CadyandZoe
Well-Known Member
Yes, I understand. My point is to disagree with our current lexicons on this issue, taking my cues from Paul's argument instead.
Understanding the GodHead.
- Thread starter Hobie
- 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!
- Status
Brakelite
Well-Known Member
I agree. That's trinitarianism certainly. You forget however I'm not Trinitarian. But I absolutely believe the Son of God is not just a title, and a metaphorical concept denying reality.
The gospel of John and his 2 first letters were written to counter beliefs such as the trinity and your own.
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
If you don't understand it, no responsible person has any business advocating it as true.
"In some way" like I showed with building a house planned for children that don't exist yet. Being the first born of all creation does not make one God.
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
Every trinitarian advocates a "half-and-half" Christology by implication. Pick 1:
- If Jesus died, he's not God.
- If he's God who cannot die, our sins have not been paid, meaning there is no salvation for our sinful nature.
You definitely need to explain further. Jesus had a human body, but not a human soul and spirit. Think of Jesus like he was in the OT when he appeared to many people, it is called a Christophony. Jesus had a human body but was still deity. Same in the NT.
Lambano
Well-Known Member
That would be the reason, which would require an accusative case on the pronoun. The text uses the genitive case, indicating instrumentality. The text says what it says.
I'm okay with tossing out the presumption of textual inerrancy too.
Lambano
Well-Known Member
Hmmm. Who was it who was screaming "False dichotomy"?
Whatever it is that Jesus was and is, He both died on a Roman cross in 30 A.D. outside of Jerusalem, and He was present at and instrumental in Creation. And the fullness of deity was pleased to dwell in Him. That's what the text literally says.
If you think John and Paul made a mistake in writing what they wrote, I'm okay with that. Just be honest and come right out and say so.
If you want to argue for a non-literal interpretation, say, "I would argue for a non-literal interpretation", and say why.
Last edited:
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
The Law of Mutual Exclusivity established true dichotomies.
Again, side stepping the point I call this back door rationalization to support what is contrary to Scripture. Jesus teaches the Father is the only true God. Do you believe what Jesus taught?
Lambano
Well-Known Member
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
Not at all. The Bible is 100% written by Unitarian Jews who reject the trinity to this day (Luke being lone possible exception). I reject the trinitarian eisegesis of reading into what John and Paul wrote a trinitarian take when Unitarian interpretations are valid.
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
Proper doctrine does not pivot in non-literal interpretation. EVENIF Jesus was literally there at the beginning, he remains the literal first born of all creation and not the God who begat him.
Once again, this relies on the humanist logic of "three cannot be one", a defense against the trinity based entirely, exclusively, on the human believe that such a thing simply cannot be.
Yes, we believe Jesus' word, the Father is the only true God, as is Jesus, as is the Holy Spirit. The Bible shows each to be God, and shows there is one God, and we believe these things to be true, accepting that the transcendance of God is not necessarily apprehendend by the mind of mortal man.
Much love!
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
There is only logic. Jesus said the father is the only true God, which necessarily means the trinitarian god is false. You just don’t want to believe Jesus.
Then you become the arbiter of truth, as only what make sense to you can be true.
As for my motives, and what I want, you overstep yourself, and speak of things you are not qualified to address.
Much love!
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
Yea right! Jesus said the Father is the only true God. You rationalize Jesus did not speak an understandable truth.
Keiw
Well-Known Member
100% undeniable fact of the godhead=recorded history-The holy spirit was added to a godhead for the very first time in 381 ce at the council of Constantinople. No god head was taught at the prior councils. They were trying to think of ways to say Jesus was God at the prior councils but not the holy spirit until 381 ce. That means 100% true that the true God was still being served prior to 381 ce=YHVH(Jehovah) the Abrahamic God= a single being God.
Runningman
Active Member
The Father is stated to be a distinct individual from the Son in Trinitarian thought. In Trinitarian thought, each of the three are God, yet not three Gods, but one God. While these sorts of statements can be found in creeds, they cannot be found in the Bible.
A statement contrary to the creeds is "You (Father) are the only true God." I believe Jesus either meant what he said in clear and certain terms or the Bible is unknowable to the common person and must be re-interpreted by gatekeepers who distribute the truth as they see it to others. That has already been tried before and the result was not good.
On the other hand, if the Bible is a book anyone can pick up, read, and understand then we must accept words have the meaning they do or we would not be able to communicate with each other, which is probably a separate issue in some cases. We may also reach a point where we need to discuss the words of the original Greek text and if they mean what they say they do or if Jesus was speaking about a specific context in which the Father is the only true God.
In this case, the word for "only" does appear in the Greek of John 17:3 and it refers to exclusive deity. Following Trinitarian thought, the Father and Son are not the same individual so it cannot be true for the Father and Son at the same time that they are each exclusively God, contrary to what John 17:3 says.
If there is a specific context in which the Father is the only true God, then one may imply that the Father is not the only true God in a universal sense and thus would diminish the glory/deity of the Father and we would be back to a language issue again.
We can try different approaches as well. I believe we can automatically rule out Jesus making a conditional statement in which the Father is the only true God because of X. This would place a condition on the Father in which he would only be God if conditions were met and imply he isn't God is said condition is met. So this can't be a conditional statement either.
By process of elimination, since there isn't a specific contextual, conditional, or language issue in John 17:3 then I conclude that Jesus ruled himself out of being God. I believe we should make every attempt to try to understand the Bible around these kind of rare and unambiguous statements. Paul repeated the same idea in 1 Cor. 8:6 and Eph. 4:6.
Taken
Well-Known Member
Understanding the GodHead.
Inanutshell;
Godhead;
Omnipresent - aware of Everything
Omnipotent - power above Everything
Omniscient - knows Everything
Godhead;
Has;
Numerous Names, Titles, Descriptions
that which He IS His own God;
that which Counsels within Himself;
that which Establishes His Desire;
that which Works for His Benefit;
that which Accomplishes His Works;
that which Offers His Creations ”His Order and His Way”;
For His Creations To Freely Choose, Take, Possess, Have the Option;
To BE WITH or WITHOUT Him For Ever
Glory to God,
Taken
CadyandZoe
Well-Known Member
You raise a good example. Let me ask you this. If you found the Trinity Doctrine to be incorrect, would you still believe in the existence of Christophanies in the Old Testament? Or does your belief in Christophanies rely on your belief in the Trinity?
My basic point is this. Once I abandoned the Trinity Doctrine, I discovered a lot more about Jesus.
- Status
Similar threads
