Yes, that is a form of modalism for sure. This mindset of using analogies for the nature of God and his Son becomes clearer every year I live that it's a sign of sheer desperation; and they get very creative. Holding on to a paradigm that cannot bind our maker, and those indulging in it are usually ever-so proud to present one. They attempt to explain it/them, these analogies, in more detail than verses of scripture they chuck out and list in volumes...quite amazing.
God begets God?
- 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!
I’ve taken a peaceful attitude (Romans 12:18) toward them on the forum; publicly with all and privately with administrators and moderators who have contacted me.
The end here may still be the same for both of us.
When true trinitarians turn a blind eye to it they are sending a message about its importance, or rather its unimportance.
I wouldn’t send that message if I were a trinitarian. When I speak as a Jewish monotheist standing in their shoes, I don’t. The contrast between trinitarianism and Jewish monotheism isn’t readily apparent when trinitarianism isn’t properly represented. If / when trinitarians don’t properly represent it, I do it for them.
A prime example: trinitarianism teaches us that Jesus of Nazareth is not a human person. It has been my experience that about 80% of trinitarians don’t know this. It’s an essential element of the doctrine of the Trinity. The doctrine cannot stand without it.
When trinitarians can’t or won’t present it, I will present it for them.
In doing so, am I trying to persuade readers to become trinitarians?
No. I’m educating them and then asking them to make an informed decision. Most will continue to believe what they already do, contrary to what the details of the doctrine demand. (They are trinitarian in name only.) Some will choose to embrace the details of the doctrine. (They truly become trinitarian.) Then there are the others. (They aren’t truly trinitarians and, having become aware of it, are open minded and receptive to the possibility of believing something else.)
Yes, we cannot have 4 natures and beings in one supreme god - 3 divine and 1 human! That would ruin the Trinity paradigm indeed and make it a Quadrinity!
I see that you tact of presenting that Jesus was actually a real human being to a possible impressionable audience is laudable. Keep at it.
And for Binitarians, they are really Trinitarians in drag....
Last edited:
It’s very easy to understand why Jesus cannot be a human person in trinitarian theology. (Philip Schaff explains it succinctly in his History of the Christian Church.) I quote their own theologians to them, which is something their clergy should do for them.
The most common reaction I receive from trinitarians when I present their teaching to them is “rocky”.
“Do you know that trinitarianism teaches us that Jesus isn’t a human person?” - me
“You’re a liar!” - them
“Jesus is a human person” is a denial of trinitarian doctrine. It should cause them to raise their eyebrows, but it seldom does. They shouldn’t disagree with trinitarian teaching but they do. Why? They haven’t been properly taught the doctrine by their clergy.
The average trinitarian I meet at this level of conversation believes Jesus is a human person. They have to be confronted with the fact that in order to believe trinitarian theology they cannot believe he is a human person. The two ideas are incompatible. The doctrine of the hypostatic union, which trinitarians tout, requires rejection of the non-trinitarian teaching that Jesus is a human person.
Their theologians, clergy, and scholars know that what I’m saying about the subject is true. The average trinitarian typically doesn’t. (I do, however, encounter trinitarian lay person from time to time who do know. Interestingly, they rarely choose to back me up when I teach what they know is correct about the details of their doctrine. The reasons for that vary. Their silence sends a message that they shouldn’t be sending. See above.)
I do love irony. A Jewish monotheist properly teaching the details of trinitarian doctrine is ironic, but someone has to do it.
In regard to analogies, I offer the following, written by a trinitarian, for consideration by trinitarians and non-trinitarians.
“Don’t use them. Any of them. Ever.”
"The Trinity is Like 3-in-1 Shampoo". . . And Other Stupid Statements - Credo House Ministries
Alternate title: “Trinitarian Heresy 101” “The doctrine of the Trinity is like an egg: three parts, one thing.” Ever heard that? How about this, “The doctrine of the Trinity is like a three leaf clover: three leaves, one clover.” Or how about THIS, “The doctrine of the Trinity is like water...credohouse.org
When I was a college student my professors insisted that students must never use analogies for the Trinity. The reason is a simple one -> there is nothing analogous to the Trinity in nature. Every attempt to use an analogy, even if the attempt is sincere, always ends badly.
Trinitarian or non-trinitarian, please don’t use analogies for the Trinity. Trinitarians do it out of ignorance; non-trinitarian either out of ignorance or with intentional malice. They aren’t helpful. Ever.
I mentioned the Trinity this afternoon. X / Twitter promptly had something for me in my “For you” feed -
“I teach a class at a Christian school. Today, my students took a test on what they’ve learned about the Trinity. Here’s one of the questions I put on the test (yes, I’d showed them the video):
13. Which of these analogies is true about the Trinity?
A. The Trinity is like how water can be a liquid, a solid, or a vapor.
B. The Trinity is like a 3-leaf clover; the Father, Son and Spirit are all part of one God.
C. The Trinity is like the sun, where you have the star and the light and the heat.
D. These are all bad analogies.”
(Pastor Gabriel Hughes)
Well done, pastor. Education is key. This should be widely taught, to trinitarians and non-trinitarians alike. I hope for their sakes that all of his students answered the question correctly. (See the correct answer below.)
What X / Twitter suggested for me, isn’t for my education. I’m delighted to use it though for the education of others.
What is the correct answer to the test question?
The correct answer is D.
And what was the video he mentioned he had shown to his students?
Behold
Well-Known Member
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God" ("And the Word was God")>
So, how is "the Word, WITH God.......and also.......WAS God".. ????
A.) "Let US...... make man ........in OUR... image".
AA.) "US... and OUR">.. = "The Word was WITH God.......and = WAS God"..
So, this is The Father and the Jesus the WORD.. = pre-incarnate".
See those 2? That is "US>.. and OUR"... as ONE.
Next..
"The WORD.... ... (who Was God)... was manifested in the FLESH".... as the virgin born : JESUS... the "God-man".
So, how is "the Word, WITH God.......and also.......WAS God".. ????
A.) "Let US...... make man ........in OUR... image".
AA.) "US... and OUR">.. = "The Word was WITH God.......and = WAS God"..
So, this is The Father and the Jesus the WORD.. = pre-incarnate".
See those 2? That is "US>.. and OUR"... as ONE.
Next..
"The WORD.... ... (who Was God)... was manifested in the FLESH".... as the virgin born : JESUS... the "God-man".
Behold
Well-Known Member
The NT cannot be explained by Christ rejecting Jews, Unbelievers, or the Encyclopedia Britannica or Google Search, or Wikipedia.
The NT can only be revealed by the Spirit of God through a revealer who has the Spirit of God, and it can only be discerned by a Born again Christian.
I didn’t direct your attention to any of those things. I directed your attention to Jewish monotheism.
The author of John is, like the Messiah himself, a Jewish monotheist.
Last edited:
Behold
Well-Known Member
And i directed your attention to the fact that A Jew who not born again, has no ability to correctly define John 1, or 2 Tim 3:16 or 1 Tim 3:16... or John 8:58.
They will not be able to comprehend or grasp why Thomas the Apostle knelt before the Risen Messiah and said. 'my Lord and my God"
Fiction.
Guess again.
The author of the prologue is born again.
No. It’s a fact, which can be quickly and easily confirmed by consulting trinitarian sources - Catholic and Protestant. (Which is what I’ve done repeatedly.)
I’m not guessing. I’m very well-read on the subject of early church history.
Last edited:
Behold
Well-Known Member
Well, then... if this is true, then he has the capacity within him, to understand the Trinity.
However, and i didnt read the "prologue"... it seems that he is more interested in the Hebrew alternative narrative.
Nothing new.
The NT does not agree.
But you are not using the NT to try to justify your disregard of the concept of Jesus as "God manifested in the Flesh".
1 Timothy 3:16..(KJV).
So, "outside sources", are meaningless, as there is only one true source, and that is the NT itself.
"but the scholars say......but the church historians think".......
A.) = Fail.
If this is true? Why would anyone doubt that an apostle is born again?
He isn’t a trinitarian. He’s a 1st century Jewish monotheist.
Your post #188 began with the first verse of the prologue. Why didn’t you read the prologue?
That’s the only frame of reference for a 1st century Jewish monotheist.
Church history and trinitarian scholarship documents and demonstrates that it does.
“He who” (see NET and many others) was manifested in the flesh is a human person - Jesus of Nazareth, the Messiah, Son of the living God. He is the incarnation of God’s logos.
I’m drawing upon church history - biblical and post-biblical - and using trinitarian scholarship to support my position. You disagree with them, but they aren’t meaningless.
I’m pro trinitarian scholarship and pro church history. You’re not.
I’m grounded in the constraints of history. You aren’t.
Behold
Well-Known Member
Let me make sure im understanding you.
You are saying that JOHN< who wrote the Gospel of John and 1-3 John, is a "mono" Theist.
And this is the same who stated that the "Word was God", and we read that "the WORD became Flesh, and dwelt among us".
So, if "The Word was God and The WORD was with God"... (KJV) ..according to John, and if this is referring to GOD.....Himself... then when "God was Manifested in the Flesh"... as "The WORD became Flesh, and dwelt among us".. then according to "mono" theism... God just left Heaven, and became a Man, so, I guess God's Throne, was empty for 33+ Years while He was down here.
But lets look at it another way.
We see that JOHN, the Apostle, has credited/explained that = "the Word was God"... "and The Word was WITH God". ... John 1 (KJV)
Now i'll ask you a question, and then i'll answer it here for the readers, and this way, we can end our discussion.
Now... Do YOU believe that GOD, made the world. ???
And im talking about the spinning Green Globe that you are standing on that is Traveling around the Sun.
And you will say....>>"Yes God made the world".... (if your thinking is correct.)
So, if GOD made the world (the Earth)... then notice another verse that John Wrote in the same Gospel were He Identified "The Word was God, and was WITH God'... (John 1).
Look at John 1:10........10 verses later... = after John said.. "was God and was with God". (KJV)
John says, in verse 10.......that : """""Jesus was in the world and the World was MADE... BY... HIM.."""" (KJV).
""""MADE... by HIM""""">...... So, Who is that? = that is the one who "MADE the WORLD".
And John identifies "HIM" by name as : "JESUS">. = "who made the WORLD".
So, we see that the one who "made the world" .... = "WAS God, and was with God"...= John 1
This is the Apostle JOHN who teaches that """Jesus made the WORLD"""".. and he should know.
Last edited:
John isn’t just a monotheist. John is a Jewish monotheist, just like the Messiah himself is.
For the prologue of John’s Gospel, see the Geneva Bible (and others which translate it in the same manner.)
GENEVA BIBLE 1599
Geneva Bible 1599 Online Breeches Bible Geneva Only Tyndale Reformation Bible king james bible geneva study bible bibles bible old bible new bible geneva bible pilgrims bible king james bible online geneva bible
www.genevabible.org
Behold
Well-Known Member
Here is Jesus "Pre-incarnate".. and God, in the same verse, written by John.
1.) "Let US.......make man..........in OUR Image"
"US and OUR" = Plural......(2)
Now, John then says.....10 verse later... same Chapter........"Jesus was in the world, and the WORLD was MADE ... by Him"
'" The world was MADE......by HIM">........... and who is "Him" in the verse. ??????
A.) JESUS
AA.) Jesus made the world........when He was in Heaven as "the Word".....before He was virgin born.
So, when we read that "God said......let there BE"........then that is the "WORD who is doing that"..., as "JESUS is the WORD made Flesh".
Last edited:
I directed your attention to the Geneva Bible, and provided a link for your convenience.
No matter the translation, John and Jesus are both Jewish monotheists.
Similar threads
