Exploring Trinitarian Logic

[RLT63]

Quote "The key to understanding Jesus’ seeming lack of knowledge in this matter lies in the nature of the Incarnation"

O boy, is this what we are dealing with now?

How many lies upon lies will you build your faith upon RLT?

Actually the answer is simpler.
It's following the Jewish wedding tradition.
When a man got engaged ( betrothed)
He had to build a place for himself and his wife to stay.
The father would check his progress and he could only go for his bride when the father told him to.
The bride had to be ready for the wedding party to come at any time (hence the parable of the wise and foolish virgins and the oil for their lamps.
Jesus said "I go to prepare a place for you "
Only the father can tell him when to come for his bride.
And we better be ready for him to come at any time

 

[Magdala]

It's clear you can't put the records together. I'm happy to leave you in your willing ignorance for now.

You rightly acknowledged God's plurality within unity in Scripture. An example of the concept "plurality within unity", from a philosophical perspective, is the substance of water, because it exists in multiple states, each distinct, united as one because they are the same substance: water. Therefore, the problem with your applying God's plurality within unity to angels means to say that they are God, but we both know that they aren't.

 

[face2face]

You acknowledged that there's a plurality within unity regarding God in Scripture, which is true. An example of the concept "plurality within unity", from a philosophical perspective, is the substance of water, because it exists in multiple states, each distinct, united as one because they are the same substance: water. Therefore, the problem with your attributing God's plurality within unity to angels means that the angels would have to be God, but we both know that they're not, and thus it can only be attributed to God.

So you are now saying the Saints will be God? Where does this madness end Lux? Where did you ever get the idea that oneness equals Godhead?

I know, its the false doctrine of the Trinity.

It just destroys a sincere mind - I hate it, I really do.

F2F

 

[face2face]

Actually the answer is simpler.
It's following the Jewish wedding tradition.
When a man got engaged ( betrothed)
He had to build a place for himself and his wife to stay.
The father would check his progress and he could only go for his bride when the father told him to.
The bride had to be ready for the wedding party to come at any time (hence the parable of the wise and foolish virgins and the oil for their lamps.
Jesus said "I go to prepare a place for you "
Only the father can tell him when to come for his bride.
And we better be ready for him to come at any time

You provide an example of Jesus post-resurrection going to be with His Father, but this doesn't address Christ's growth in wisdom and knowledge, or the fact that he only knew what his Father chose to reveal to him.

I need a holiday from this site.

F2F

 

[Magdala]

So you are now saying the Saints will be God? Where does this madness end Lux? Where did you ever get the idea that oneness equals Godhead?

I know, its the false doctrine of the Trinity.

It just destroys a sincere mind - I hate it, I really do.

The oneness that I've been talking about throughout our entire discussion is the plurality within unity regarding God specifically. An example of the concept "plurality within unity", from a philosophical perspective, is the substance of water, because it exists in multiple states, each distinct, united as one because they are the same substance: water.

The doctrine of the Holy Trinity acknowledges the plurality within unity regarding God, and it's explained in the following way: God exists in three Persons: the Father, the Word (the Son), and the Holy Spirit, each distinct, united as one because They are the same Essence: love.

You also rightly acknowledge God's plurality within unity in Scripture, but you wrongly apply it to angels because, as the water example above shows, to do so means to say that they are God, yet we both know that they aren't.

 

[Johann]

If Jesus is already God in the flesh then He can not have a God because it would be two Gods not one. Yet, scripture clearly tell us he does have a God, both before and after His resurrection. Philippians 4:20; Ephesians 4:6; John 20:17; Matthew 27:46; Revelation 3:12; Revelation 3:2.

You can let go of your spiritual ankles now....

Your argument presented seeks to diminish the pre-existence and divinity of Christ by interpreting Colossians 1:15-20 as referring to Christ’s exaltation in a new, eschatological order rather than His involvement in the original creation.

1. Firstborn: Rank vs. Sequence
The term πρωτότοκος ("firstborn") does not inherently mean "first-created." In biblical usage, it often denotes preeminence or supreme rank rather than temporal sequence.

Psalm 89:27 (LXX): "I will make him the firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth," demonstrates how "firstborn" signifies status, not chronology.

In Colossians 1:15, the context supports this interpretation because verse 16 explains that Christ is the Creator of all things: "For in Him all things were created… all things have been created through Him and for Him."

It would be incoherent to call Christ part of creation while simultaneously crediting Him as its agent.

2. Creation in Colossians 1:16
The scope of "all things" in Colossians 1:16 includes "things in heaven and on earth," and the phrase encompasses not only spiritual hierarchies but all creation.

The phrase “heavens and earth” is not limited to Genesis 1:1 terminology but is a holistic description of the created order. The inclusion of "thrones, dominions, rulers, and authorities" highlights Christ's authority over all realms, including the visible and invisible.

The perfect verb ἔκτισται (ektistai) emphasizes completed action with ongoing results, supporting Christ’s continuous role as Creator and Sustainer of creation (cf. Col. 1:17: "in Him all things hold together").

3. Jesus and the Genesis Creation
Your argument claims Jesus never directly claimed credit for Genesis 1:1 creation. However, John 1:3, Hebrews 1:2, and Colossians 1:16 unequivocally affirm His role in the creation of all things.

John 1:3: "All things were made through Him, and apart from Him not one thing was made that has been made."

Hebrews 1:2: God made the ages (αἰῶνας) through the Son.

Christ's appeals to God as Creator (e.g., Matt. 19:4, Mark 13:19) reflect His incarnational humility, not a denial of His creative role as the pre-existent Logos.

4. Christ’s Exaltation vs. Pre-existence
Your argument conflates Christ's exaltation post-resurrection with His ontological status. The exaltation described in Philippians 2:9-11 and Ephesians 1:21-22 refers to Christ’s glorification in His human nature after His obedient death, not a denial of His pre-existence.

Philippians 2:6-7: Christ, "being in the form of God," emptied Himself to take on human form. This implies pre-existence as God prior to His incarnation.

The "promotion" language used in Philippians 2 and Ephesians 1 pertains to Christ's mediatorial office, through which He reconciles creation to God (Col. 1:20).

5. Rhema vs. Logos
The distinction between ῥῆμα (rhema) and λόγος (logos) in Hebrews 11:3 is a false dichotomy.

Both terms are used interchangeably in Scripture to denote God's creative Word.

Hebrews 11:3 emphasizes God’s Word (rhema) as the means of creation, while John 1:1-3 emphasizes the Logos (the Son) as the divine agent. Both highlight God’s creative activity through His Word, consistent with Trinitarian theology.

6. Colossians and the "New Order"

While Colossians 1:18-20 does celebrate Christ’s headship over the Church and reconciliation of creation through the cross, this does not negate His role in the original creation.

Verse 16 precedes verse 18, affirming Christ’s preeminence as Creator before addressing His redemptive work.
The emphasis on Christ’s headship over "all rule and authority" in Colossians 2:10 highlights His cosmic sovereignty, not merely a restructuring of angelic orders.

7. "Blessed be the God of our Lord Jesus Christ"
The references to God as "the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" (1 Peter 1:3) and "one God, the Father" (1 Cor. 8:6) reflect the relational distinction within the Trinity, not subordination of essence.

1 Corinthians 8:6 explicitly pairs the Father and Son in creation: "one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist."

Conclusion
The passage in Colossians 1:15-20, read in its immediate and broader New Testament context, affirms the Son’s preexistence, divinity, and role as Creator of all things. Attempts to limit His work to an eschatological "new creation" ignore the plain language of the text and its parallels in other Pauline and Johannine writings.

Thanks.

J.

 

[Johann]

Kuschel in his book, Born Before All Time? p.356

I go with the Bible and not Kuschel-
Hans Küng's collaborator, Karl-Josef Kuschel, is a German theologian and author whose works often address interfaith dialogue, Christology, and the relationship between faith and modernity. His book Born Before All Time? explores Christological issues, particularly the pre-existence of Christ and related theological debates.

Kuschel represents a liberal theological perspective, often questioning traditional Christian doctrines, including the full divinity and pre-existence of Christ as historically understood within orthodox Christianity.

Reliability Factors:
Liberal Theology: Kuschel's approach is rooted in modern critical theology, emphasizing historical-critical methods and contemporary philosophical insights. He is less concerned with adhering to traditional doctrinal positions, such as those outlined in the Nicene Creed, and more focused on reconciling theology with modern thought.

Critical View of Pre-existence: In Born Before All Time?, Kuschel challenges the traditional doctrine of Christ's pre-existence, often questioning whether this belief is biblically or philosophically tenable.

His conclusions align more closely with Unitarian or post-Enlightenment theological perspectives than with traditional Trinitarian orthodoxy.

Interfaith and Modernist Agenda:

Kuschel's broader work frequently engages with interfaith dialogue, especially with Judaism and Islam, and seeks common ground by downplaying Christological claims that emphasize Christ’s uniqueness and divinity.

This approach can lead to interpretations that diverge from mainstream Christian exegesis.

Reception Among Scholars: While his work is respected in academic circles for its intellectual rigor and contribution to theological debate, conservative and orthodox theologians often critique his conclusions as inconsistent with traditional Christian teaching and historical exegesis.

Reliability for Orthodox Doctrines: If you are seeking resources that affirm traditional Christological beliefs (e.g., the Trinity, pre-existence of Christ), Kuschel may not be a reliable source. His work is better suited for understanding modern critical approaches and the arguments of liberal theology.

Key Consideration:
While Kuschel provides a thoughtful critique of traditional Christology, his conclusions should be evaluated carefully, particularly by those committed to orthodox Christian doctrines. His work is valuable for understanding alternative perspectives but not necessarily as a definitive source for Trinitarian theology or biblical exegesis.

I reject your "Kuschel commentary" on my Bible @Pierac.

J.

 

[Johann]

Another New Testament passage is readily appealed to in order to prove that Jesus Christ is Almighty God. It is Hebrews 1. In this chapter, when isolated from its context, individual phrases seem to justify this Trinitarian interpretation. These phrases are: "through whom all so He made the world" (v.20); "And let all the Angels of God worship him" (v.6); "But of the Son He says, ‘Your throne, O God, is forever and ever’" (v.8); "You, Lord, in the beginning laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the works of your hands; they will perish, but you will remain…You are the same, and your years will not come to an end" (v.10,12). Read in isolation-out of contexts-these verses seem to say that Jesus is (Jehovah) God. Is this interpretation justified? Many expositors think not. Kuschel in his book, Born Before All Time? p.356. Is adamant that we do not have to "interpret the Christology of Hebrews in such an extremely ontological terms (in the light of Nicea!) (Ontology is the study of metaphysics dealing with the nature of being.) Kuschel comments that "the majority of exegetes" do not now assume "an extremely developed Hellenistic-syncretistic Christ-myth as a background to Hebrews, nor are dilemmas foisted on the text. Material from the Hellenistic Jewish tradition is thought enough to explaine the Christology of Hebrews." In other words, we are cautioned not to read back into the text what later traditions have taught us.

As said before, I reject Kuschel's commentary on my bible.

J.

 

[Johann]

The Trinitarian Raymond E. Brown in his book, An Introduction to New Testament Christology writes, "The text strongly distinguishes between Jesus and God, and that a description of himself to which Jesus objected was applicable to God. From this text, one would never suspect that the evangelist referred to Jesus and God."

Kudos for yet another commentary on my bible--

The fact that Jesus did not explicitly refer to Himself as "good" in the encounter with the rich young ruler (Mark 10:17-18, Matthew 19:16-17, Luke 18:18-19) is a deliberate and profound theological moment. It serves several purposes, which align with His mission, His teaching style, and His humility in the Incarnation.

1. To Redirect Attention to God’s Absolute Goodness

God as the Ultimate Standard: By saying, "No one is good except God alone" (Mark 10:18), Jesus shows the supreme and absolute goodness of God, a concept deeply rooted in Jewish theology (cf. Psalm 118:68 LXX, Nahum 1:7).

Inviting Reflection: Jesus challenges the young man-and the readers of the Gospels-to consider whether the man truly understands the implications of calling Him "Good Teacher."

Is the man acknowledging Jesus' divinity or merely using "good" as a superficial compliment?

2. To Teach Humility in the Incarnation

Kenosis (Self-Emptying): Philippians 2:6-8 explains that Jesus, though in the form of God, "emptied Himself" (ἐκένωσεν) and took on the form of a servant. In His earthly ministry, Jesus often deferred glory to the Father to emphasize His role as the obedient Son (John 5:19, John 6:38).

Incarnational Purpose: Jesus’ mission was to reveal the Father and reconcile humanity to God, not to assert His own glory prematurely. His humility allowed Him to lead by example, showing complete reliance on and submission to the Father.

3. To Avoid Misunderstanding of His Identity
Jewish Expectation of the Messiah: Many Jews in Jesus' time expected a political or human deliverer rather than a divine Savior.
If Jesus had explicitly claimed divine attributes too early, it could have caused misunderstanding or premature conflict with His opponents.

Pedagogical Method: Jesus often used questions and challenges to provoke deeper reflection (e.g., "Who do you say that I am?" in Matthew 16:15). By redirecting the conversation to God’s goodness, Jesus implicitly invites the young man to recognize that if He is truly "good," then He must also be divine.

4. To Highlight His Role as the Way to God
Mediator Between God and Man: Jesus’ role as the mediator (1 Timothy 2:5) required pointing others to God as the source of all goodness and life.

In His human ministry, He often deferred to the Father to teach dependence on God’s will.

Fulfillment of the Law: In the context of the rich young ruler, Jesus steers the man to consider the commandments and the deeper demands of discipleship (Mark 10:19-21). His teaching is that eternal life comes through a relationship with God, which He Himself mediates.

5. To Challenge Misplaced Self-Righteousness
Self-Righteousness of the Rich Young Ruler: The man approaches Jesus, addressing Him as "Good Teacher," possibly with a superficial or flattering tone. Jesus’ response dismantles any assumptions about human goodness by directing attention to God alone.

Sinlessness of Christ: While Jesus is without sin (2 Corinthians 5:21, Hebrews 4:15), His mission is not to boast of His own perfection but to guide humanity toward God’s holiness and call them to repentance and faith.

Theological Implications
Christ’s Divinity: Jesus’ statement does not deny His divinity. Instead, it forces the rich young man to wrestle with the deeper question of Jesus’ true identity. By equating goodness solely with God, Jesus subtly invites the man to recognize His divine nature.

Christ’s Role in Salvation: Jesus’ reluctance to refer to Himself as "good" emphasizes that His mission is not to seek glory for Himself but to point humanity to God’s goodness, which He perfectly embodies as God incarnate (John 14:9-11).

Jesus’ refusal to call Himself "good" in this instance is not a denial of His divine nature but a pedagogical and theological strategy.

It highlights God’s ultimate goodness, the humility of His incarnate mission, and the necessity of reflecting on His true identity. By pointing to God’s goodness, Jesus subtly reinforces the truth that He is one with the Father, the manifestation of divine goodness in human form (John 10:30, Colossians 2:9).

Read the Scriptures.

J.

 

[Scott Downey]

"May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all." – 2 Corinthians 13:14

 

[Johann]

“Christ” God or title?

Dr. Hugh Schonfield, in his book the Passover Plot. Reported that many Christians he spoke with were not even aware that the term "Christ" was simply a Greek translation of the Hebrew title Messiah, and thought somehow that it referred to the Second Person of the Trinity. "So connected had the word ‘Christ’ become with the idea of Jesus as God incarnate that the title ‘Messiah’ was treated as something curiously Jewish and not associated.”

N.T. Write, the Bishop of Litchfield, agrees: “One of the most persistent mistakes throughout the literature on Jesus and the last hundred years is to use the word ‘Christ,’ which simply means ‘Messiah’, as though it was a ‘divine’ title.” Who was Jesus? p.57.

According to its OT usage, the term Messiah, the Anointed One, indicates a call to office.

Most certainly, it was not the title of an aspect of the Godhead. This is a later Gentile invention that came about by ignoring Jesus’ Jewish context and inventing a doctrine called the Incarnation- the idea that a second member of the Trinity, God the son, became a human being. As Lockhart says, in Jesus the Heretic, p.137. “Christianity ignored the ‘Messiah’ and theologically worked the ‘Christ’ up into the ‘God-Man.’ Jesus as the ‘Messiah’ is a human being; Jesus as the ‘Christ’ is something entirely different.”

Jesus calls himself "a man" (John 8:40) "But as it is, you are seeking to kill Me, a man who has told you the truth, which I heard from God; this Abraham did not do. and the apostles call him "a man" (Acts 2: 22; 1 Tim. 2:5). 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-- 1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, He is constantly contrasted with and distinguished from God, his Father.

The Hebrew Bible or OT, predicted Jesus would be a man (Is.53:3). But never does the scriptures use the term "God-Man" to tell us who Jesus is. The Greek language of the day had a perfectly good word for “God-Man” (theios aner) but it never appears in the New Testament. So why do we persist with these extra-biblical terms? Why do we continue to employ non-biblical (i.e. unbiblical) language to describe Jesus?

The Bible verse saying is true which says that we are very quick to spot the speck in the eye of another's theology, but how blind we are to the beam in our own. Mary is not the mother of God, according to the scriptures. And neither is Jesus God the Son, nor is he the "God-Man" according to the Bible. And he is nowhere called "God of from God" as the later Nicene Creed called him. Protestants, people of the Bible ought to know that the contentious extra-biblical word used at Nicea, homoousios, meaning ‘of equal substance,’ “did not come from Scripture but, of all things, from Gnostic systems.” Quote from Born Before All-Time? p. 500. Kuschel.

The result was that such terminology introduced alien notions into Christian understanding of God. In other words, "an epoch-making paradigm shift has taken place between Scriptures and Nicea.” Born Before All-Time? p. 503. Kuschel

To the Jewish mind, accustomed to Old Testament teaching on the principles of agency and representation by which God appoints a man to speak or act on his behalf, such a concept was both familiar and acceptable. Whilst it is true that some of Christ's enemies believed him to be usurping or laying claim unlawfully to certain Divine rights or powers, not a single Jew ever thought that the miracles performed by Christ proved that he was a Divine being, and the gospel record indicates that many recognised that he was a man Divinely appointed to exercise power and authority on God's behalf.

You really should try harder--little sorella--less [selective] commentaries, more Scriptures.

J.

 

[Brakelite]

Arians are followers of the heretical teachings of Arius, a 4th-century Christian priest who denied the full divinity of Jesus Christ, asserting that Jesus was a created being and not co-eternal with the Father. According to Arianism, Jesus was seen as a divine being but not truly God in the same way as the Father. This view was condemned by the First Council of Nicaea (325 AD), which affirmed the full deity of Christ.
Key reference: John 1:1-14 affirms that the Word (Jesus) was with God and was God, contradicting Arian views.

While it may be true that Arius believed and taught doctrines that weren't orthodox, I believe we need to be circumspect in accusing others of being Arian such as the Catholic church did a long time ago. Anyone who the Catholic hierarchy disagreed with, they accused them of being Arian. Yet we know such is not the case. The Ostrogoths, the Vandals, the Heruli, and the other Germanic tribes that compete with the Catholics over the rule of the vacant empire in the 4th and 5th centuries, were given the epithet barb-arian, and although those nations did adopt Christianity, they were opposed to papal dominion and authority, and were called heretics... Arian heretics. Yet we know from the writings of at least one missionary, Wulfilas, who translated the bible into a written language the Goths could learn to read, his understanding of the Godhead was not unscriptural, despite being a little different from the creeds.

I, Wulfila, Bishop and Confessor, have always believed thus and in this sole and true faith I make my journey to my Lord,

I believe​

that there is only one God the Father, alone unbegotten and invisible, and in His only-begotten Son, our Lord and God, creator and maker of all things, not having any like unto Him. Therefore there is one God of all, who is also God of our God, And I believe in one Holy Spirit, an enlightening and sanctifying power. As Christ says after the resurrection to his Apostles: "Behold I send the promise of my Father upon you; but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem until ye be clothed with power from on high." (Luke 24.49) And again: "And ye shall receive power coming upon you by the Holy Spirit." (Acts 1.8) Neither God nor Lord, but the faithful minister of Christ; not equal, but subject and obedient in all things to the Son. And I believe the Son to be subject and obedient in all things to God the Father

This is my belief, although I do believe the holy Spirit to be a person, but not one such as we would compare with the Father and Son. The above belief of Wulfilas is believe is one without the presumptions created in order to sustain the creeds, delving into the actual nature of God of which we are not informed.

 

[Johann]

Most certainly, it was not the title of an aspect of the Godhead. This is a later Gentile invention that came about by ignoring Jesus’ Jewish context and inventing a doctrine called the Incarnation- the idea that a second member of the Trinity, God the son, became a human being. As Lockhart says, in Jesus the Heretic, p.137. “Christianity ignored the ‘Messiah’ and theologically worked the ‘Christ’ up into the ‘God-Man.’ Jesus as the ‘Messiah’ is a human being; Jesus as the ‘Christ’ is something entirely different.”

Let's "slam dunk" these commentaries with their outrageous claims.

Theological Evolution or Scriptural Foundation?
Jesus as Messiah and More: The claim that Jesus is “just a man” because He is the Messiah overlooks significant Old Testament prophecies and their New Testament fulfillment.

The Messiah is not merely a human office-bearer but one with divine attributes:

Isaiah 9:6 (LXX): The Messiah is called ὁ Θεὸς ἰσχυρός (The Mighty God) and Πατὴρ τοῦ μέλλοντος αἰῶνος (Father of the age to come), indicating His divinity.

Psalm 110:1: David refers to the Messiah as "my Lord," whom Yahweh exalts to sit at His right hand, a position of divine authority.
Daniel 7:13-14: The “Son of Man” receives an eternal kingdom and universal worship, privileges reserved for God alone.
Jesus' Self-Identification.

While Jesus refers to Himself as "a man" (John 8:40), He also makes claims that transcend mere humanity:

John 10:30: “I and the Father are one.”

John 8:58: “Before Abraham was, I am.” This echoes God’s self-identification in Exodus 3:14 (LXX: ἐγώ εἰμι). You may huff and puff @Pierac or snort like a raging bull-ain't going to help little girl.

These statements elicited accusations of blasphemy because His audience understood them as claims to divinity (John 10:33).

3. Apostolic Testimony
Acts 2:22 and 1 Timothy 2:5: These verses affirm Jesus’ humanity but do not deny His divinity. Early Christian doctrine emphasizes the hypostatic union—the coexistence of full humanity and full divinity in Jesus (cf. John 1:14, Colossians 2:9).

Philippians 2:6-8: Paul writes that Jesus, though existing in the form of God, "emptied Himself" to take on human nature, a clear affirmation of both His pre-existence and His incarnation.

4. “God-Man” and Extra-Biblical Language
Absence of Specific Terms Does Not Imply Denial: While the New Testament does not use the term theios aner ("God-Man"), it teaches the concept through other language:

John 1:1, 14: The Word (Logos), who is God, became flesh.

Colossians 2:9: “In Him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily.”

Hebrews 1:3: Jesus is the “radiance of God’s glory” and the “exact imprint of His nature.”

Theological Terms Develop Over Time: The lack of explicit use of terms like “Trinity” or “God-Man” does not mean these doctrines are unbiblical.
They represent theological formulations to summarize biblical truths.

5. Jesus Distinct from the Father
Trinitarian Understanding: The distinction between Jesus and the Father is consistent with Trinitarian theology. Jesus is the second person of the Trinity, fully God yet distinct in personhood from the Father. Scriptures like John 1:1-2 and John 17:5 affirm both His divinity and His relational distinction within the Godhead.

6. Conclusion of the Argument
The claim that Christianity “worked the ‘Christ’ up into the ‘God-Man’” ignores the scriptural testimony to Jesus’ divine nature, as well as the early church's understanding of the Messiah as more than a political or priestly figure. The Incarnation is not a later Gentile invention but a central truth revealed in both Testaments, affirmed by Jesus’ life, death, resurrection, and ascension.

Less commentaries--girlie.

J.

 

[Johann]

While it may be true that Arius believed and taught doctrines that weren't orthodox, I believe we need to be circumspect in accusing others of being Arian such as the Catholic church did a long time ago. Anyone who the Catholic hierarchy disagreed with, they accused them of being Arian. Yet we know such is not the case. The Ostrogoths, the Vandals, the Heruli, and the other Germanic tribes that compete with the Catholics over the rule of the vacant empire in the 4th and 5th centuries, were given the epithet barb-arian, and although those nations did adopt Christianity, they were opposed to papal dominion and authority, and were called heretics... Arian heretics. Yet we know from the writings of at least one missionary, Wulfilas, who translated the bible into a written language the Goths could learn to read, his understanding of the Godhead was not unscriptural, despite being a little different from the creeds.

I believe​

This is my belief, although I do believe the holy Spirit to be a person, but not one such as we would compare with the Father and Son. The above belief of Wulfilas is believe is one without the presumptions created in order to sustain the creeds, delving into the actual nature of God of which we are not informed.

Not here to act as "the accuser of the brethren," @Brakelite, but to encourage believers to return to the ancient paths and to our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ. Let us focus on being sealed with the Holy Spirit, as the priority of politics often seems to overshadow the reading and meditation on Scripture, brother.

Well said-great post on your end.

J.

 

[face2face]

The oneness I've been talking about this entire discussion is the plurality within unity regarding specifically God. An example of the concept "plurality within unity", from a philosophical perspective, is the substance of water, because it exists in multiple states, each distinct, united as one because they are the same substance: water.

You also rightly acknowledge God's plurality within unity in Scripture, but you wrongly apply it to angels because, as the water example above shows, to do so means to say that they are God, yet we both know that they aren't.

The doctrine of the Holy Trinity acknowledges the plurality within unity regarding God, and it's explained in the following way: God exists in three Persons: the Father, the Word (Son), and the Holy Spirit, each distinct, united as one because They are the same Essence: love.

It's clear you don't understand oneness.

 

[face2face]

and to our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.

You misrepresent both God and Christ in one sentence - I see how some call this idolatry.

 

[Johann]

You misrepresent both God and Christ in one sentence - I see how some call this idolatry.

Hopefully, one day, you will come to your senses--

The phrase "our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ" is a direct quotation from Titus 2:13, which in the Greek reads:

προσδεχόμενοι τὴν μακαρίαν ἐλπίδα καὶ ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου Θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ
(prosdechomenoi tēn makarian elpida kai epiphaneian tēs doxēs tou megalou Theou kai sōtēros hēmōn Iēsou Christou).

"our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus" Jesus is here unambiguously given the title of God! The Caesars claimed similar titles (i.e., Ptolemy I). The terms "appearing" (which contextually relates to Christ's Second Coming) and "great" are never used of YHWH. Also, there is no ARTICLE with "savior." The syntax of Koine Greek supports this as a title for Jesus because there is only one ARTICLE with both NOUNS, thus linking them together (see NET Bible). Jesus is divine (cf. John 1:1; 8:57-58; 20:28; Rom. 9:5; Phil. 2:6; 2 Thess. 1:12; Heb. 1:8; 2 Pet. 1:1,11; 1 John 5:20). In the OT the Messiah was expected to be a divinely empowered person like the Judges. His deity surprised everyone.

The construction of this verse supports the interpretation that "God and Savior" refers to one person, Jesus Christ. This interpretation is reinforced by the Granville Sharp Rule, a principle of Greek grammar stating that when two nouns of the same case are connected by "and" (καὶ) and the first noun has the definite article (τοῦ), but the second does not, they refer to the same subject. Thus, in Titus 2:13, both "God" (Θεοῦ) and "Savior" (σωτῆρος) refer to Jesus Christ.

1. Scriptural Support for the Divinity of Jesus Christ

John 1:1, 14: Jesus is explicitly identified as the Word, who is God, and who became flesh.

Hebrews 1:8 (quoting Psalm 45:6): The Father addresses the Son as "God": "But of the Son He says, 'Your throne, O God, is forever and ever.'"

Romans 9:5: Paul describes Christ as "God over all, blessed forever."

John 20:28: Thomas directly calls Jesus "My Lord and my God" (Ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ Θεός μου), and Jesus does not rebuke him for this declaration.

2. Theological Misunderstanding
Your claim of idolatry arises from a misunderstanding of biblical theology. Far from misrepresenting God and Christ, recognizing Jesus as God is consistent with the testimony of Scripture. In Christian doctrine, Jesus Christ is the second person of the Trinity—co-equal and co-eternal with the Father and the Holy Spirit. This does not divide God but affirms the unity of God’s being expressed in three persons.

3. Avoiding Misrepresentation
Accusing believers who affirm the divinity of Christ of idolatry overlooks the consistent biblical witness to Jesus’ divine nature and role as Savior. To call Jesus “our great God and Savior” is not to misrepresent Him but to affirm His full identity as revealed in Scripture. This statement exalts Christ and glorifies the God who revealed Himself in the person of Jesus (cf. Colossians 2:9).

J.

 

[Johann]

In other words, there is no person the whole book of Acts or any other New Testament book that requires you to believe that Jesus is the Lord God, Jehovah, in order to enter the Kingdom. In all the books of Acts there is no preaching of the Trinity. Yet in Acts thousands were saved according to the scriptural record. This should be conclusive proof that the Trinity was not part of early apostolic doctrine.

Syntactical and Contextual Analysis
The syntax of the New Testament often demonstrates implicit Trinitarian doctrine without needing explicit formulations. The absence of the term "Trinity" or phrases like "Jesus is Jehovah" does not negate the underlying concepts expressed through the grammar and word choices of the texts.

a. Syntax of Confessional Statements
Acts 2:36: "God has made Him both Lord (Κύριον) and Christ (Χριστόν), this Jesus whom you crucified."
The Greek term Κύριος (Kyrios) is frequently used in the Septuagint (LXX) to translate the Tetragrammaton (YHWH, the divine name). Peter's declaration identifies Jesus with the divine title of YHWH, implying His divinity.

Acts 2

Acts 4:12: "And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved."

The exclusive salvific role of Jesus is a direct claim of His divine authority. In a Jewish monotheistic context, granting such authority to anyone other than God (YHWH) would be blasphemous unless Jesus is truly divine.

b. Trinitarian Syntax in Baptism
Acts 2:38: "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins."

While the specific formula here references Jesus, Matthew 28:19 records Jesus commanding baptism “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” This trifold name reflects an implicit Trinitarian framework. The early church’s practice of baptizing in Jesus’ name does not deny the Trinity but emphasizes the role of Jesus as the incarnate mediator of salvation.

c. Theological Syntax of Divine Worship
Acts 7:59: Stephen prays to Jesus: "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit."

Prayer is directed to Jesus, an act reserved for God alone in Jewish theology. The syntax of addressing Jesus as Κύριος in this contextshows His divine status.

2. Trinitarian Doctrine in the New Testament
The development of Trinitarian doctrine is a systematic articulation of what is already implicit in the New Testament. The apostles consistently present Jesus in ways that affirm His divine identity and role within the Godhead.

a. Syntax Supporting Jesus' Divinity
Philippians 2:6-11: "Who, being in the form of God (μορφῇ Θεοῦ), did not consider it robbery to be equal with God (ἴσα Θεῷ)...that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow..."

The syntax connects Jesus directly with divine attributes and worship, a role reserved for God (cf. Isaiah 45:23).

John 20:28: Thomas’ confession, "My Lord and my God" (Ὁ Κύριός μου καὶ ὁ Θεός μου), explicitly identifies Jesus as God. This confession is presented as paradigmatic for all believers (John 20:31).

b. Trinitarian Patterns
2 Corinthians 13:14: "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all."

This benediction syntactically equates the three persons of the Trinity in their roles in the believer’s life.

Ephesians 1:3-14: Paul outlines the work of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in salvation, using complex syntactical structures that emphasize their distinct roles while maintaining unity.

3. The Argument from Acts and Early Apostolic Preaching
The absence of a systematic Trinitarian formula in Acts is not proof that the apostles did not teach Trinitarian theology. The book focuses on the proclamation of Jesus as the crucified and risen Messiah, which naturally emphasizes His central role in salvation.

a. The Kingdom and Jesus' Divine Identity

Acts 8:35-37: Philip preaches Jesus as the Messiah to the Ethiopian eunuch, who confesses, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."

The title "Son of God" implies a unique relationship with God that goes beyond a mere human role (cf. John 5:18).

Acts 20:28: Paul speaks of "the church of God, which He purchased with His own blood."

The syntax here identifies Jesus as God, as it attributes the act of purchasing the church with His blood-a reference to Jesus’ sacrifice-to God.

b. Salvation Without a Full Systematic Doctrine

Acts records the initial preaching of the gospel to diverse audiences, focusing on repentance and faith in Jesus. The early converts were taught progressively, as seen in the epistles, where deeper theological concepts like the deity of Christ and the role of the Holy Spirit are expounded (cf. Colossians 1:15-20, Hebrews 1:1-3).

4. Conclusion: Syntax Does Not Exclude Theology
The absence of explicit Trinitarian terminology or systematic teaching in Acts reflects the narrative purpose of the book rather than a denial of Trinitarian theology. Implicit Trinitarian concepts and the divine identity of Jesus are evident in the syntax and theology of the text.

The claim that belief in Jesus as Jehovah was unnecessary is contradicted by the repeated identification of Jesus with divine titles (Kyrios, Theos), roles (Creator, Judge), and worship practices (prayer, doxology) throughout the New Testament.
Trinitarian doctrine was not a later addition but a faithful articulation of the apostolic teaching found throughout the Scriptures.

Thanks.

J.

 

[face2face]

Hopefully, one day, you will come to your senses--

I get the feeling you would have made a fine Nicene council member!

The phrase "our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ" is a direct quotation from Titus 2:13, which in the Greek reads:

προσδεχόμενοι τὴν μακαρίαν ἐλπίδα καὶ ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου Θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ
(prosdechomenoi tēn makarian elpida kai epiphaneian tēs doxēs tou megalou Theou kai sōtēros hēmōn Iēsou Christou).

"our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus" Jesus is here unambiguously given the title of God! The Caesars claimed similar titles (i.e., Ptolemy I). The terms "appearing" (which contextually relates to Christ's Second Coming) and "great" are never used of YHWH. Also, there is no ARTICLE with "savior." The syntax of Koine Greek supports this as a title for Jesus because there is only one ARTICLE with both NOUNS, thus linking them together (see NET Bible). Jesus is divine (cf. John 1:1; 8:57-58; 20:28; Rom. 9:5; Phil. 2:6; 2 Thess. 1:12; Heb. 1:8; 2 Pet. 1:1,11; 1 John 5:20). In the OT the Messiah was expected to be a divinely empowered person like the Judges. His deity surprised everyone.

It feels like you're pulling out all sorts of tricks, Johann, using every tool in your repertoire to twist the text in order to make it conform to your beliefs. This approach can make it difficult to engage with the actual meaning of the Scripture and can come across as more about fitting the text to your perspective than seeking its true message.

Titus 2:13 presents translation challenges, particularly with the phrase "our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ." Some translations (e.g., KJV) suggest that Jesus Christ is both "God" and "Savior," while others, like the NIV, imply that the phrase refers to "our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ" and God the Father.

What you are looking for is a section of Scripture that offers you this false doctrine:

"We worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; neither confounding the persons; nor dividing the substance. For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. "But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one: the Glory equal, the Majesty co-eternal. Such as the Father is, so is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost. "The Father uncreate, the Son uncreate, and the Holy Ghost uncreate. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost incomprehensible. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Ghost eternal. "And yet there are not three eternals, but one eternal. Also there are not three incomprehensibles, not three uncreated: but one uncreated, and one incomprehensible. "So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet there are not three Almighties, but one Almighty. "So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet there are not three Gods: but one God. "So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not three Lords but one Lord. "For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every person by himself to be God and Lord; so we are forbidden by the Catholic religion to say, There be three Gods, or three Lords. "The Father is made of none; neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone: not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding. "So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons: one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts. "And in this Trinity none is afore, or after other, none is greater or less than others; but the whole three persons are co- eternal together; and co-equal. So that in all things as is aforesaid: the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped. "HE THEREFORE THAT WILL BE SAVED MUST THUS THINK OF THE TRINITY.

I'm asking for about 364 words similar to a chapter in the Bible, but we need clear language. Avoid vague terms and half-sentences. We need a section of Scripture that expresses the ideas in a way that anyone, even someone without deep theological knowledge, can understand.

Can you do that Johann

F2F

 

[face2face]

Trinitarian doctrine was not a later addition but a faithful articulation of the apostolic teaching found throughout the Scriptures.

This is strong delusion - you have it bad Johann!

The development of the doctrine of the Trinity unfolded relatively quickly, with early Church Fathers like Tertullian (circa 200 AD) and Hippolytus (circa 225 AD) contributing to its formation. The formal definition, however, was established at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. This marked a significant shift, which many viewed as an apostasy, departing from earlier Christian understandings of the nature of Jesus Christ.

You have been exposed to the Apostles' teachings regarding the true nature of Christ, yet you remain deliberately unaware or dismissive of it.

I know why you won't speak to those chapters and verses.

F2F