how the Trinity exists and why we also believe there is only One God.
They have existed eternally. Which Bible verses have been posted throughout this and other threads on the Trinity.
I'm trying to find something visual that shows how you see it, and God the Father, Son of God, Holy Spirit. Now how that might show visually if I had a graphics program, I might be able to make one that would show what I am assuming you see as God the Father, with the Son, and Holy Spirit as outliers. With the rest of Creation as outliers to the Son, and Holy Spirit.

Since you all like reason, and you don't see this (Trinity) as being reasonable. If God the Father pre-existed both the Son & Holy Spirit, to my thinking He could not be God the Father, but just God. Then to become God the Father, the essence of God would have had to been separated to the Father, Son, & Holy Spirit, their existence at that time then is God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, because the essence is the same, and eternal, unless you believe that there is a separate God, from the Father, Son, & Holy Spirit that exists as well. I have no issue with the hierarchy, and some would say authority being God the Father, Son of God, & Holy Spirit. It does not remove the Godhead/Divinity from existing equally for all three.

You are welcome to take a look at the Heidelberg Catechism - Zacharias Ursinus that addresses many issues, on the Divinity of Christ start on page 326. Try to save you a rather long read of 1023 pages which is a translation from the original Latin!



However, just in case you are interested which I might have stated before on my belief/understanding in the hierarchy of the Trinity was not founded upon this document or others that are out there on the subject, since I didn't even know of their existence before doing a bit of searching about a month ago. lol I did this because some who will remain unnamed by me thought me to be a liar/idiot/consciously/unconsciously or all of them, because I had no confirmed truth of the Trinity yeah/nay from reading scripture.

What the person failed to understand was that I could see many of the concepts being bandied about from a variety of people, but none so convincingly to hitch myself to a particular wagon of said belief, Trinity included. As I believe it should be, all in God's time, it will be made known to me/anyone, if He wills it to be so. Perhaps it is patience or simply my simple-minded nature, but it was not until the Holy Spirit said "Hierarchy" while I was reading Scripture in search of something, and repeated it twice when I paused, that I thought to myself, "Huh." lol The second time it just clicked. All the concepts of God, with the variety of Scripture now made sense. It all came together, and I've not doubted it ever since, which would be between 5-7 years ago!!! Meaning I was in my 60''s after having been drawn by the Holy Spirit on 19 December 1979 in a small Baptist Church in Germany. Of all places for a Spanish kid from Bklyn NY to come to the Lord! Anyway, I digress.

Now you can accept my testimony/understanding on this or not, and think its wrongheaded, without reason, etc. Like I've said, you would not be the first to insinuate/question my sanity or reasoning, but there you have it. I remember how you said you came to see the unreasonableness of the Trinity after a time of reading through Scripture. To me I just don't see how one could come by that, when so many of the concepts being bandied about (expression of the day it appears), could just as easily be justified as being correct, but I'm not you or know the struggle you went through to come to the understanding you hold to. No matter the scripture, you point to (within context) it speaks to the Divinity/Godhead, hierarchy of positional authority, that makes God = God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit, since Eternity. Enjoy the read! \o/

With the Love of Christ Jesus.
YBIC
Nick
\o/
<><
Hi Nick,

I'd like to address this point you made.

"This makes it simple for you to see how the Trinity exists and why we also believe there is only One God.
They have existed eternally. Which Bible verses have been posted throughout this and other threads on the Trinity."

You said that Bible verses have been posted throughout this and other threads on the Trinty that show why people believe the Trinity. While I acknowledge that passages have been posted, I would contend that none of them suggest a Trinity. I would submit that the only reason one would see a Trinity in said passages is because one came to those passages initially with the understanding that a Trintiy existed.

We have God's communication to man, the Bible. It tells us all about God. It gives us the history of God and Israel, His people. It tells us that God is just, love, merciful, powerful, and almighty. And I'm sure I missed several. It tells us all about faith. It tells us how to live. It tells us how to love. It gives us a great amount of Information. Yet, it says absolutely nothing about a Trinity. It says nothing about one God in three persons.

Attempts to prove that idea come from passages of Scripture that are misunderstood, misapplied, out of context, or are simply not unused in a valid manner. One argument is that the Bible refers to Jesus as God therefore Jesus and the Father must be the same God. this not only defies logic, but it also defies physics. One being cannot consist of several. However, if we use that same line of reasoning what are we to do with Baal and Molech? They are also called gods. So, if Jesus being called God makes Him one God with the Father, It would also make Baal and Molech the same. We know that that is not a valid conclusion. thus, we must conclude that that line of reasoning is flawed and invalid. So, the argument that Jesus being called God makes Him one with the Father is not a valid argument and thus doesn't prove a Trinity. It's arguments like this that people use to try to prove this doctrine, however, the arguments are not valid.
 
Incorrect. We get the trinity from scripture. We need to keep to exactly what scripture tells us, the A-Z of it, as understanding God is not easy.
No, we don't! If it was from Scripture, the apostles would have taught it. They didn't teach it so it's not from Scripture.
 
No, we don't! If it was from Scripture, the apostles would have taught it. They didn't teach it so it's not from Scripture.

Butch, I mean this in all honesty and the nicest way possible. You are dodging in every single post you have made. Explain how God is not evil if He ordained the crucifixion of Jesus for sins He did not commit.

There is no way to defend God as good unless He lay His own life down.

The only options for a non-trinitarian belief are:

A - God is unjust and therefore evil as He punished a creation for sin He did not commit.
B - For God to be good, Jesus must have suffered no pain and not have been abandoned.
C - For God to be good, Jesus must have been guilty of His own sin.

Is there a D and E or do you concede to one of these?
 
Explain how God is not evil if He ordained the crucifixion of Jesus for sins He did not commit.

There is no way to defend God as good unless He lay His own life down.
This is simply your opinion. It's impossible for one being to consist of three persons. Since it's impossible your conclusion is not valid. That makes your question invalid. What that should tell us is that you may want reconsider your question and conclusion.

I have already done that for you. You simply dismissed it. The question goes away when acknowledge that God did not punish Jesus.

I have already explained this to you several posts ago when I explained the Ransom theory of the Atonement.

You hold a doctrine that is not Biblical, Penal Atonemnt. This doctrine is what has force you to take the position that God pinished Himself in order to avoid the question of evil. Thus you have concluded that Jesus must be God. However, as we have seen this is not possible and is flatly refuted by Scripture. Those two factors should cause you to seek a different answer to the problem.

The problem you're confronted with is solved by the Ransom theory. God didn't punish Christ, thus there is no issue with God punishing one in place of another which you claim is evil.

Here is the reply to a 5 second Google search.


"The early church's view of the atonement, often referred to as the "Christus Victor" or "ransom" theory, emphasized Jesus's victory over Satan and death, rather than a penal substitution model, where Jesus died in place of sinners to satisfy God's wrath.

Here's a more detailed explanation:

  • Christus Victor/Ransom Theory:
  • This view, prominent in the early church, understood Jesus's death and resurrection as a victory over the powers of darkness, including Satan and death, which held humanity in bondage.
  • It depicted humanity as being enslaved by Satan after the fall, and Jesus's death as a ransom paid to Satan to release humanity from this bondage.
  • The key idea is that Christ's death and resurrection broke the power of the devil and death, freeing humanity from their dominion.
  • Distinction from Penal Substitution:
  • In contrast to the penal substitution theory, which emphasizes that Jesus died in the place of sinners to bear their punishment and satisfy God's wrath, the early church's view focused on the liberation and victory achieved through Christ's sacrifice.
  • While some church fathers did use language that could be interpreted as hinting at penal substitution, the dominant emphasis was on Christ's victory over evil and the restoration of humanity"
This was the view for the first 1000 years of Christian history. The Penal Atonement doctrine is a product of the Reformers and the Reformation. And, like so many other things, the Reformers got this wrong also.

But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: 8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

(1 Corinthians 2:7–8, KJV 1900)

Notice who it was that killed Christ. It was the princes of this age. It was demonic forces. It wasn't God.

So, I'm not dancing around you question. On the other hand, much of what I've posted you've simply dismissed as "a croc" without addressing any of it. I've repeatedly asked you, if the punishment is death and God killed Himself, who brought Him back to life? You have yet to make an attempt to answer this question. It seems to me if anyone is dancing here it's not me.

So, if you want to continue this discussion I'll need you to address the flaws in your argument, answer questions, and address the evidence. If all you're going to do is make comments like anyone with a working brain would believe the Trinity I'm not interested.
 
Butch, I mean this in all honesty and the nicest way possible. You are dodging in every single post you have made. Explain how God is not evil if He ordained the crucifixion of Jesus for sins He did not commit.

There is no way to defend God as good unless He lay His own life down.

The only options for a non-trinitarian belief are:

A - God is unjust and therefore evil as He punished a creation for sin He did not commit.
B - For God to be good, Jesus must have suffered no pain and not have been abandoned.
C - For God to be good, Jesus must have been guilty of His own sin.

Is there a D and E or do you concede to one of these?
How many times do I have to answer this question? GOD DID NOT PUNISH JESUS!!!!! Since God did not punish Jesus, your question is moot.

In your scenario, would it be evil? One might be able to make that argument. However, as I said, it's a moot point because God didn't punish Jesus. Since God didn't punish Jesus, the conclusion you've drawn that not believing in the Trinity doctrine portrays God as evil is patently false.

On a side note, are you suggesting God "created" Jesus? I mean, you're arguing for a Trinity doctrine that claims all three are eternal and in this post, you've suggested that Jesus is created.
 
This is simply your opinion.

No, its a logical deduction.

It's impossible for one being to consist of three persons.

This has nothing to do with my question to you.

Since it's impossible your conclusion is not valid. That makes your question invalid. What that should tell us is that you may want reconsider your question and conclusion.

My question is from a non-trinitarian view.

I have already done that for you. You simply dismissed it. The question goes away when acknowledge that God did not punish Jesus.

I have already explained this to you several posts ago when I explained the Ransom theory of the Atonement.

You moving the goal posts. Jesus endured suffering. If you want to term that as not being a 'punishment' then call it whatever you want. I am not interested or give two hoots where you decide to place the goal posts. Let me know when you have placed them.

Jesus suffered a cruel death such that He sweat blood in anticipation of it. This is a fact you are trying to avoid as you don't want to state that your ridiculous belief incriminates God as EVIL.

You hold a doctrine that is not Biblical, Penal Atonemnt. This doctrine is what has force you to take the position that God pinished Himself in order to avoid the question of evil. Thus you have concluded that Jesus must be God. However, as we have seen this is not possible and is flatly refuted by Scripture. Those two factors should cause you to seek a different answer to the problem.

The problem you're confronted with is solved by the Ransom theory. God didn't punish Christ, thus there is no issue with God punishing one in place of another which you claim is evil.

Jesus endured suffering. AKA punishment. Whether His suffering was as a ransom or penalty paid, is completely and utterly irrelevant. Please for the love of God, try understand that.

Hold to your ransom theory as much as you want. You just change the question to.....

Is a God that specially selected some random person who clearly drew the shortest straw called Jesus, to endure a cruel and vicious death for sin He did not commit as a ransom for humans, unjust, sadistic and evil? Yes or No. If No, explain why.

Go floor is yours.....please EXPLAIN.......!!!!!!??????? :mad:
 
Notice who it was that killed Christ. It was the princes of this age. It was demonic forces. It wasn't God.

So, I'm not dancing around you question

Oh for crying out aloud what a load of croc. Have you decided on resting the goal posts here now or can I expect you to try move it again?

If a warden places a nun in a prison cell with a rapist and the nun gets raped as ''''''''''RANSOM''''''''''' for the prisoner that was in the cell previously, is the warden just, righteous and good? Yes or No?

Go floor is yours.....please EXPLAIN.......!!!!!!??????? :mad: :mad:
 
No, its a logical deduction.



This has nothing to do with my question to you.



My question is from a non-trinitarian view.



You moving the goal posts. Jesus endured suffering. If you want to term that as not being a 'punishment' then call it whatever you want. I am not interested or give two hoots where you decide to place the goal posts. Let me know when you have placed them.

Jesus suffered a cruel death such that He sweat blood in anticipation of it. This is a fact you are trying to avoid as you don't want to state that your ridiculous belief incriminates God as EVIL.



Jesus endured suffering. AKA punishment. Whether His suffering was as a ransom or penalty paid, is completely and utterly irrelevant. Please for the love of God, try understand that.

Hold to your ransom theory as much as you want. You just change the question to.....

Is a God that specially selected some random person who clearly drew the shortest straw called Jesus, to endure a cruel and vicious death for sin He did not commit as a ransom for humans, unjust, sadistic and evil? Yes or No. If No, explain why.

Go floor is yours.....please EXPLAIN.......!!!!!!??????? :mad:
Dude, what is so hard to understand here? Yes, Jesus suffered. However, it was "NOT" at God's hand. I gave you Scripture showing that it was Satan who killed Jesus, NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT God.


And, as is par for the course, once again you ignored the flaws in your reasoning that have been pointed out. You need to stop playing games. Everyone can see that your claims of moving the goals posts, dancing, and what not, are nothing more than an attempt to avoid the problems with your claim. I believe you'd get more respect if you simply said nothing.
 
Oh for crying out aloud what a load of croc. Have you decided on resting the goal posts here now or can I expect you to try move it again?

If a warden places a nun in a prison cell with a rapist and the nun gets raped as ''''''''''RANSOM''''''''''' for the prisoner that was in the cell previously, is the warden just, righteous and good? Yes or No?

Go floor is yours.....please EXPLAIN.......!!!!!!??????? :mad: :mad:
And once again you ignored the passage of Scripture.
 
Dude, what is so hard to understand here? Yes, Jesus suffered. However, it was "NOT" at God's hand. I gave you Scripture showing that it was Satan who killed Jesus, NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT God.

And... I gave you an example of a prison warden who puts a nun in a cell with a rapist. Are you insinuating that God did not know Jesus would suffer terribly? It was prophesied that Jesus would be a Lamb to the slaughter Isa 53:7.

Let's use a personal example, maybe it makes more sense to you as you are clearly not grasping a very simple fact.

Let's say I made a gun (mankind). I knew that the gun would get no sales unless it was known to have killed someone (nobody would go to heaven unless Jesus was '''''ransomed'', '''punished'', ''paid penalty for sin'', pick whatever words you want). I gave the gun to a person called lucifer (the most evil being on the planet) and chose your innocent and young daughter (Jesus was sinless and innocent like a child) as the victim. Knowing that by choosing Lucifer your daughter would not just be shot but tortured and then shot (Jesus was abandoned, beaten and crucified). Would you think of me as a good, righteous and just person?

The fact that you just do not 'get' this fact is absolutely shocking. You have a most epic case of ostrich syndrome. As long as it is not you or your daughter, it does not matter right?

And, as is par for the course, once again you ignored the flaws in your reasoning that have been pointed out.

You have not pointed out flaws. You are attempting to dodge the question by creating rabbit trails.

You need to stop playing games. Everyone can see that your claims of moving the goals posts, dancing, and what not, are nothing more than an attempt to avoid the problems with your claim. I believe you'd get more respect if you simply said nothing.

Where am I dancing? You seem to think quoting long passages from Google explaining penal and ransom atonement better make your case. It is quite hilarious actually. Like watching you think that choosing your daughter as a ransom to a Mexican drug cartel for your son to get a green card justifies you as a good person. All because you were..... not the one to torture and punish her.

Your mind is not on the topic. I wish you would just deal with the question in a logical and intellectually honest manner.

I am at least glad that you are most definitely helping to shine light on how sick and twisted a non-trinitarian belief is. You simply cannot deal directly with the question.

An honest and direct reply from a non-trinitarian would be:

1. ''KingJ, I disagree that God is evil because I do not believe He knew Jesus would suffer and be crucified. God is quite dumb''.
2. ''KingJ I believe that we must not worship Jesus, only God, as God is jealous. Everyone worshiping and praying to Jesus is evil''.
3. KingJ, yes, God made mankind knowing a ransom of a cruel and terrible death would be required, but I don't see anything wrong with that. If I passed a law that enabled a drug cartel to kidnap your children, you can rest peacefully knowing that I already planned to send my young innocent daughter to suffer a cruel death for you to be ransomed.

I guess it is logical to expect one to dance and or stick their head in the ground like an ostrich hoping these facts magically vanish.
 
Last edited:
New International Version
For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

New Living Translation
For a child is born to us, a son is given to us. The government will rest on his shoulders. And he will be called: Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

English Standard Version
For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Berean Standard Bible
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, and the government will be upon His shoulders. And He will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

King James Bible
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

New King James Version
For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
 
Some things of God are not understood by mans limited cursed mind. Somethings have to be reveled, somethings you just have to believe, because Gods words says it. Gods Word is proven !!

Believing and yet not understanding, is faith in God's word !!

How can one understand that a child is born unto us, that is Mighty God, everlasting father, it is not humanly possible to make sense of that, yet I believe it because God says it. The only way to make sense of it ,,is they are one, yet that make not earthly sense does it !! Praise Jesus I do not need to understand I believe


New King James Version
For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
 
If Jesus is not GOD how can he be called everlasting father, how can he be called Mighty God, you either believe the word of God that is proven or you do not
 
The full Deity of the Messiah, the Christ is still clearly seen in the 'liberal' NRSV & NRSVue -

"For a child has been born for us, a son given to us; authority rests upon his shoulders, and he is named Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Great will be his authority, and there shall be endless peace for the throne of David and his kingdom. He will establish and uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time onward and forevermore. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will do this." (Isa 9:6-7 NRSV Updated Edition/2021)

The NRSV & NRSVue neither one translate the OT from the perspective of the Christian NT, so the question of Trinitarian theology is not an influence here. It is clear the Messiah, the Christ was to be Mighty God, Everlasting Father so therefore Yahweh, the LORD.

The English "Mighty God" translates the Hebrew gibbowr el and that same exact combination is used in the next chapter -

"On that day the remnant of Israel and the survivors of the house of Jacob will no longer lean on the one who struck them but will lean on the LORD, the Holy One of Israel, in truth. A remnant will return, the remnant of Jacob, to the mighty God. For though your people, O Israel, were like the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will return. Destruction is decreed, an overwhelming verdict. For the Lord GOD of hosts will make a full end, as decreed, in all the earth." (Isa 10:20-23 NRSVue)
 
And... I gave you an example of a prison warden who puts a nun in a cell with a rapist. Are you insinuating that God did not know Jesus would suffer terribly? It was prophesied that Jesus would be a Lamb to the slaughter Isa 53:7.

Let's use a personal example, maybe it makes more sense to you as you are clearly not grasping a very simple fact.

Let's say I made a gun (mankind). I knew that the gun would get no sales unless it was known to have killed someone (nobody would go to heaven unless Jesus was '''''ransomed'', '''punished'', ''paid penalty for sin'', pick whatever words you want). I gave the gun to a person called lucifer (the most evil being on the planet) and chose your innocent and young daughter (Jesus was sinless and innocent like a child) as the victim. Knowing that by choosing Lucifer your daughter would not just be shot but tortured and then shot (Jesus was abandoned, beaten and crucified). Would you think of me as a good, righteous and just person?

The fact that you just do not 'get' this fact is absolutely shocking. You have a most epic case of ostrich syndrome. As long as it is not you or your daughter, it does not matter right?
Why the incessant desire to blame God? Did God cause Adam to sin?
You have not pointed out flaws. You are attempting to dodge the question by creating rabbit trails.
Now you're just being ridiculous
Where am I dancing? You seem to think quoting long passages from Google explaining penal and ransom atonement better make your case. It is quite hilarious actually. Like watching you think that choosing your daughter as a ransom to a Mexican drug cartel for your son to get a green card justifies you as a good person. All because you were..... not the one to torture and punish her.
Your mind is not on the topic. I wish you would just deal with the question in a logical and intellectually honest manner.

I am at least glad that you are most definitely helping to shine light on how sick and twisted a non-trinitarian belief is. You simply cannot deal directly with the question.

An honest and direct reply from a non-trinitarian would be:

1. ''KingJ, I disagree that God is evil because I do not believe He knew Jesus would suffer and be crucified. God is quite dumb''.
2. ''KingJ I believe that we must not worship Jesus, only God, as God is jealous. Everyone worshiping and praying to Jesus is evil''.
3. KingJ, yes, God made mankind knowing a ransom of a cruel and terrible death would be required, but I don't see anything wrong with that. If I passed a law that enabled a drug cartel to kidnap your children, you can rest peacefully knowing that I already planned to send my young innocent daughter to suffer a cruel death for you to be ransomed.

I guess it is logical to expect one to dance and or stick their head in the ground like an ostrich hoping these facts magically vanish.
Your examples are just asinine, and they don't even reflect the actual situation. Rather, they reflect this scenario you have created in your mind. Why this incessant desire to blame God?
 
God's Will of Decree, what He ordains, even if He determines it through the human will -

Over All:
All the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, and he does what he wills with the host of heaven and the inhabitants of the earth. There is no one who can stay his hand or say to him, “What are you doing?” (Dan 4:35, NRSV)

Whatever the LORD pleases he does, in heaven and on earth, in the seas and all deeps. (Ps 135:6, NRSV)

But he stands alone and who can dissuade him? What he desires, that he does. (Job 23:13, NRSV)

Even before they had been born or had done anything good or bad (so that God’s purpose of election might continue, (Rom 9:11, NRSV)

Over Sin:
Even though you intended to do harm to me, God intended it for good, in order to preserve a numerous people, as he is doing today. (Gen 50:20, NRSV)

this man, handed over to you according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of those outside the law. (Acts 2:23, NRSV)

For in this city, in fact, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place. (Acts 4:27-28, NRSV)

For the Son of Man is going as it has been determined, but woe to that one by whom he is betrayed!” (Luke 22:22, NRSV)

The LORD said to Satan, “Very well, all that he has is in your power; only do not stretch out your hand against him!” So Satan went out from the presence of the LORD. (Job 1:12, NRSV)
 
Not so. By making the distinction He is acknowledging that Jesus is not God.
You feel that way because you give no thought to what I said concerning it.
But it's not talking about agreement. It's talking about power. The word means All might. Three different coequal persons cannot have all might. They would each have certain amount of might. Only one can have all might.
That is why you will not be open to the Trinity. If you viewed it within the hierarchy, then you would see it as possible. Otherwise, then without equivocating you must then accept Jesus as God, because if what you say is true that it's about power, and hierarchy is not a consideration then it can't be delegated or the originator no longer retains it and ceases to be "All might", but the other who the power was delegated to now becomes "All might".

I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. Rev 1:8 KJV

I am the alpha and the omega, says [the] Lord - God the [one] being - the one who is and the [one who] was and the [one] coming, the Almighty. Greek Interlinear Rev 1:8

Yes, I looked at the graphic. I'm familiar with it. It makes no sense.
And yet to me it makes perfect sense! Maybe you have a graph that can reflect what you believe with who we know exists, in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and look at what you have. Maybe then you can say there is no hierarchy.

So, before Creation what was He? He won't need a name and has one that we might understand if but a little bit, who He Is.
You are correct it is only a Title! The essence is Father, Son, Holy Spirit. They actually don't even need that distinction because they know each other fully. The distinction exists that we might understand who He is.
He was the same being He is now. If there is no one and nothing to rule over there would be no need for the title god. I disagree that there are three that know each other fully.

27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him. King James Version, Mt 11:27.

This is one of the verses that disproves the doctrine. The word "man" is not in the Greek text, it was added by translators. The passage reads none know the Son but the Father. And vice versa. And Jesus uses the Greek word epiginosko, which means to fully know. One has to wonder if the Holy Spirit is a third person how is it that He doesn't know the Father or the Son? However, if the Holy Spirit is a reference to the Father this passage makes perfect sense.
Since you did not dispute my statement, I assume that, apart from my mention of the Holy Spirit, you acknowledge the validity of my position, particularly as you provided scripture to support what I said about the Father & Son. That they don't need the distinction because they know each other fully, is evident in Matthew 11:27, but for the sake of us knowing God it is made plain for us to see.

Once I have your agreement here, we can discuss the Holy Spirit.

Yes, and the Father and Son are from the same essence doing so by the Holy Spirit that is of the same essence for there was nothing else. So, it would be impossible for one to be less than the other. And so is the beginning of the Trinity & Hierarchy.

Note: Please don't think of begotten in human terms of procreation, because if you do than you'll go down the rabbit hole of those who see the Holy Spirit as Mother! Which we had a new member who had been part of a church that believes that, and sadly has been chased away, by one of our not so loving members.
That's what the word means. I can't change it to make it fit something preconceived. You don't have to worry about the mother issue. As I see it the Holy Spirit is a reference to God the Father, just as Jesus said.
Not preconceived, but taking into account that it also means "of its kind", as well as "to go out, come out, exit, go forth" etc.

Glad you don't see the Holy Spirit as Mother. However, I must ask this question that comes to me from what you stated above about the Holy Spirit. So, whenever the Holy Spirit is mentioned in scripture you believe it just as easily can be replaced with God the Father? So, that they are not just the same in essence, but are one and the same.

When I converse with God, I address all three persons of the Trinity. However, when I speak specifically to the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit, I am still communicating with God, but with a particular focus within the divine hierarchy.
I'm confused. When you converse with God, you're addressing all three, but when you speak to just one, you're still speaking to God? So that would mean that when you're speaking to just one, you're actually speaking to all three, correct?
Yes.

Why not if they are the same essence? That is why I believe it was in this thread, or might have been another, I said "A rose by any other name is still a rose." The inherent qualities are not changed at all no matter what you title it. This is where hierarchy comes into play. Each choose to willingly be who they are in the Godhead/Divinity. Which is why they are always in agreement. Father, Son, Holy Spirit is positional only and why they are God when acting on behalf of each other.
Because essence doesn't confer title. I gave an example. If the president has a son the son is of the same essence however, the son is not president. You agreed the word god is a title. Essentially, it's a ruler. If Jesus is begotten yet has no kingdom or people to rule over, how is He a ruler or God? He can't be. The title requires a kingdom and people to rule over.
Are you saying that though they are of the same essence, that a title makes them different?
If so, doesn't that speak to what I've been saying all along about a hierarchy?

If this doesn't make sense to you, I'm truly sorry in failing to explain this to you in such a way that you would know. It is also the reason I sought some outside references that would be able to communicate to you and others in words that would be able to answer the questions you might have concerning this topic. And the reason I provided the link to the .pdf in my last post.
Don't be sorry Nick. You're trying to explain that which can't be explained. It's been 1500 years, and no one has been able to explain it. That was one of the big red flags to me. I don't understand how people have a doctrine that no one can explain, isn't in Scripture, and yet they so adamantly defend. It's bewildering.
You must have many red flags, brother, or you know everything there is to know about Scripture that anyone has ever known. lol

I hope you get a chance to check out the .pdf file I shared.

All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew [it] unto you. John 16:15 KJV

Note: Which includes the Holy Spirit in this verse!


It all makes sense if you understand that God is out of "Time" and sees (maybe lives) it all in the "Now". Past, present, future, is in the "Now" until Jesus/Son of God as Son of Man was manifested in the flesh and He laid the attributes He had since before Time in order to do so.

The rest is just going back over what is covered above.

With the Love of Christ Jesus.
YBIC
Nick
\o/
<><
I have to disagree. The "God is outside of time" argument is just speculation. God may be outside of time; however, no one knows what that entails. I know some claim that to God, past, present, and future are all simultaneous, however that is mere speculation. As I see it, there is no way it makes sense. The doctrine simply requires me to suspend reality to accept it and I can't do that. God is not a God confusion.
Actually, it makes perfect sense that God lives in the "Now". We too in a certain way live it to it as well, though our awareness is quite restricted. Think of salvation and it will start to make more sense...or maybe not. lol

Апологетика — Вікіпедія

https://www.apprising.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/14.jpg
There are different types of images that reflect this. So, I'm not particular to these two :) Still the point is made that you can see visually.
This makes it simple for you to see how the Trinity exists and why we also believe there is only One God.
They have existed eternally. Which Bible verses have been posted throughout this and other threads on the Trinity.
I'm trying to find something visual that shows how you see it, and God the Father, Son of God, Holy Spirit. Now how that might show visually if I had a graphics program, I might be able to make one that would show what I am assuming you see as God the Father, with the Son, and Holy Spirit as outliers. With the rest of Creation as outliers to the Son, and Holy Spirit.

Since you all like reason, and you don't see this (Trinity) as being reasonable. If God the Father pre-existed both the Son & Holy Spirit, to my thinking He could not be God the Father, but just God. Then to become God the Father, the essence of God would have had to been separated to the Father, Son, & Holy Spirit, their existence at that time then is God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, because the essence is the same, and eternal, unless you believe that there is a separate God, from the Father, Son, & Holy Spirit that exists as well. I have no issue with the hierarchy, and some would say authority being God the Father, Son of God, & Holy Spirit. It does not remove the Godhead/Divinity from existing equally for all three.

You are welcome to take a look at the Heidelberg Catechism - Zacharias Ursinus that addresses many issues, on the Divinity of Christ start on page 326. Try to save you a rather long read of 1023 pages which is a translation from the original Latin!

https://www.monergism.com/thethresh... on the Heidelberg Ca - Zacharias Ursinus.pdf

However, just in case you are interested which I might have stated before on my belief/understanding in the hierarchy of the Trinity was not founded upon this document or others that are out there on the subject, since I didn't even know of their existence before doing a bit of searching about a month ago. lol I did this because some who will remain unnamed by me thought me to be a liar/idiot/consciously/unconsciously or all of them, because I had no confirmed truth of the Trinity yeah/nay from reading scripture.

What the person failed to understand was that I could see many of the concepts being bandied about from a variety of people, but none so convincingly to hitch myself to a particular wagon of said belief, Trinity included. As I believe it should be, all in God's time, it will be made known to me/anyone, if He wills it to be so. Perhaps it is patience or simply my simple-minded nature, but it was not until the Holy Spirit said "Hierarchy" while I was reading Scripture in search of something, and repeated it twice when I paused, that I thought to myself, "Huh." lol The second time it just clicked. All the concepts of God, with the variety of Scripture now made sense. It all came together, and I've not doubted it ever since, which would be between 5-7 years ago!!! Meaning I was in my 60''s after having been drawn by the Holy Spirit on 19 December 1979 in a small Baptist Church in Germany. Of all places for a Spanish kid from Bklyn NY to come to the Lord! Anyway, I digress.

Now you can accept my testimony/understanding on this or not, and think its wrongheaded, without reason, etc. Like I've said, you would not be the first to insinuate/question my sanity or reasoning, but there you have it. I remember how you said you came to see the unreasonableness of the Trinity after a time of reading through Scripture. To me I just don't see how one could come by that, when so many of the concepts being bandied about (expression of the day it appears), could just as easily be justified as being correct, but I'm not you or know the struggle you went through to come to the understanding you hold to. No matter the scripture, you point to (within context) it speaks to the Divinity/Godhead, hierarchy of positional authority, that makes God = God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit, since Eternity. Enjoy the read! \o/

With the Love of Christ Jesus.
YBIC
Nick
\o/
<><
Click to expand...
Hi Nick,

I'd like to address this point you made.

"This makes it simple for you to see how the Trinity exists and why we also believe there is only One God.
They have existed eternally. Which Bible verses have been posted throughout this and other threads on the Trinity."

You said that Bible verses have been posted throughout this and other threads on the Trinty that show why people believe the Trinity. While I acknowledge that passages have been posted, I would contend that none of them suggest a Trinity. I would submit that the only reason one would see a Trinity in said passages is because one came to those passages initially with the understanding that a Trintiy existed.

We have God's communication to man, the Bible. It tells us all about God. It gives us the history of God and Israel, His people. It tells us that God is just, love, merciful, powerful, and almighty. And I'm sure I missed several. It tells us all about faith. It tells us how to live. It tells us how to love. It gives us a great amount of Information. Yet, it says absolutely nothing about a Trinity. It says nothing about one God in three persons.

Attempts to prove that idea come from passages of Scripture that are misunderstood, misapplied, out of context, or are simply not unused in a valid manner. One argument is that the Bible refers to Jesus as God therefore Jesus and the Father must be the same God. this not only defies logic, but it also defies physics. One being cannot consist of several. However, if we use that same line of reasoning what are we to do with Baal and Molech? They are also called gods. So, if Jesus being called God makes Him one God with the Father, It would also make Baal and Molech the same. We know that that is not a valid conclusion. thus, we must conclude that that line of reasoning is flawed and invalid. So, the argument that Jesus being called God makes Him one with the Father is not a valid argument and thus doesn't prove a Trinity. It's arguments like this that people use to try to prove this doctrine, however, the arguments are not valid.
I too felt that way, but unlike you, I made no decision to disbelieve the Trinity as a doctrine and move on to another doctrine of belief concerning God. As I mentioned before, until I was told the "Hierarchy," I neither professed faith in the Trinity nor rejected it. What I could say was that I did not know for certain.

With the Love of Christ Jesus.
YBIC
Nick
\o/
<><
 
You feel that way because you give no thought to what I said concerning it.
Nick, do you purport to know my thoughts?
That is why you will not be open to the Trinity. If you viewed it within the hierarchy, then you would see it as possible. Otherwise, then without equivocating you must then accept Jesus as God, because if what you say is true that it's about power, and hierarchy is not a consideration then it can't be delegated or the originator no longer retains it and ceases to be "All might", but the other who the power was delegated to now becomes "All might".

I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. Rev 1:8 KJV

I am the alpha and the omega, says [the] Lord - God the [one] being - the one who is and the [one who] was and the [one] coming, the Almighty. Greek Interlinear Rev 1:8
Nick, I am not open to the Trintiy because it is illogical and refuted by Scripture. I used to hold the doctrine and believed there was a hierarchy. The Scriptures have shown me otherwise.

Regarding almighty, it can't be shared. It can't be spread among three persons. The word requires that it be applied to only one. The Father, Son, and Spirit cannot all be almighty at the same time.

Regarding Rev 1:18, yes, Jesus is referred to as almighty. However, we must understand the passage in context. Why is Jesus called almighty in this passage? It's because all authority was given to Him.

All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. King James Version, Mt 28:18–20.

All power was given to Jesus. That means at that point He was almighty. However, notice His words. The power was given to Him. That means He didn't have it previously. Before that point He was not almighty. That means that there was someone else who had all power. That was the Father. Paul also tells us that Jesus hands it back to the Father.

24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. 25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy that shall be tdestroyed is death. 27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith, all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. 28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all. King James Version, 1 Co 15:24–28.

All power was given to Jesus. However, when the end comes, He turns it all back over to the Father. And He Himself is subject to the Father
And yet to me it makes perfect sense! Maybe you have a graph that can reflect what you believe with who we know exists, in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and look at what you have. Maybe then you can say there is no hierarchy.
How can it make perfect sense when the concept of one being consisting of three beings is completely illogical and impossible?

I don't have a graph. One isn't really necessary. We have the Father who begat a Son. The Son is the Father's agent in creation. The Holy Spirit is not a third person but rather is a manifestation of the Father.
Since you did not dispute my statement, I assume that, apart from my mention of the Holy Spirit, you acknowledge the validity of my position, particularly as you provided scripture to support what I said about the Father & Son. That they don't need the distinction because they know each other fully, is evident in Matthew 11:27, but for the sake of us knowing God it is made plain for us to see.

Once I have your agreement here, we can discuss the Holy Spirit.
I agree that they know each other fully. However, the distinction is necessary because they are two completely separate beings. Just as a father and son are two completely separate beings.
Not preconceived, but taking into account that it also means "of its kind", as well as "to go out, come out, exit, go forth" etc.

Glad you don't see the Holy Spirit as Mother. However, I must ask this question that comes to me from what you stated above about the Holy Spirit. So, whenever the Holy Spirit is mentioned in scripture you believe it just as easily can be replaced with God the Father? So, that they are not just the same in essence, but are one and the same.
Yes, they are one and the same. There are multiple reasons for this. Primarily because Jesus said it. As an example, when the angel appeared to Mary regarding the birth of Christ he said,

Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. 31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. 32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: 33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. 34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? 35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. King James Version, Lk 1:30–35.

If the Holy Spirit is a third person, then it is He and not God the Father who is the Father of Jesus. God is called the Father because He is the Father of Jesus. That requires that the Holy Spirit must be a reference to the Father. There are other examples that draw this same conclusion.

The manifestation can be the Father and/or His power and working. Jesus said the Father was in Him. How was that? He was baptized with the Holy Spirit.
Can you somehow reason through that for me?
Are you saying that though they are of the same essence, that a title makes them different?
If so, doesn't that speak to what I've been saying all along about a hierarchy?
No. What makes them different is that one was begotten out of the other. Yet, they are of the same essence. One had the title of God and one didn't. As an example, a man is king (title). He has a son. Him and his son are two completely separate beings. They are both of the same essence, human. Just because the son is the of the same essence as the father, the king, doesn't make the son a king.
You must have many red flags, brother, or you know everything there is to know about Scripture that anyone has ever known. lol

I hope you get a chance to check out the .pdf file I shared.
No, I don't know everything. I know people who have probably forgotten more than I know about Scripture. But I do know what I've studied.
I'll check it out.
Actually, it makes perfect sense that God lives in the "Now". We too in a certain way live it to it as well, though our awareness is quite restricted. Think of salvation and it will start to make more sense...or maybe not. lol
I meant the Trinity doctrine makes no sense to me.
I too felt that way, but unlike you, I made no decision to disbelieve the Trinity as a doctrine and move on to another doctrine of belief concerning God. As I mentioned before, until I was told the "Hierarchy," I neither professed faith in the Trinity nor rejected it. What I could say was that I did not know for certain.

With the Love of Christ Jesus.
YBIC
Nick
\o/
<><
The problem I find with that is that the hierarchy idea is just another evolution of the doctrine, People keep trying to make it fit with Scripture and as such the doctrine keeps evolving. When the doctrine was codified, it read,

"And in this Trinity none is before, or after another; none is greater, or less than another. But the whole three Persons are coeternal, and coequal.
"Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the Father as touching his Manhood."

According to the doctrine there is no hierarchy. They are all coequal. None is before and none is after. Yet today we have this idea of a hierarchy. This is simply an evolution of the doctrine. This begs the question, which version, if any, is from the Holy Spirit? If it's not the first one, then the second one cannot be true. If the Trinity doctrine that was codified in the 5th century is not the true doctrine, then the one that evolved from it cannot be true. That means the one that evolved cannot be of the Spirit since it states the opposite of the codified version.
 
Back
Top