Who is Jesus to a Non-Trinitarian?

[PinSeeker]

Well, so much for being given the last word...

Peter, a Jew, is a non-trinitarian.

He of course he was a trinitarian, knowing full well the triune nature of our God. Well, he was... He's not with us anymore... :) ...but many of us will see him again and share in the new heaven and new earth with him. And Jesus, of course. But in the opening of his first epistle, it's abundantly clear:

"Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ,
To those who are elect exiles of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood:
May grace and peace be multiplied to you." (1 Peter 1:1-2)​

Peter, who do you say Jesus is? “You [Jesus] are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”

Yes, and what people either don't get or outright deny is what it really means, Biblically speaking, that Jesus is the Son of God. It might also help to remember that Jesus is also the Son of Man.

Peter and Jesus are non-trinitarians.

Peter certainly is; see above. John certainly was, as we see from the outset of his gospel. And Jesus was very clear about His position as the second Person of the triune Jehovah, all through John, particularly in John 14.

Well, if “God” is the Trinity then three persons sent “him”.

That's a very interesting statement, and in a sense, is true, as the three Persons of the triune Jehovah are in perfect unity, fellowship, and communion from all eternity to all eternity. But specifically speaking, the Father sent Jesus, as Jesus says in John 7:29 and John 20:21. It might also be noted that the Father sent the Holy Spirit, too, as Jesus was very clear would happen ~ and did, of course, at Pentecost, documented by Luke in Acts 2 ~ in John 14. Regarding why the Father sent Jesus,

It would be helpful, though, to understand the clear implication of, and also the nature of this sending. That the Father sent Jesus clearly implies that Jesus was already with the Father, of course; He was with the Father from all eternity. Regarding the nature of this sending, Jesus Himself tells us why He was sent at the beginning of His public ministry. Reading from Isaiah 61, He says:

"The Spirit..." ~ the Holy Spirit ~ "...of the LORD is upon me, because He..." ~ the LORD ~ "...has anointed Me..." ~ Jesus ~ "...to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor."​

And then He says:

"Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing."
[Luke 4:18-21]​

Jesus could do none of this if He were not God ~ who alone can, as Isaiah says, open the eyes of the blind, unstop the ears of the deaf, make the lame man to leap like a deer, and make the tongue of the mute sing for joy (Isaiah 35), all of which Jesus did, in addition to doing many other things only God can do, such as commanding and controlling nature itself and forgiving sins. John captures this in his first epistle, saying simply that "the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world" (1 John 4:14). So, again, if Jesus is not God, then none of us has any hope of salvation, and there is no resurrection except to judgment, and our end is... well, I don't even want to think it, much less say it.

...as Peter expressed it - “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Peter also said I say again, so many misunderstand and so vastly underestimate and thus understate what it means that Jesus is the Son of God. That Jesus is also the Son of Man, as He Himself refers to Himself several times, should be of help. There is GREAT significance and GREAT parallelism between the two titles/designations. To put it succinctly, the Father and the Son have different roles within the economy of the triune Jehovah, the Godhead. There is equality in nature, but subordination in their personal roles (the Son submits to the Father, but not vice versa). When God the Son calls God the Father “my God,” He is affirming His relationally subordinate role without denying His full deity. And, having humbled himself and emptied Himself even while in the form of God and taken the form of man ~ as Paul says in Philippians 2, He made Himself completely submissive to the Father and can therefore say ~ in His human condition ~ that the Father is His God.

...Chalcedonian Christianity...

Grace and peace to all in the name of our Lord Jesus.

 

[Matthias]

Jesus himself says his God is one person but teaches his disciples that (his God and ?) their God is three persons.

I don’t find that argument persuasive.

 

[Matthias]

“No more than the Old Testament writers do the New Testament writers set forth a systematic doctrine about God. For them, too, there is only one God, the creator and lord of the universe; and He is the the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. He is the Heavenly Father, but more especially the Father of Jesus.“

(Edmund J. Fortman, The Triune God: A Historical Study of the Doctrine of the Trinity, p. 31)

I’m in agreement with this statement by the Catholic author.

 

[Matthias]

“The Biblical witness to God, as we have seen, did not contain any formal or formulated doctrine of the Trinity, any explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons. Rather it contained data from which a doctrine of this kind could be formulated. And it would take three centuries of gradual assimilation of the Biblical witness to God before the formulation of the dogma of one God in three distinct persons would be achieved.”

(Edmund J. Fortman, The Triune God: A Historical Study of the Doctrine of the Trinity, Part Two introduction)

The history of the doctrine of the Trinity is very well documented in Church history. That’s not an issue for me.

The issue of interest is the question asked by Dr. Harold O.J. Brown (a Protestant scholar) and author of Heresies: Heresy And Orthodoxy In The History Of The Church.

”Was the transition from the personal monotheism of Israel to the tri-personal theism of Nicaea a legitimate development of Old Testament revelation?”

Dr. Brown, as the reader will see, asserts that it was. My position as a Jewish monotheist is that it wasn’t.

“Christians affirm that it is, holding that Nicaea represents a fuller unfolding, not a distortion, of the self-disclosure of the God of Israel. Indeed, the trinitarianism of Nicaea and the Christological definitions of Chalcedon are seen as the valid and necessary interpretation of the claims of Jesus Christ in the context of the Old Testament witness to the God who is One. Without Nicaea and Chalcedon, it would not have been possible to maintain that Christianity is a biblical religion, the legitimate daughter of Old Testament Judaism.“

(Harold O. J. Brown, Heresies: Heresy And Orthodoxy In The Church, p. 431)

Dr. Brown - “hard core” trinitarian.

1. He acknowledges a shift from the personal (i.e. unitarian) monotheism of Israel to the trinitarian monotheism of Christianity (Council of Chalcedon). Nothing shocking about that.

2. He calls it “a legitimate development of Old Testament revelation.“ Much can be said about that (and obviously unitarians - and binitarians! - wouldn’t agree with it) but my purpose here is only to present the case which he makes that the doctrine was gradually developed over the span of several centuries in post-biblical times.

3. He insists on Nicaea and the definitions of Chalcedon as not only valid but necessary interpretations. They weren’t valid and necessary interpretations prior to Nicaea (325 AD) and Chalcedon (451 AD) - what about Christians who lived before the 4th century (Council of Nicaea) and the 5th century (Council of Chalcedon) and knew nothing of them?

4. He says without Nicaea and Chalcedon it would not have been possible to maintain that Christianity is a biblical religion. I don’t find that convincing. Christianity began as a sect of Judaism in the 1st century. No Christian living in the centuries prior to Nicaea and Chalcedon had any problem claiming Christianity is a biblical religion. Even so, and even here, he tacitly acknowledges that the doctrine of the Trinity developed over time in the claim that trinitarianism is the legitimate daughter of Old Testament Judaism - which wasn’t trinitarian.

 

[Matthias]

More on the NT writers from Father Fortman.

”They give us no formal or formulated doctrine of the Trinity, no explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons. But they do give us an elemental trinitarianism, the data from which such a formal doctrine of the Triune God may be formulated.”

(Edmund J. Fortman, The Triune God, p. xvi)

”Elemental trinitarianism” isn’t the doctrine of the Trinity.

Fortman is as hardcore trinitarian as they come. He isn’t denying the validity of the doctrine of the Trinity; he’s acknowledging that the Church developed the doctrine, over a period of several centuries, from various statements made by the NT writers.

The doctrine of the Trinity was developed by Church theologians long after the biblical authors were all dead and buried.

A long time ago now, on another Internet forum which has long ceased to exist, a trinitarian started a personal smear campaign against me. He broke the “scandalous” news on the forum that I was actually a trinitarian masquerading as a unitarian. What was his proof?

I had posted a message on “elemental trinitarianism” - a post which contained the very quote I’ve used in this post. The trinitarian asked me if I agreed with what the Catholic author said. Yes, was my simple response.

The news he reported: “Matthias is an elemental trinitarian, just like the New Testament writers. He pretends to be a unitarian but he’s actually a trinitarian!”

He was serious. I was amused.

Someone (I no longer remember if the person was a trinitarian or a non-trinitarian) asked if I was okay with being called an “elemental trinitarian”. I suppose so, but I don’t identify myself as such. The average person posting on Internet forums isn’t familiar with the terminology and, if I were to use it to describe myself, it would just cause unnecessary problems.

Matthias the Jewish monotheist. No one should mistake me for a trinitarian.

Matthias the elemental trinitarian. Someone might - and did - mistake me for a trinitarian.

 

[Matthias]

“He [Jesus] was a first-century Jewish monotheist.”

(N.T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, p. 652)

Jesus the 1st century trinitarian? No. Jesus the 1st century Jewish monotheist.

Matthias the 21st century trinitarian? No. Matthias the 21st century Jewish monotheist.

 

[Desire Of All Nations]

He of course he was a trinitarian, knowing full well the triune nature of our God. Well, he was... He's not with us anymore... :) ...but many of us will see him again and share in the new heaven and new earth with him. And Jesus, of course. But in the opening of his first epistle, it's abundantly clear:

"Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ,
To those who are elect exiles of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood:
May grace and peace be multiplied to you." (1 Peter 1:1-2)​

That statement doesn't prove that Peter was a trinitarian. What it does prove though, is that you don't understand how sanctification works. The Father sanctifies a prospect with His Spirit to obey Jesus. That's why Jesus said that nobody can come to Him unless the Father drew them first.

The Father uses His Spirit to call the prospect into the knowledge of Christ. And if the prospect chooses to respond to that calling, they will eventually go through the rest of the conversion process and start applying Christ's instructions in their lives. The Holy Spirit is not a sentient being, let alone a God Being. As the angel Gabriel clearly told Mary in Luk. 1:35, the Holy Spirit is power that God utilizes to exercise His will.

 

[robert derrick]

Yes i know God=YHWH(Jehovah) = the Father--- Yes Jesus= the one sent forth by the Father, the messiah, Gods son, not God.

You are the first one of the created christ teachers, who at least says you know God and Jesus Christ.

I can at least respect you for that. The rest of them I don't bother with anymore. So, if you do know Him, then your false doctrine is only intellectual.

Jesus calls his Father( one who sent him) - THE ONLY TRUE GOD-John 17:3-

Jesus was the Lord on earth talking with the Father in heaven, who was the only true God still in heaven, while the true God and eternal Life Jesus Christ was on earth, Thou are the true God alone in heaven.

For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us.

And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.

Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen.

A created christ is a dumb idol only, as are all gods that are no gods at all.

 

[Keiw]

You are the first one of the created christ teachers, who at least says you know God and Jesus Christ.

I can at least respect you for that. The rest of them I don't bother with anymore. So, if you do know Him, then your false doctrine is only intellectual.



Jesus was the Lord on earth talking with the Father in heaven, who was the only true God still in heaven, while the true God and eternal Life Jesus Christ was on earth, Thou are the true God alone in heaven.

For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us.

And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.

Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen.

A created christ is a dumb idol only, as are all gods that are no gods at all.

Here is Jesus sitting at Gods right hand speaking-Rev 3:12--Stressing 4x in a single paragraph that he has a God. It takes believing Jesus over translating errors to fit false council teachings.
At the first council of Constantinople in 381, catholicism changed the single being Abrahamic God into a trinity. By satans will to mislead billions to not enter Gods kingdom.

 

[Wrangler]

Jesus sits at the right hand of God, yes?

It logically means he is not God. No one sits on their own right hand.

 

[Josho]

Jesus sits at the right hand of God, yes?

It logically means he is not God. No one sits on their own right hand.

It's possible though because he is God, just like being born from virgin Mary was possible for Jesus, because He is God, Jesus can do things ordinary man can't do. He is above all, along with the Father and the Holy Spirit the Spirit of God, His ways are greater than all humankind's, He can do things we cannot.

 

[Matthias]

It's possible though because he is God, just like being born from virgin Mary was possible for Jesus, because He is God, Jesus can do things ordinary man can't do. He is above all, along with the Father and the Holy Spirit the Spirit of God, His ways are greater than all humankind's, He can do things we cannot.

How many selfs do you believe the Trinity is?

 

[Lifelong_sinner]

The question of this thread is “who is Jesus to a non trinitarian?”

easy answer. Not the Jesus that is mentioned in the Bible.

 

[Matthias]

The question of this thread is “who is Jesus to a non trinitarian?”

easy answer. Not the Jesus that is mentioned in the Bible.

That’s an easy answer offered by a trinitarian.

Jesus himself isn’t a trinitarian. His God is only one person, not three persons.

Jesus himself is a non-trinitarian.

Your easy answer may be correct in some cases but it’s not correct in all cases.

 

[Wrangler]

Jesus himself is a non-trinitarian.

Profound.

Simple. Easy. And true. Jesus never taught the trinity. An inconvenient truth for trinitarians. The trinity is not in the Bible, not the word, not the doctrine.

The whole reason they have to post a dozen verses to make their case is because their doctrine is not explicitly stated in any single verse. They have to resort to artificial synthesis, which can be used to rationalize any doctrine. ‘For us, there is one God, the Father’ 1 Cor 8:6 is not countermanded by a verse saying the trinity is the God for us.

 

[Josho]

How many selfs do you believe the Trinity is?

I will answer your question with a question, if you don't believe in the trinity, can you explain how God is in many places at one time?

 

[Matthias]

I will answer your question with a question, if you don't believe in the trinity, can you explain how God is in many places at one time?

Yes, but that doesn’t inform me about how many selfs you believe the Trinity is.

Some trinitarians believe the Trinity is 1 self, while other trinitarians believe the Trinity is 3 selfs.

I don’t know what you believe but would like to. That’s why I asked.

 

[Josho]

Yes, but that doesn’t inform me about how many selfs you believe the Trinity is.

Some trinitarians believe the Trinity is 1 self, while other trinitarians believe the Trinity is 3 selfs.

I don’t know what you believe but would like to. That’s why I asked.

To put it simply, I believe God is 3 in 1, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit all are the one same God, the one true God, they are what make God, God, and have been around eternity and eternity to come, God has and always will be the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, that is the image of the one true God.

 

[Matthias]

To put it simply, I believe God is 3 in 1, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit all are the one same God, the one true God, they are what make God, God, and have been around eternity and eternity to come, God has and always will be the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, that is the image of the one true God.

I self? 3 selfs? You don’t know how many selfs? You know how many selfs but for some reason would rather not say?

 

[Josho]

I self? 3 selfs? You don’t know how many selfs? You know how many selfs but for some reason would rather not say?

One God.