To the only God our Savior
- Thread starter Matthias
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
So believe that Jesus is God.
The Holy Spirit is God....
And, the Father? Yes? Is God!
Good! You are a Trinitarian.
For you just said you believe the Trinitarian teachings.
So what is the problem you are having?
Even the largest branch of unitarianism agrees with those propositions.
What this tells me is that you don’t have any understanding of, nor appreciation for, the history and complexity of the post-biblical development of trinitarian theology. It took the church several hundred years to move theologically from the Jewish monotheism of Jesus, the apostles and the earliest Christians to historical orthodox trinitarianism.
See again the Church history which I documented (in this and other threads) using trinitarian sources.
No. I said I believe what the trinitarian scholars wrote. You rejected what they wrote.
You turn everything backwards. What you accuse me of is what you are guilty of yourself.
Last edited:
“I would not wish to deny that the seeds of a later Christology are present in the New Testament, nor that the subsequent doctrine of the divinity of Christ may have been a proper or even inevitable development. I am concerned only to show that there is no unambiguous evidence that the constraint of monotheism was effectively broken by any New Testament writer.”
(A.E. Harvey, Jesus and the Constraints of History, Appendix III, “The Divinity of Jesus in the New Testament”, p. 177)
OK.. go play your chess game elsewhere.
I have nothing to win with you.
For you're not in the needed right spiritual state for it to do good.
In the meanwhile...
Go become a distraction to someone else.
I feel sorry for you.
What a wasted mind.
No threats. Just pity.
Bye!
Not only do you not know church history nor understand trinitarian orthodoxy, you don’t even exhibit awareness that this is my thread.
I’m not going elsewhere. You going elsewhere will benefit everyone.
For those who are interested in learning, what the Anglican scholar Harvey described is what the Catholic scholar Fortman termed “elemental trinitarianism”.
This is basic church history and is indispensable for understanding the process by which the church came to be trinitarian.
“Elemental trinitarianism” isn’t “elementary trinitarianism”, nor is it “orthodox trinitarianism”.
Trinitarian scholarship draws upon church history to show us how the church, beginning with “elemental trinitarianism”, arrived, several centuries later, at orthodoxy.
The history of Christianity is fascinating. From the Jewish monotheism of Israel and the primitive church through post-biblical development to the orthodoxy of the developed church. Known and told to us by church history scholars, but of little real interest to most Christians.
Trinitarian scholarship draws upon church history to show us how the church, beginning with “elemental trinitarianism”, arrived, several centuries later, at orthodoxy.
The history of Christianity is fascinating. From the Jewish monotheism of Israel and the primitive church through post-biblical development to the orthodoxy of the developed church. Known and told to us by church history scholars, but of little real interest to most Christians.
I'm kinda confused based on definitions ... Do you consider the Trinitry as monotheist... as many Christians falsely do?
Thank you for asking. First I’d like to preface my response with the following.
The only monotheism I affirm is Jewish monotheism, and that is unitarian. That, in part, is why I’m registered here as “Other Faith” rather than “Christian” on a platform which officially endorses and affirms orthodox trinitarianism. The Board rules prohibit any member registered “Christian” from speaking against the Trinity. My registration status allows me to speak about the Trinity in forums which aren’t marked “Christians Only”, but even then I’m handcuffed in what I can say about the Trinity. In other words, I’m limited in how far I can go in regard to the matter. I think that’s reasonable. I’ve been posting here for close to three years now and I’ve been following the new rules long before they were promulgated.
You‘re registered “Christian”. The Board rules prohibit you (because you don’t affirm the Trinity) from speaking with anyone about the Trinity. You’re doing it anyway.
***
Now I’ll answer your question, within the boundaries imposed upon me by the rules and by my conscience.
I’ll ask myself and answer two questions to show you the logic behind my answer to your question:
Is the Trinity only one God? Or is the Trinity more than one God?
If the Trinity is only one God, then the Trinity is a form of monotheism. (It is not the strict unitarian monotheism of the Jews.)
If the Trinity is more than one God, then the Trinity is not a form of monotheism. (If the Trinity is more than one God then the Trinity is polytheism.)
Trinitarianism is crystal clear and unequivocal in its teaching that the Trinity is only one God.
I was taught historical orthodox trinitarianism in college (not in the trinitarian church I was raised in) and I taught historical orthodox trinitarianism to trinitarian and non-trinitarian college students. I also taught it in churches which affirm the Trinity and in churches which reject the Trinity. It would have been a disservice to those whom I taught to have taught them that the Trinity isn’t a form of monotheism when trinitarianism teaches that it is.
If you decide to say anything more about the Trinity, you‘re knowingly, willingly and willfully choosing to continue violating the Board rules.
You’re welcome (by me) to say whatever you want about me. I care about making personal attacks against others. I couldn’t care less about others making personal attacks against me. I prefer to know what others really think about me and about Jewish monotheism. I use the latter to my advantage.
Last edited:
OH... SORRY
Does the board recognize 1st century believers as Christians?
Because Tertullian writing around the year 200 AD to a friend of his called Praxeas states:
Chap. III. vv. 1. "The majority of believers, are STARTLED at the Dispensation (of the Three in One)...
They are constantly throwing out against us that we are preachers of two gods and three gods...
While the Greeks actually REFUSE to understand the oikonomia, or Dispensation" (of the Three in One)."
This is an incredible statement. Tertullian himself states that the majority of believers are startled when he tells them of the dispensation of the three in one. Why are believers startled at this teaching if it is supposed to be the core of Christianity from the beginning? Because it was not! This is why they are startled. The Greeks (Greek Christians) refused to accept this idea at all and accused him of worshipping two and three gods. Why would they refuse to accept their own Christian Doctrine of the Trinity? Because it was not part of Christianity until the year 381 AD.
If So, I would like to change my registered status to a "First Century Christian" one that is startled at what the Tertullian and others were imposing and.... still took hundreds of years to be actually established.
I’m a 1st century believer living in the 21st century. The Board administration / moderating team is willing now, and always has been, to recognize me as Christian.
The only option the Administrator has offered for you (and others like you who insist on speaking here against trinitarian orthodoxy) is to change your registration to “Other Faith”. So far as I’m aware, no one has chosen that option since it was offered on February 25, 2025.
You should consider it. Count the cost. You’re just begging to be banned otherwise.
Last edited:
I have no problem standing before the judgment seat of Christ... and giving witness to those who go against Jesus the Christ. Given that the Trinity is not spoken of in any of the books of our Bible. Those whom choose to ban will have to answer to Jesus for my ban! I will Testify against them!
Mat 5:21 "You have heard that the ancients were told, 'YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER' and 'Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.' 22 But I say to you that anyone who is angry with a brother will be subjected to judgment. And whoever insults a brother will be brought before the council, and whoever says 'Fool' will be sent to fiery hell.
Many who murdered fellow Christans in the name of the Trinity.... will be sent to fiery hell! Right Calvin... ?
Google what he did.... and know there are many who hate here and are going.... to meet him!
Jesus told us to count the cost... I would rather be banned than be thrown into Hell for the rejection of my God and His chosen one!
Don't sell out to Satan.... Let them ban and burn... It's all up to God... not Men!
Luk 12:5 "But I will warn you whom to fear: fear the One who, after He has killed, has authority to cast into hell; yes, I tell you, fear Him!
You see... The Bible is clear... Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ (anointed one of God) ...
Act 16:30 and after he brought them out, he said, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" They said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household."
I don't see any Trinity here...
Joh 17:3 "This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.
Webster 1828 Dictionary...
And
AND, conj.
And is a conjunction, connective or conjoining word. It signifies that a word or part of a sentence is to be added to what precedes. Thus, give me an apple and an orange; that is, give me an apple, add or give in addition to that, an orange. John and Peter and James rode to New York, that is, John rode to New York; add or further, Peter rode to New York; add James rode to New York.
I don't see any Trinity here either...
Who do you and the Mods here worship?
If we may let our Lord and King have the final word. Jesus plainly states, "the true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be his worshipers. God is spirit; and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth" (John 4:23-24). Who does Jesus declare are the "true worshipers"? He insists, "the true worshipers shall worship the Father…" If we would be amongst the true worshipers we must be with Jesus worshiping this Father. Evidently, those who worship "God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost, three persons in one God," Are not said by Jesus to be the true worshippers. Those who worship the Father as the "only true God" are. The worshipper of the One God, the Father, as Jesus’ own affirmation that he is the true worshipper.
On the authority of Jesus himself we know that the categories of "flesh" and "spirit" are never to be confused or intermingled, though the course of God's Spirit can impact our world. Jesus said, "That which is born of flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is Spirit" (John 3:6). And "God is Spirit." The doctrine of the incarnation confuses these categories. What God has separated man has joined together! One of the charges that the apostle Paul levels at simple man is that we have "exchange the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man" (Romans 1:23). Has it ever dawned on you as you sit in church listening to how the glorious Creator made Himself into a man that you could be guilty of this very same thing? The doctrine of the incarnation has reduced the incorruptible God to our own corruptible image. We are made in God's image, not the other way around. It would be more appropriate to put this contrast in starker terms. The defining characteristic of the Creator God is his absolute holiness. God is utterly different from and so utterly transcendent over His creation that any confusion is forbidden!
I'm ready and willing to give Testimony against... those who hate the children of God for rejecting the traditions of men... Trinity... a belief not even spoken of in Scriptures !
You should ask one of them. You’re blatantly, knowingly, willfully and willingly violating their rules.
No my friend... it is them who are blatantly, knowingly, willfully and willingly violating GOD's rules to love your enemy! Even though I'm not their enemy... It's just their perception... I'm trying to save them!
You see my friend... I have been banned by so many... so called Christian sites ... that I'm actually surprised that I lasted this long...
There was one site Theology Online... Many many many years ago... I actually converted a few Jews to Christ by speaking the truth about the Trinity... It was allowed even though they disagreed... then after many years... new Moderators came on staff... Trinitarians like Calvin of old... They never banned me because I was so popular... but removed all my post. Years of post deleted by new mods... whom disagreed! Post that saved many Jewish souls...
So... I turned into a type of Jesus at the Temple... I spank the money launders... Read my post.... and you can see the same passion... It's not always pretty... but it's truth!
I will testify against them at the Judgement seat of Our Christ! One of us will be weeping and gnashing of teeth....
The question is... will it be the one whom supports a belief in a system not in scripture... or the one whom showed the God of Jesus...
Matthias... they are so blind... they don't even see the beginning of the Body of Christ... The day the Holy Spirit came upon the Church...
on the Day of Pentecost... The very first words out of Peter's mouth...
Act 2:22 "Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know--
The very God who raised Him from the dead... Act 2:32 "This Jesus God raised up again, to which we are all witnesses. His Servant... Act 3:26 "For you first, God raised up His Servant and sent Him to bless you by turning every one of you from your wicked ways."
I could go on and on.... but why.... the blind can not see.... God is not a Servant!
Someone here needs to get updated.....
Attention All members of CyB,
The team has decided to allow discussion on the Trinity to be opened again as from today. We are a Trinity-believing forum, so be aware that we will be monitoring closely to ensure that discussions on the Trinity are not turning into a position where God is not glorified.
Angelina
Admin.
Policy Change - Topics On The Trinity Can Now Be Discussed at CyB
grace and peace!
Attention All members of CyB,
The team has decided to allow discussion on the Trinity to be opened again as from today. We are a Trinity-believing forum, so be aware that we will be monitoring closely to ensure that discussions on the Trinity are not turning into a position where God is not glorified.
Angelina
Admin.
Policy Change - Topics On The Trinity Can Now Be Discussed at CyB
grace and peace!
It’s been far too long since the one and only verse in the OP (Jude 1:25) has been discussed.
”25. Monos theos, ‘to the only God.’ That the God of Israel was the only true God was the distinctive Jewish religious confession, and monos (‘only’) was therefore frequently applied to God in Jewish confessional (2 Macc 7:37; 4 Macc 5:24) and liturgical (LXX 4 Kgdms 19:15,19; Neh. 9:6; Pss 82:19; 85:10; Dan. 3:45; 1 Esd 8:25; 2 Macc 1:24-25; cf. 4QDibHam 5:8-9; Apoc. Abr. 17) contexts … Primitive Christianity continued this usage (John 5:44; 17:3; Rev 15:4) ..., and it is not surprising to find monos theos (‘the only God’) in several doxologies, probably following Jewish models (Rom 16:27; 1 Tim 1:17; 2 Clem 20:5; cf. 1 Esd 8:25; 1 Tim 6:15-16; 1 Clem 43:6.”
(Richard J. Bauckham, Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 50, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 123)
What Jude wrote is precisely what a Jewish monotheist who believes Jesus of Nazareth (himself a Jewish monotheist) is the Messiah and savior would write. This is primitive Christianity, not later Nicene Christianity.
Staying with the all-important constraints of history, Jude himself knew nothing about Nicene Christianity.
Bauckham refers frequently to Charles Bigg in his commentary on Jude and 2 Peter. Dr. Bigg is the trinitarian author on 1 Peter in the International Critical Commentary.
Dr. Bigg writes in his commentary -
“We are not to suppose that the apostles identified Christ with Jehovah; there were passages which made this impossible, for instance, Ps. CX.1 …”
(Charles Bigg, International Critical Commentary, 1 Peter, p. 99)
This is the constraint of primitive Christianity. Nicene Christianity is under no such constraint; the point made by the trinitarian scholar A.E. Harvey. (See post #620 in this thread.)
Dr. Bigg writes in his commentary -
“We are not to suppose that the apostles identified Christ with Jehovah; there were passages which made this impossible, for instance, Ps. CX.1 …”
(Charles Bigg, International Critical Commentary, 1 Peter, p. 99)
The International Critical Commentary Complete : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
The complete Public Domain commentaries of the International Critical Commentary (ICC)
archive.org
This is the constraint of primitive Christianity. Nicene Christianity is under no such constraint; the point made by the trinitarian scholar A.E. Harvey. (See post #620 in this thread.)
I remember one of my trinitarian college professors using the phrase “It was beyond their frame of reference.” He was speaking about a particular doctrine (not the doctrine of the Trinity) in my class on Early Church Fathers, but I think it applies here.
Why, for example, would Tertullian say that there was a time when the Son did not exist with the Father when trinitarianism explicitly repudiates and anathematizes that idea? Nicene Christianity was “beyond Tertullian’s frame of reference”. Nicene Christianity didn’t exist, wasn’t known, in his lifetime.
Why, for example, would Tertullian say that there was a time when the Son did not exist with the Father when trinitarianism explicitly repudiates and anathematizes that idea? Nicene Christianity was “beyond Tertullian’s frame of reference”. Nicene Christianity didn’t exist, wasn’t known, in his lifetime.
Similar threads
