Exploring Trinitarian Logic

[face2face]

The statement in the Didache, when considered in context, effectively highlights the limited scope of the "agency" principle. @Wrangler @APAK – it should be so straightforward for those who hold to the Trinitarian view to grasp the concept of agency, yet I’ve never once heard them mention it. It’s almost as if their terminology is conditioned by Trinitarian influences, and anything outside of that framework is simply not considered.

 

[face2face]

If @RedFan @ProDeo are honest Christians, they will admit #2300 is true and correct.

How can Trinitarianism be the doctrine once preached by the apostles, whom the Holy Spirit would “lead into all truth” (John 16:13)? It bears no resemblance to their preaching in the book of Acts, or the doctrinal statements in their epistles to fellow Christians. It is absent from the earliest extra‐Biblical writings (e.g. the Didache) and the works of the first‐century church fathers (e.g. Papias and Polycarp). It is contrary to reason, antagonistic to Scripture, and undermined by the record of history.

I’m sorry, Redfan, but if that’s the extent of your pushback, then our Unitarian faith remains sound and secure!

F2F

 

[face2face]

@Wrangler @APAK

Matthew 28:19

This verse is unquestionably a genuine part of Scripture, and all attempts to dismiss it (including those by Trinitarians, most notably F. C. Conybeare https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAChristian/comments/vq28rp ) have failed.

In cases of interpolation, it’s often possible to identify the fraud by referencing alternative texts in different regions or branches of the early Christian community, as interpolations tend to be localized rather than widespread. However, the threefold phrase (“in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit”) consistently appears across a wide range of Christian communities with virtually no variation. We see it in the Didache (1st Century), the writings of Ignatius (2nd Century), Tertullian (3rd Century), Hippolytus (2nd–3rd Century), Cyprian (3rd Century), and Gregory Thaumaturgus (3rd Century), to name a few. This stands in favorable comparison to other passages of Scripture that are known to be valid, even when less extra-biblical evidence exists.

The frequent appearance of this text in such a diverse range of writings and in a consistent form strongly argues against interpolation. While some argue that the baptismal formula in Acts (“in the name of Jesus Christ”) contradicts Matthew’s, it seems more likely that Acts simply offers a shorthand version that had become common by that time. If the Matthean formula were a Christological statement intended to describe the ontological relationships within the Trinity, we would expect it to be repeated throughout the New Testament, but it is not.

That said, some non-Trinitarians still feel uneasy with Matthew 28:19, especially if they have transitioned from mainstream church teachings, where the Trinity is routinely assumed and read into the text without regard for evidence or context. However, this concern is misplaced because this verse doesn’t suggest anything inherently Trinitarian, either explicitly or implicitly. Even J. P. Holding (in his work Is Matthew 28:19 an Interpolation?) does not consider this verse useful for Trinitarian defense, despite being a staunch Trinitarian himself:

"I would begin by noting that our own study of the Trinity makes absolutely no use of Matthew 28:19. This verse is not particularly useful for Trinitarian defense, as it could theoretically support any view—modalism or even tritheism could be derived from it, for it only lists the members of the Godhead without offering any explanation of their exact relationship."

Thus, arguments about the authenticity of Matthew 28:19 don’t serve much of a purpose in this debate. However, we’ve been asked to address these arguments, so here is my response. Bourke 2010

 

[Johann]

Thus, arguments about the authenticity of Matthew 28:19 don’t serve much of a purpose in this debate. However, we’ve been asked to address these arguments, so here is my response. Bourke 2010

Secularism, humanism, and Gnosticism have infiltrated everywhere-I do not rely on your word but appeal to my Father, Christ Jesus, the Holy Spirit and the Scriptures.


THE TRINITY

Notice the activity of all three Persons of the Trinity in unified contexts. The term "trinity," first coined by Tertullian (A.D. 160-220), is not a biblical word, but the concept is pervasive.

In the NT
the Gospels
Matt. 3:16-17; 28:19 (and parallels)
John 14:16,26; 15:26; 16:7-10
Acts ‒ Acts 2:32-33, 38-39
Paul
Rom. 1:4-5; 5:1,5; 8:1-4,8-10
1 Cor. 2:8-10; 12:4-6
2 Cor. 1:21-22; 13:14
Gal. 4:4-6
Eph. 1:3-14,17; 2:18; 3:14-17; 4:4-6
1 Thess. 1:2-5
2 Thess. 2:13
Titus 3:4-6
Peter ‒ 1 Pet. 1:2
John ‒ 1 John 3:23-24; 4:13-14; 5:6-8
Jude ‒ vv. 20-21

A plurality in God is hinted at in the OT.
Use of PLURALS for God
Name Elohim is PLURAL (see SPECIAL TOPIC: NAMES FOR DEITY, C.), but when used of God always has a SINGULAR VERB
"Us" in Genesis 1:26-27 (see full notes online); 3:22; 11:7; Isa. 6:8
"One" in the Shema (BDB 1033) of Deut. 6:4 can be PLURAL (as it is in Gen. 2:24; Ezek. 37:17; SPECIAL TOPIC: SHEMA)
"The Angel of the Lord" (see SPECIAL TOPIC: The Angel of the Lord) was a visible representative of Deity
Genesis 16:7-13; 22:11-15; 31:11,13; 48:15-16
Exodus 3:2,4; 13:21; 14:19
Judges 2:1; 6:22-23; 13:3-22
Zechariah 3:1-2
God and His Spirit are separate, Gen. 1:1-2; Ps. 104:30; Isa. 63:9-11; Ezek. 37:13-14
God (YHWH) and Messiah (Adon) are separate, Ps. 45:6-7; 110:1; Zech. 2:8-11; 10:9-12
The Messiah and the Spirit are separate, Zech. 12:10
All three are mentioned in one context in Isa. 48:16 and 61:1

The Deity of Jesus (see (see SPECIAL TOPIC: THE DEITY OF CHRIST FROM THE OT, and the NT verses: John 1:1-2; 5:18; 8:58; 10:30; 14:9; 17:11; 20:28; Rom. 9:5; Phil. 2:6; Titus 2:13; Heb. 1:8; 2 Pet. 1:1) and the personality of the Spirit (see SPECIAL TOPIC: PERSONHOOD OF THE SPIRIT) caused problems for the strict, monotheistic (see SPECIAL TOPIC: MONOTHEISM) early Jewish believers.
Tertullian ‒ subordinated the Son to the Father
Origen ‒ subordinated the divine essence of the Son and the Spirit
Arius ‒ denied Deity to the Son and Spirit
Monarchianism ‒ believed in a successive chronological manifestation of the one God in the persons of Father, then Son, and then Spirit

The Trinity is a historically developed formulation informed by the biblical material.
the full Deity of Jesus, equal to the Father, was affirmed in A.D. 325 by the Council of Nicea (cf. John 1:1; Phil. 2:6; Titus 2:13)
the full personality and Deity of the Spirit equal to the Father and Son was affirmed in A.D. 381 by the Council of Constantinople
the doctrine of the Trinity is fully expressed in Augustine's work De Trinitate. There is truly mystery here. But the NT affirms one eternal divine essence (monotheism) with three eternal personal manifestations (Father, Son, and Spirit).
For more information on the developed doctrinal understanding of the Trinity or Tri-Unity of God, see

Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 2nd ed., chapter 16, "God's Three-in-Oneness: The Trinity," pp. 340-367.
Hard Sayings of the Bible, John 1:1; "One God or Three?", pp. 490-492
SPECIAL TOPIC: THE TRINITY

J.

 

[face2face]

@RedFan @Wrangler @ProDeo @APAK

Ephesians 4:4-6 states, “There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.”

Christians from the post-biblical era used similar language to express the same theology. The Didache, a church manual from the late first century, outlines key beliefs such as salvation by grace, repentance, baptism, the Eucharist, the identity of Jesus Christ, the Second Coming, and the resurrection of the dead. These teachings are supported by numerous quotations from the New Testament, indicating that the apostolic writings were widely circulated and considered the standard of orthodoxy. However, there is no mention of three persons in the Godhead, nor any suggestion that Jesus is God. Bourke 2010

Of the 16 chapters in the Didache as follows:

• The Two Ways (Chapters 1-6): This portion outlines two paths for a Christian to follow—the way of life and the way of death. It provides ethical instructions, such as loving your neighbor, avoiding immorality, and practicing humility.
• Rituals (Chapters 7-10): This section discusses Christian rituals such as baptism, fasting, prayer, and the Eucharist. It includes guidelines on how baptism should be performed (preferably by immersion, but pouring is also acceptable) and how to fast and pray.
• Church Organization (Chapters 11-15): The Didache gives instructions on the roles of prophets, teachers, and bishops, as well as how to receive itinerant apostles or prophets and deal with false teachers. It also includes advice on the selection of bishops and deacons.
• The Coming of the Lord (Chapter 16): The final chapter speaks about the end times, the return of Christ, and the judgment.

What I have observed in many debates on the Trinity is that those advocating for the Trinity often attempt to remove historical context from the discussion. This is significant because Unitarian belief is strongly supported by historical evidence that consistently points to a singular, all-powerful God and His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. The historical context, including early Christian writings and teachings, emphasizes the distinct roles and relationships of the Father and the Son without the need for the Trinitarian framework.

Early Christian writings (such as those from the Didache, Ignatius, and others) present a more single view of God, which doesn't support the Trinitarian doctrine as it is taught today. By removing historical context helps avoid confronting these discrepancies and allows for the doctrine to be presented as if it were always understood in the same way it is today.

F2F

 

[face2face]

Secularism, humanism, and Gnosticism have infiltrated everywhere-I do not rely on your word but appeal to my Father, Christ Jesus, the Holy Spirit and the Scriptures.


THE TRINITY

Notice the activity of all three Persons of the Trinity in unified contexts. The term "trinity," first coined by Tertullian (A.D. 160-220), is not a biblical word, but the concept is pervasive.

In the NT
the Gospels
Matt. 3:16-17; 28:19 (and parallels)
John 14:16,26; 15:26; 16:7-10
Acts ‒ Acts 2:32-33, 38-39
Paul
Rom. 1:4-5; 5:1,5; 8:1-4,8-10
1 Cor. 2:8-10; 12:4-6
2 Cor. 1:21-22; 13:14
Gal. 4:4-6
Eph. 1:3-14,17; 2:18; 3:14-17; 4:4-6
1 Thess. 1:2-5
2 Thess. 2:13
Titus 3:4-6
Peter ‒ 1 Pet. 1:2
John ‒ 1 John 3:23-24; 4:13-14; 5:6-8
Jude ‒ vv. 20-21

A plurality in God is hinted at in the OT.
Use of PLURALS for God
Name Elohim is PLURAL (see SPECIAL TOPIC: NAMES FOR DEITY, C.), but when used of God always has a SINGULAR VERB
"Us" in Genesis 1:26-27 (see full notes online); 3:22; 11:7; Isa. 6:8
"One" in the Shema (BDB 1033) of Deut. 6:4 can be PLURAL (as it is in Gen. 2:24; Ezek. 37:17; SPECIAL TOPIC: SHEMA)
"The Angel of the Lord" (see SPECIAL TOPIC: The Angel of the Lord) was a visible representative of Deity
Genesis 16:7-13; 22:11-15; 31:11,13; 48:15-16
Exodus 3:2,4; 13:21; 14:19
Judges 2:1; 6:22-23; 13:3-22
Zechariah 3:1-2
God and His Spirit are separate, Gen. 1:1-2; Ps. 104:30; Isa. 63:9-11; Ezek. 37:13-14
God (YHWH) and Messiah (Adon) are separate, Ps. 45:6-7; 110:1; Zech. 2:8-11; 10:9-12
The Messiah and the Spirit are separate, Zech. 12:10
All three are mentioned in one context in Isa. 48:16 and 61:1

The Deity of Jesus (see (see SPECIAL TOPIC: THE DEITY OF CHRIST FROM THE OT, and the NT verses: John 1:1-2; 5:18; 8:58; 10:30; 14:9; 17:11; 20:28; Rom. 9:5; Phil. 2:6; Titus 2:13; Heb. 1:8; 2 Pet. 1:1) and the personality of the Spirit (see SPECIAL TOPIC: PERSONHOOD OF THE SPIRIT) caused problems for the strict, monotheistic (see SPECIAL TOPIC: MONOTHEISM) early Jewish believers.
Tertullian ‒ subordinated the Son to the Father
Origen ‒ subordinated the divine essence of the Son and the Spirit
Arius ‒ denied Deity to the Son and Spirit
Monarchianism ‒ believed in a successive chronological manifestation of the one God in the persons of Father, then Son, and then Spirit

The Trinity is a historically developed formulation informed by the biblical material.
the full Deity of Jesus, equal to the Father, was affirmed in A.D. 325 by the Council of Nicea (cf. John 1:1; Phil. 2:6; Titus 2:13)
the full personality and Deity of the Spirit equal to the Father and Son was affirmed in A.D. 381 by the Council of Constantinople
the doctrine of the Trinity is fully expressed in Augustine's work De Trinitate. There is truly mystery here. But the NT affirms one eternal divine essence (monotheism) with three eternal personal manifestations (Father, Son, and Spirit).
For more information on the developed doctrinal understanding of the Trinity or Tri-Unity of God, see

Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 2nd ed., chapter 16, "God's Three-in-Oneness: The Trinity," pp. 340-367.
Hard Sayings of the Bible, John 1:1; "One God or Three?", pp. 490-492
SPECIAL TOPIC: THE TRINITY

J.

Sorry Johann (said sincerely)

 

[ProDeo]

Another good question.....

Jesus was 100% human or he could not have provided the ransom price demanded....redemption was a well known law in Israel. It had to do with indebtedness and ability to pay. Jesus gave us an illustration to show us why we could never pay the debt of sin that Adam gave us, ourselves. (Matt 18:21-34)

In Israel, if a man got into debt and could not repay, he was pressed into service until the full amount was paid off.....sometimes it took many years. If he had a family to support, he could offer one of his children to service the debt, or if he had a wealthy friend or relative, they could provide the means to pay the debt and free the man from service.

I have explained how Jesus paid the ransom in my previous post, but the fact that Jesus was 100% human meant that he had free will and could well have blown his role as redeemer.....but why did God chose him.....the Father was 100% confident in his son’s love, not only for his Father but also for the human race whom he had had a part in creating. His love for God and man was stronger that satan’s ego and vanity. He could offer Jesus nothing that would sway him off course.

The son of God took on the role knowing full well the pitfalls, but in his sinlessness had no hooks for Satan to grab hold of. Jesus did not fall for the faulty thinking that had led satan astray. (James 1:14-15) This did not stop the devil from trying his best to derail the redeemer’s course.

Was God a gambler? Or was he just 100% confident that his precious son would undergo such suffering because he loved us as much as his Father did? (John 3:16)
Jesus knew in advance what was ahead of him, and as a human his strength was not unlimited. His resolve however was constantly boosted by his Father, providing angelic help when it was needed. (Matt 4:11; Luke 22:43; Matt 26:53)

Thanks @Aunty Jane and @face2face for both thoughtful posts.

I think it's obvious by now we are not going to agree, nevertheless we can give it a try on which points we agree when it's about the question -

Who is Jesus and what do we know about Him -

1. We know Jesus as only human He preexisted and knew His life with the Father when He was on Earth (John 17)
2. We know Jesus with the Father was involved in the creation story (Col 1)
3. We know Jesus is the Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end (Rev)

So, Jesus existed before creation, before humans were created.

So, who is He?

 

[face2face]

Thanks @Aunty Jane and @face2face for both thoughtful posts.

I think it's obvious by now we are not going to agree, nevertheless we can give it a try on which points we agree when it's about the question -

Who is Jesus and what do we know about Him -

1. We know Jesus as only human He preexisted and knew His life with the Father when He was on Earth (John 17)
2. We know Jesus with the Father was involved in the creation story (Col 1)
3. We know Jesus is the Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end (Rev)

So, Jesus existed before creation, before humans were created.

So, who is He?

1. We know Jesus as only human (The Word (Logos) became Flesh)
2. We know the Father Created the Physical with Christ the Spiritual Creation in Mind (Logos)
3. We know Jesus is the Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end (Rev) i.e
and the living one. I died, and behold I am alive forevermore Re 1:18.

F2F

 

[Johann]

Who is Jesus and what do we know about Him -

1. We know Jesus as only human He preexisted and knew His life with the Father when He was on Earth (John 17)
2. We know Jesus with the Father was involved in the creation story (Col 1)
3. We know Jesus is the Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end (Rev)

So, Jesus existed before creation, before humans were created.

So, who is He?

Who is Jesus?
Jesus is the eternal Son of God, the second person of the Trinity. He is fully divine and fully human, preexisting all creation and actively participating in it. The Scriptures reveal several profound truths about Him:

Preexistence and Relationship with the Father:
Jesus existed in glory with the Father before the foundation of the world (John 17:5). His prayer in John 17 shows His intimate relationship with the Father and His awareness of His divine identity even while on Earth.

Involvement in Creation:
As Paul writes in Colossians 1:16-17, "For by Him all things were created, in heaven and on earth... He is before all things, and in Him, all things hold together." This confirms that Jesus was active in creation and sustains it by His power.

The Alpha and Omega:
In Revelation 22:13, Jesus declares, "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End." This title signifies His eternal existence, sovereignty over history, and fulfillment of God’s purposes.

Summary:
Jesus is more than just a man or a historical figure. He is the eternal Word (Logos), who "became flesh and dwelt among us" (John 1:14).

He is God incarnate, the Creator, and the Redeemer, bridging humanity back to God through His life, death, and resurrection.

I sincerely pray you believe what stands written @ProDeo ans don't listen to "strange voices"

J.

 

[face2face]

I sincerely pray you believe what stands written @ProDeo ans don't listen to "strange voices"

As we have found that is how the Trinity began! The earliest records say it is so!

 

[Johann]

1. We know Jesus as only human (The Word (Logos) became Flesh)
2. We know the Father Created the Physical with Christ the Spiritual Creation in Mind (Logos)
3. We know Jesus is the Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end (Rev) i.e
and the living one. I died, and behold I am alive forevermore Re 1:18.

"We know Jesus as only human (The Word (Logos) became Flesh)"

This statement misunderstands the doctrine of the hypostatic union, which affirms that Jesus is both fully human and fully divine. When John 1:14 says, "The Word became flesh," it does not imply that the Word ceased to be divine. Instead, it teaches that the eternal Word (Logos), who was with God and was God (John 1:1), took on human nature.

Rebuttal:
John 10:30: Jesus states, "I and the Father are one," affirming His divine nature.

Colossians 2:9: "For in Him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily," showing that Jesus retained His divine essence even in His humanity.
Jesus is not "only human"; He is the God-man, fully divine and fully human in one person.

2. "We know the Father Created the Physical with Christ the Spiritual Creation in Mind (Logos)"

This point suggests a dualistic separation between physical creation and a "spiritual creation," which is not supported by Scripture.

The Bible explicitly teaches that Jesus, as the Logos, was the agent of all creation, both physical and spiritual.

Rebuttal:
Colossians 1:16: "For by Him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible... all things were created through Him and for Him."

Jesus was directly involved in the creation of both the physical and spiritual realms, not just the latter.

Hebrews 1:2: "Through whom [the Son] He also created the world," confirms Jesus' active role in creation.

This contradicts the idea of Jesus being merely the "spiritual creation in mind" and instead affirms Him as Creator alongside the Father.

3. "We know Jesus is the Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end (Rev) i.e., and the living one. I died, and behold I am alive forevermore Re 1:18."

While this statement rightly acknowledges Jesus as the Alpha and Omega and the living one who died and rose again, it must also recognize that these titles affirm His divine nature. Being "Alpha and Omega" (Revelation 22:13) is a title used for God alone, signifying eternal existence, sovereignty, and omnipotence.

Rebuttal:

Isaiah 44:6: "I am the first, and I am the last; besides me there is no god."

This title, applied to Jesus in Revelation, demonstrates His equality with the Father in divinity.

Jesus’ claim in Revelation 1:18 ("I died, and behold I am alive forevermore") highlights His unique nature as both God and man—able to die in His humanity but eternally living in His divinity.

The use of "Alpha and Omega" supports the doctrine of the Trinity, not a diminished view of Jesus’ divine nature.

The assertions reduce Jesus to "only human" or limit His role in creation to the spiritual realm.

However, Scripture consistently portrays Jesus as fully God and fully man, co-equal with the Father, and the Creator of all things.

To deny Jesus' divine nature is to contradict the testimony of Scripture, which declares Him the eternal Son of God who became incarnate for the redemption of humanity.

@ProDeo see how easy it is to rebut this?

God bless.

J.

 

[face2face]

@ProDeo

The Biblical Unitarian view of Jesus presents a Messiah who you can truly relate to, because he can relate to you. Unlike the Trinitarian understanding of Jesus, this version of Jesus fully comprehends your pain and empathizes with your struggles, as he was truly human. He has personally faced the same suffering and temptations that you experience—and even more!

God in His Mercy would not "pretend" to be a man but rather accept the challenge of raising a Son of Man for Himself, one who would reveal his Fathers character perfectly in sin's flesh.

You will not hear hardcore Trinitarians like Johann speak of Jesus in the same way the Apostles did because Johann hasn't been revealed their Messiah the Son of Man.

Here is the Biblical Truth:-

Son of Man was a title Jesus gave himself 80 times
Son of God was a title Jesus said about 5 times
God the Son was never recorded

Do you know how many times Johann has shown an understanding of the title Son of Man?

Not once!

Why?

The infected mind will only speak of the train of thought which passes through it. If Trinitarians only read and study trinitarian dogma how can you expect them to show an understanding of the Son of Man?

You can't!

F2F

 

[face2face]

"We know Jesus as only human (The Word (Logos) became Flesh)"

This statement misunderstands the doctrine of the hypostatic union, which affirms that Jesus is both fully human and fully divine. When John 1:14 says, "The Word became flesh," it does not imply that the Word ceased to be divine. Instead, it teaches that the eternal Word (Logos), who was with God and was God (John 1:1), took on human nature.

Rebuttal:
John 10:30: Jesus states, "I and the Father are one," affirming His divine nature.

Colossians 2:9: "For in Him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily," showing that Jesus retained His divine essence even in His humanity.
Jesus is not "only human"; He is the God-man, fully divine and fully human in one person.

2. "We know the Father Created the Physical with Christ the Spiritual Creation in Mind (Logos)"

This point suggests a dualistic separation between physical creation and a "spiritual creation," which is not supported by Scripture.

The Bible explicitly teaches that Jesus, as the Logos, was the agent of all creation, both physical and spiritual.

Rebuttal:
Colossians 1:16: "For by Him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible... all things were created through Him and for Him."

Jesus was directly involved in the creation of both the physical and spiritual realms, not just the latter.

Hebrews 1:2: "Through whom [the Son] He also created the world," confirms Jesus' active role in creation.

This contradicts the idea of Jesus being merely the "spiritual creation in mind" and instead affirms Him as Creator alongside the Father.

3. "We know Jesus is the Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end (Rev) i.e., and the living one. I died, and behold I am alive forevermore Re 1:18."

While this statement rightly acknowledges Jesus as the Alpha and Omega and the living one who died and rose again, it must also recognize that these titles affirm His divine nature. Being "Alpha and Omega" (Revelation 22:13) is a title used for God alone, signifying eternal existence, sovereignty, and omnipotence.

Rebuttal:

Isaiah 44:6: "I am the first, and I am the last; besides me there is no god."

This title, applied to Jesus in Revelation, demonstrates His equality with the Father in divinity.

Jesus’ claim in Revelation 1:18 ("I died, and behold I am alive forevermore") highlights His unique nature as both God and man—able to die in His humanity but eternally living in His divinity.

The use of "Alpha and Omega" supports the doctrine of the Trinity, not a diminished view of Jesus’ divine nature.

The assertions reduce Jesus to "only human" or limit His role in creation to the spiritual realm.

However, Scripture consistently portrays Jesus as fully God and fully man, co-equal with the Father, and the Creator of all things.

To deny Jesus' divine nature is to contradict the testimony of Scripture, which declares Him the eternal Son of God who became incarnate for the redemption of humanity.

@ProDeo see how easy it is to rebut this?

God bless.

J.

Once again, Johann, I'm frustrated that you've been exposed to these misconceptions. You are aware that your dualistic view cannot be supported outside of or apart from biblical definitions.

A man-made doctrine can only be unknown because its origins lie in human invention.

F2F

 

[Johann]

Son of Man was a title Jesus gave himself 80 times
Son of God was a title Jesus said about 5 times
God the Son was never recorded

"Son of Man was a title Jesus gave Himself 80 times"

This is correct; Jesus frequently referred to Himself as the "Son of Man." However, this title does not diminish His divinity-it actually enhances it when understood in its biblical context.

Biblical Context of 'Son of Man':

The phrase "Son of Man" originates in Daniel 7:13-14, where the "Son of Man" is presented before the Ancient of Days (God) and given everlasting dominion, glory, and a kingdom. This is a divine figure, not merely a human one.

Jesus uses this title to emphasize both His humanity (His incarnation) and His divine authority (Mark 2:10—"the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins").

John 3:13: "No one has ascended into heaven except He who descended from heaven, the Son of Man."

Here, Jesus explicitly ties the "Son of Man" to His preexistence and divine nature.

2. "Son of God was a title Jesus said about 5 times"

While Jesus may not have frequently referred to Himself as the "Son of God," He affirmed the title when others used it and taught truths consistent with it. Additionally, the Gospel writers and others testify to Jesus as the Son of God.

Examples of Jesus affirming this title:

John 10:36: Jesus says, "Do you say of Him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?"

Matthew 26:63-64: When the high priest asks, "Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God," Jesus replies, "You have said so."

John 5:18-19: Jesus claims equality with God, which the Jews understood as a claim to divine sonship.

The title "Son of God" emphasizes Jesus' unique relationship with the Father, affirming His divine origin and nature.

3. "God the Son was never recorded"

This is true as a literal phrase, but the concept of Jesus as "God the Son" is thoroughly biblical. The term is a theological expression that captures the scriptural truth about Jesus' divine identity as the second person of the Trinity.

Biblical Evidence for 'God the Son':

John 1:1: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

John 8:58: Jesus declares, "Before Abraham was, I am," directly applying the divine name ("I AM") from Exodus 3:14 to Himself.

Hebrews 1:3: "He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of His nature."

Philippians 2:6-7: Jesus, "though He was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant."

The absence of a specific phrase ("God the Son") does not negate the truth it conveys. The term is a summary of the biblical teaching that Jesus is both fully God and distinct in person from the Father.


@face2face argument relies on a selective reading of Scripture and a misunderstanding of how theological terms function.

While "God the Son" is not a verbatim biblical phrase, it encapsulates the truth revealed in Scripture about Jesus' divine nature. Titles like "Son of Man" and "Son of God" emphasize different aspects of Jesus' identity, but they do not contradict His divine status as the eternal Son, equal with the Father.

@ProDeo, observe how easily his argument can be rebutted. Our appeal must not rest in the words of men but in the authority of Scripture. There is a concerningly low Christological view of our Lord Jesus Christ being presented, and it is crucial that we seek and hold to the truth now more than ever-our eternal salvation depends on knowing exactly who our Messiah is.

Keep the faith.

Johann.

 

[face2face]

One of the key indicators that dualism is unbiblical is the overwhelming number of references to Jesus being in sin's flesh and fully identifying with us in every way.

I’ve asked Johann to provide a single verse that explains dualism—how many replies?

Zero... not a single one!

F2F

 

[face2face]

While "God the Son" is not a verbatim biblical phrase

Agree

 

[face2face]

"Son of Man was a title Jesus gave Himself 80 times"

This is correct; Jesus frequently referred to Himself as the "Son of Man." However, this title does not diminish His divinity-it actually enhances it when understood in its biblical context.

The HOWEVER is we "now enter man-made creed doctrines!" and we move away from the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[Johann]

Once again, Johann, I'm frustrated that you've been exposed to these misconceptions. You are aware that your dualistic view cannot be supported outside of or apart from biblical definitions.

A man-made doctrine can only be unknown because its origins lie in human invention.

F2F

You are frustrated because I speak the truth, as God is my witness-while you deny what is plainly written in Scripture.

J.

 

[Johann]

The HOWEVER is we "now enter man-made creed doctrines!" and we move away from the Lord Jesus Christ.

The only ones among you with man-made dogmas and creeds are you, APAK, and Wrangler.

J.

 

[Johann]

One of the key indicators that dualism is unbiblical is the overwhelming number of references to Jesus being in sin's flesh and fully identifying with us in every way.

I’ve asked Johann to provide a single verse that explains dualism—how many replies?

Zero... not a single one!

I'm not playing your "game" here--

Our Great God and Savior

Looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus (Titus 2:13)

prosdechomenoi ten makarian elpida kai epiphanian tes doxes tou megalou theou kai soteros hemon ‘Iesou Christou

The issue whether Jesus is here called “our great God and Savior” has been approached in several ways. Since Arians begin with the a priori assumption that the New Testament never speaks of Jesus as God, they must ignore all the grammatical and syntactical evidence of such passages as Titus 2:13. But what else can they do? If they find just one passage which speaks of Christ as God, their entire theology falls to the ground. Their belief system is constantly in peril.

On the other hand, the Trinitarian is not faced with such a terrible dilemma. His belief system us not threatened in the least. He can follow the grammar wherever it leads him: Lenski explains:

As far as we are concerned, it makes no difference whether Jesus is here once more called God or not; deity is ascribed to Jesus in so many Scripture passages that the addition or the subtraction of this passage is immaterial. The grammar and the language decide. Here these are decisive and are supported by the context: it is the epiphany of the deity in Jesus Christ that constitutes our blessed hope.149

It is no surprise that grammarians emphatically state that the Greek text clearly indicates that only one person is in view in Titus 2:13: “Our great God and Savior Jesus Christ.”150 Middleton states, “It is impossible to understand theou and soteros, otherwise than of one person.”151 A.T. Robertson says, “This is the necessary meaning of the one article with theou and soteros.”152… Hendriksen comments:

The article before the first noun is not repeated before the second, and therefore the expression must be rendered “of our great God and Savior Christ Jesus.” no valid reason has ever been found which would show that the (Granville Sharp rule) does not apply in the present case.153

Today, the vast majority of commentators and exegetes agree with the grammarians.154 Even Brown admits, “This is the most obvious meaning of the Greek.”155

A few commentators have followed Winer in his denial that Jesus is here called God.156 But Winer was honest in stating that although the grammar of the text was in favor of “our great God” as a reference to Christ, he was forced by his doctrinal commitment to Arianism not to accept it.157 Once again, it is the anti-Trinitarian who allows his theology to dictate the meaning of a text, instead of allowing the grammar and syntax of the text to determine his theology.

Even the few commentators who followed Winer, cannot get the facts straight. In an attempt to avoid Sharp’s rule, Dean Alford claims:

soter was one of those words which gradually dropped the article and became a quasi proper name.158

Timothy Dwight, past president of Yale, answers Alford:

This answer is not to be regarded as satisfactory, for though soter apparently came to be used as a proper name in this way, at a latter time, it cannot be affirmed that the apostolic authors so used it.150

Modern research has confirmed that the phrase “our great God and Savior” was understood by both the Greek and Latin Fathers as a reference to Jesus Christ.160 This is what Trinitarians would expect to find. Also, the words “God and Savior” were used in the first century by both Jews and pagans as a title of divinity. Murray Harris explains:

The expression theos kai soteros was a stereotyped formula common in first-century religious terminology (see Wendlad), was (apparently) used by both Diaspora and Palestinian Jews in reference to Yahweh, and invariably denoted one deity, not two. If the name ‘Iesou Christou did not follow the expression, undoubtedly it would be taken to refer to one person.161

Moulton points out that in Titus 2:13:

A curious echo is found in the Ptolemaic formula applied to the deified kings: thus GH 15 (ii/B.C.), tou megalou … kai soteros … The phrase here is, of course, applied to one person.162…

These reasons given above explain why most modern liberals no longer deny that “our great God and Savior” apply to Jesus in Titus 2:13. It also underscores the importance of not relying on the arguments advanced by nineteenth century liberals. Modern Arians such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses have yet to learn this lesson: Jesus is “our great God and Savior.” (Morey, pp. 344-347)

Thy Throne, O God

But of the Son He says, “THY THRONE, O GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER, AND THE RIGHTEOUS SCEPTER IS THE SCEPTER OF HIS KINGDOM.” (Heb. 1:8)

pros de ton hyion ho thronos sou ho theos eis ton aiona tou aionas kai he rhabdos tes euthytetos rhabdos tes basileias sou

This text is the first passage set forth by Reymond [sic] Brown under section III, “Texts Where Jesus Is Clearly Called God.”165 Oscar Cullman states, “Hebrews unequivocally applies the title ‘God’ to Jesus.”166 Brown and Cullman are perfect examples of the difference between what Warfield calls the “Old Liberal School” and the “New Liberal School.”167

Eighteenth and nineteenth century liberals did their best to overturn Hebrews 1:8 as a proof text for the deity of Christ by giving it various novel translations. In his classic commentary on Hebrews, John Brown explains:

Those who deny our Lord’s divinity have been greatly perplexed by this passage and have attempted to get rid of the argument by rendering the words, “God is Thy throne for ever and ever.” But this is not only contrary to the usage of the language, but it would utterly destroy the force of the Apostle’s argument. 168

B.B. Warfield was perturbed by the attempts of liberals to wiggle out of Hebrews 1:8 by retranslating it in such a way to avoid the deity of Christ:

It undoubtedly does not make for edification to observe the expedients which have been resorted to by expositors to escape recognizing that these Psalms do ascribe a superhuman nature and superhuman powers to the Messiah. What they have done with Ps. xlv. 6–to take it as an example. Rather than take it as it stands, they would prefer it seems to translate vilely, “Thy throne is God,” “Thy throne of God,” Thy throne is of God,” or rewrite the text and make it say something else, “Thy throne [its throne is firmly fixed], God [established it],” “Thy throne [shall be] forever.”169

These novel translations were “violent avoidance’s” as well as ”vile,” according to Warfield. Such strong emotive utterances seem strange in today’s climate of relativism. But we must remember that the nineteenth century Unitarian debates were hot and heavy. The debate generated over five thousand books, pamphlets, and tracts as it raged in Europe as well as in North America.

The old liberals knew that if Hebrews 1:8 was translated in the vocative, i.e., Christ was being addressed by the Father as “God,” then their dogma that Jesus was never called theos in the New Testament would fall to the ground. In their desperation to avoid this, they went so far as to add words to the Hebrew text of Psalms 45:6, even though they did not have a single manuscript to back them up!

With the appearance of the Werde-Boussett thesis, modern liberalism changed its mind and now readily admits that Jesus was called theos in the New Testament. Thus, Hebrews 1:8 was just one more such place.

Trinitarian scholars had won the day when it came to the grammar and syntax of these passages. But this did not mean that modern liberals are ready to convert to Christianity.

JESUS AS GOD IN THE NT

In this post I will be excerpting sections from the late Dr. Robert A. Morey’s book, The Trinity: Evidence & Issues, published by Christian Scholar’s Press, Las Vegas, Nevada, Part IV: The New …

answeringislamblog.wordpress.com

Read on---

J.