the trinity, what do you believe?

[RabbiO]

I believe your belief in God is lacking reality.

That remark was uncalled for, especially given that I simply answered the OP’s question which was not directed solely to Christians and given that I did not make a value judgement about any other person’s beliefs.

Of course, given the remarks you have made over the years on the forum, I can’t say that your response was a total surprise.

 

[Starlight]

three gods. Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva.

According to the offical trinity doctrine and most christian denominations in the world God is only one being shared by three persons. Christians believe only in one God.

According to the offical trinity doctrine and most christian denominations in the world it is a heresy to believe God is three beings. That heresy is called tritheism.

So to think trimurty is similar to the trinity is wrong. Christians do NOT believe God is three beings/gods/entities who work and live in unity. That is a heresy called tritheism

Opinion 2 is NOT the correct trinity doctrine. Opinion 2 is close to tritheism.

The reason i wrote opinion 2 in this tread is because I wanted to see if many christians have misunderstood or believe wrong about the trinity doctrine.

 

[Starlight]

I believe it is most like #1.

Yes you are correct about that.

According to the offical trinity doctrine and most christian denominations in the world God is only one being shared by three persons. Christians believe only in one God.

 

[Starlight]

I believe option #2 is impossible.

Yes you are correct about that.

Opinion 2 is NOT the correct trinity doctrine. Opinion 2 is close to tritheism.

The reason i wrote opinion 2 in this tread is because I wanted to see if many christians have misunderstood or believe wrong about the trinity doctrine.

According to the offical trinity doctrine and most christian denominations in the world God is only one being shared by three persons. Christians believe only in one God.

 

[Brian2]

There are many verses that Jesus says that the Father is Greater than He. For example, the Lord's prayer Matthew 6:6, the words of Christ on the cross Matthew 27:46, womenly behavior in church 1 Corinthians 11:3, etc

The Son has a Father whom He obeys and submits to and whom is the source of the Son. So?
Actually being the Son of God makes Jesus equal to God according to the learned Jews who heard Jesus. (John 5:18)
"Greater" is probably not the word you want anyway, 'greater' could just mean "more authority" and that is the truth, the Father has authority over His Son, but that does not mean that they do not have the same nature.
What you really want to show is if the Father is "better" than the Son.

The main verse John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." was mistranslated as most trinitarian scholars would interpret it as "... and the Word was Divine". This has many possible meanings. By what means can humans understand that which is unknowable. Details of the Divine nature are beyond the comprehension of human.

Many scholars point to John 1:1 as saying that the Word is exactly like "the God" He was with.

The Granville Sharp rules for Greek Plurality is not scholarly. It was achieved by a well meaning preacher.

The Granville Sharp rule is not about plurality but applies to passages like Titus 2:13 and 2Peter 1:1 where we are wanting to know if both God and Saviour refer to Jesus.
I cannot say much about the rule being correct or not (which you can look up if you want) but I know that Thomas said that Jesus was his God and so should be our God also. (John 20:28)

The jews believed in one Deity. Jesus and the apostles were jews, so where was the kerfuffle to explain trinity in the Gospels. There was no straightforward discussion or description of trinity (plain straightforwardness with Prophecy is commanded in the Scriptures). This implies extrabiblical ideas which are forbidden in the Scriptures.

Christians (or at least this Christian) believe in one God, the Father, in whom is His Son and His Spirit.
The idea of the Messiah being God is seen in the OT but not explicitly.

The statement "I am" is a very common statement in the bible. "I am that I am" likely means in normal conversation as "Its too complicated for you to understand". We ourselves use it all the time.

Really?
How about "before Abraham was, I am".

There are numerous things trinitarians must square before it should be considered divinely inspired.

Surely Trinitarians have squared those things by now.

I believe as the Bible requires.
1) There is one God.
2) No images of wood (or mind) are to be worshipped.
3) Jesus is the Lord of the Sabbath (and the Only Begotten Son of God).
Jesus is Divine in that He born before alpha but is subordinate to the Father. God created the universe and Jesus was the means by which it all came about. Father and Son are metaphysically necessary axioms. Father - necessary for creation. Son - necessary of existence of man in the creation.

The Son, the Word, was not created. see John 1:3.

 

[LactoseIntolerant]

The Son has a Father whom He obeys and submits to and whom is the source of the Son. So?
Actually being the Son of God makes Jesus equal to God according to the learned Jews who heard Jesus. (John 5:18)

Read your trinitarian doctrine - "All three persons of the Trinity co-equal" . So is your trinity now one submissive to another. Is this not a contradiction to what you are preaching?
John 5:18 is an account of the Pharisees accusing Jesus. Read John 5:19 and see explanation of Jesus to those that bear false witness against Him, "Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. "
The Divine Substance is unknowable, untestable and cannot be understood. It is a category that man has made. Take for example the category "alive". Elon Musk and a muskrat. Are they the same though both are alive?

"Greater" is probably not the word you want anyway, 'greater' could just mean "more authority" and that is the truth, the Father has authority over His Son, but that does not mean that they do not have the same nature.
What you really want to show is if the Father is "better" than the Son.

The Father's relation to the Son.
John 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

Colossians 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.

John 12:44-45 And Jesus cried out and said, “He who believes in Me, does not believe in Me but in Him who sent Me. He who sees Me sees the One who sent Me.

All versus violate the trinity concept of "co-equal".

Many scholars point to John 1:1 as saying that the Word is exactly like "the God" He was with.

This is a direct quote, I read. Have not verified them.
Various translations by Trinitarian scholars
“the Word was Divine” (Goodspeed, E.J. An American Translation N.T. 1923).
“the Logos was Divine” (Moffatt, J. The Bible 1950).
“And what God was, the Word was” (New English Bible 1961).
“the Word was Divine” (Schonfield, H.L. Authentic N.T. 1956).
“The Word was with God and shared his nature” (Translator’s N.T. 1973).
“and the nature of the Word was the same as the nature of God” (Barclay, W. N.T. 1968).

The Granville Sharp rule is not about plurality but applies to passages like Titus 2:13 and 2Peter 1:1 where we are wanting to know if both God and Saviour refer to Jesus.
I cannot say much about the rule being correct or not (which you can look up if you want) but I know that Thomas said that Jesus was his God and so should be our God also. (John 20:28)

In the same chapter
Joh 20:17 I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

In the same book
Joh 14:10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
Joh 14:11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works’ sake.

How does one square John 20:28? Keep one reject the others? That is unscriptural. Using Occam's razor, Thomas was seeing the Glory of God in Jesus Risen.

Christians (or at least this Christian) believe in one God, the Father, in whom is His Son and His Spirit.
The idea of the Messiah being God is seen in the OT but not explicitly.

If something is not explicitly mentioned in the premises, how is the logic closed? By extrabiblical knowledge. Is extrabiblical knowledge acceptable in Bible interpretation? It is explicitly a negative.

Really?
How about "before Abraham was, I am".

From Wikipedia
"...in John 8:58 does not grammatically require a predicate nominative, however it is rather unusual for a present tense verb to be used with a temporal adverb like πρὶν in a declarative statement, though there are rare exceptions outside the New Testament. Thus explanations of John 8:58 generally depend on theology and not Greek grammar."

Surely Trinitarians have squared those things by now.

My contention is "No"

The Son, the Word, was not created. see John 1:3.

John 1:3 makes no statement about Jesus being created or not. Known facts
1) Jesus is the Only Begotten Son of God.
2) Jesus existed at the beginning of the time-space continuum (alpha and omega).

How Jesus was begat is unknown (Divine), but that He was Begotten is clearly stated.

 

[Earthtank]

What do you believe about Jesus and God?

That they are 2 completely different beings. 1 human and the other (obviously) God. With 0 connection to each other, other than the fact that Jesus was their to fulfil God's command. No, not as God in the flesh but simply in the flesh like you and I

Why did the trinity not make sense to you after you read the Bible?

Have you read the Bible?

 

[Starlight]

It's impossible to know God completely, as in His essence, but I still am convinced of some things, such as God does not have three parts. This is due to revelation. We can know his qualities, which Baha'is call attributes. They live within us.

I agree with the Baha'i faith that God is only one person and one being. That make most sense in my opinion. Strict monotheism is most logical.

 

[Brian2]

Read your trinitarian doctrine - "All three persons of the Trinity co-equal" . So is your trinity now one submissive to another. Is this not a contradiction to what you are preaching?
John 5:18 is an account of the Pharisees accusing Jesus. Read John 5:19 and see explanation of Jesus to those that bear false witness against Him, "Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. "
The Divine Substance is unknowable, untestable and cannot be understood. It is a category that man has made. Take for example the category "alive". Elon Musk and a muskrat. Are they the same though both are alive?

The Bible and (as far as I know) the trinity doctrine teaches that the Son is the Son and submits to His Father. They are equal in nature and as the Bible seems to teach, in pretty much all other ways.
A son has the same nature as his father.
In John 5 Jesus was showing that the Father had authority and that Jesus can do everything that the Father does but does not just go off and do whatever at any time, He does what the Father does when the Father does those things.
Jesus owns all things that belong to His Father. (John 16:15) Jesus has the glory of the Father and is the image of the Father. (Heb 1:3)

The Father's relation to the Son.
John 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

What does "greater" mean in that context? Probably means that the Father has more authority, is not a lowly human servant, is seated in the highest place.
The Father is not "better" however.
The Son owns all that the Father has and when He went back to the Father after His death He received all authority and power in heaven and on earth. (Matt 28:16) but of course He is still the Son and still submits to His Father's will.

Colossians 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.

"firstborn" does not mean first one born here but means pre-eminent one, so some translations have "firstborn over creation".
If it means Jesus is part of creation it is only because He stepped into the creation when He became a man. Jesus was not created and that can be seen in the places where it says that through Him ALL things were created. He was not one of the things created.
He is the image of the invisible God because He is exactly like the Father.

John 12:44-45 And Jesus cried out and said, “He who believes in Me, does not believe in Me but in Him who sent Me. He who sees Me sees the One who sent Me.

What do you see here that I do not see?

All versus violate the trinity concept of "co-equal".

As I said, coequal means equal in nature, God nature.
I'm not sure if I answered what you were pointing to in those verses.

This is a direct quote, I read. Have not verified them.
Various translations by Trinitarian scholars
“the Word was Divine” (Goodspeed, E.J. An American Translation N.T. 1923).
“the Logos was Divine” (Moffatt, J. The Bible 1950).
“And what God was, the Word was” (New English Bible 1961).
“the Word was Divine” (Schonfield, H.L. Authentic N.T. 1956).
“The Word was with God and shared his nature” (Translator’s N.T. 1973).
“and the nature of the Word was the same as the nature of God” (Barclay, W. N.T. 1968).

Did those who translated "divine" mean that the Word was "of God" or "like God" do you think.
These scholars were trinitarian after all.

In the same chapter
Joh 20:17 I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

In the same book
Joh 14:10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
Joh 14:11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works’ sake.

How does one square John 20:28? Keep one reject the others? That is unscriptural. Using Occam's razor, Thomas was seeing the Glory of God in Jesus Risen.

Does John 20:17 mean that Jesus was not the God of Thomas? No, it means that Jesus was still a man after His resurrection and so had a God, His Father. His Father became His God when Jesus became a man. (see Psalm 22:10)
Jesus came as a man, the human Son of God and He left His Godly splendour behind while on earth and lived as a man under the law. He was the servant of God His Father and did not point to Himself but to His Father. The Father on the other hand is the one who glorifies His Son and has given Him the name which is above all names so that we will worship Him. (Phil 2:9-10)
John wanted us to believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God (John 20:31) and that Son of God is also God (John 20:28)
It is not a matter of there being more than one God however because the Father is in the Son and the Son in the Father and the 2 are one thing just as all Christians are one thing, the body of Christ.
It is not a matter of Occam's razor it is a matter of believing John 20:17, John 20:28 and John 20:31. They are all true.

If something is not explicitly mentioned in the premises, how is the logic closed? By extrabiblical knowledge. Is extrabiblical knowledge acceptable in Bible interpretation? It is explicitly a negative.

It is not a matter of "extrabiblical" anything. If we just read the OT we might be like the Jews and not see the divinity of the Messiah if we read the NT and compare what is said there with what the OT says we can see the deity of Jesus.

From Wikipedia
"...in John 8:58 does not grammatically require a predicate nominative, however it is rather unusual for a present tense verb to be used with a temporal adverb like πρὶν in a declarative statement, though there are rare exceptions outside the New Testament. Thus explanations of John 8:58 generally depend on theology and not Greek grammar."

Sounds like the Wikipedia author could not explain it either.
When God said to Moses, say that "I am has sent me unto you" (Ex 3:14) was this God speaking from the bush or was it an angel (the angel of the Lord---Ex 3:2) If it was an angel why does He speak as if He is God?
Could it be that God could send an angel who is also God?
This happens at a number of places in the OT and each time the appearance is identified as God.
Regular angels (messengers) say that God has sent them and that God say..............

John 1:3 makes no statement about Jesus being created or not. Known facts
1) Jesus is the Only Begotten Son of God.
2) Jesus existed at the beginning of the time-space continuum (alpha and omega).

How Jesus was begat is unknown (Divine), but that He was Begotten is clearly stated.

John 1:3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

Since all things were made through Him it means that He is not one of the things that has been made.

Concerning "begotten" I seem to remember that one of the Credos says that Jesus was "born of the Father before time began,"
That is not the Bible but trinitarians also can see the Son as begotten but not having had a beginning.

 

[LactoseIntolerant]

Hope you don't mind I reorganized your quote.

The Bible and (as far as I know) the trinity doctrine teaches that the Son is the Son and submits to His Father. They are equal in nature and as the Bible seems to teach, in pretty much all other ways.
A son has the same nature as his father.
In John 5 Jesus was showing that the Father had authority and that Jesus can do everything that the Father does but does not just go off and do whatever at any time, He does what the Father does when the Father does those things.
Jesus owns all things that belong to His Father. (John 16:15) Jesus has the glory of the Father and is the image of the Father. (Heb 1:3)
As I said, coequal means equal in nature, God nature.
I'm not sure if I answered what you were pointing to in those verses.

John 1:3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
Since all things were made through Him it means that He is not one of the things that has been made.
Concerning "begotten" I seem to remember that one of the Credos says that Jesus was "born of the Father before time began,"
That is not the Bible but trinitarians also can see the Son as begotten but not having had a beginning.

Where is it you have studied and understood the Divine Nature? Tell me how to see past alpha to where you find all this knowledge of the Divine. If you can`t, it is just another conjecture of man.
As for the son having the same nature as the father - Thomas Aquinas, Augustine, Athanasius - All upstanding men of the roman state church. Not Scriptural.
I conjecture nothing beyond what I can see.

What does "greater" mean in that context? Probably means that the Father has more authority, is not a lowly human servant, is seated in the highest place.
The Father is not "better" however.
The Son owns all that the Father has and when He went back to the Father after His death He received all authority and power in heaven and on earth. (Matt 28:16) but of course He is still the Son and still submits to His Father's will.

"firstborn" does not mean first one born here but means pre-eminent one, so some translations have "firstborn over creation".
If it means Jesus is part of creation it is only because He stepped into the creation when He became a man. Jesus was not created and that can be seen in the places where it says that through Him ALL things were created. He was not one of the things created.
He is the image of the invisible God because He is exactly like the Father.

Why is one required to reinterpret "greater"? Eisigesis, anyone. The Father is God to Jesus as Father is God to me see John 20:17.
Also are you preaching a form of modalism? Jesus the human is different from Jesus the Spirit.
Once again why reinterpret "firstborn" to some other meaning not even contained in πρωτότοκος. As I rejected unitarian claims of Jesus as the Mandated Human by use of the "firstborn" reinterpretation, so too will I reject the trinitarian claim by the same argument.

Did those who translated "divine" mean that the Word was "of God" or "like God" do you think.
These scholars were trinitarian after all.

"Divine" has many meanings while "God" has only One. The point is that Divine was used so it may accommodate more meanings not just the trinitarian.

What do you see here that I do not see?

Does John 20:17 mean that Jesus was not the God of Thomas? No, it means that Jesus was still a man after His resurrection and so had a God, His Father. His Father became His God when Jesus became a man. (see Psalm 22:10)
Jesus came as a man, the human Son of God and He left His Godly splendour behind while on earth and lived as a man under the law. He was the servant of God His Father and did not point to Himself but to His Father. The Father on the other hand is the one who glorifies His Son and has given Him the name which is above all names so that we will worship Him. (Phil 2:9-10)
John wanted us to believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God (John 20:31) and that Son of God is also God (John 20:28)
It is not a matter of there being more than one God however because the Father is in the Son and the Son in the Father and the 2 are one thing just as all Christians are one thing, the body of Christ.
It is not a matter of Occam's razor it is a matter of believing John 20:17, John 20:28 and John 20:31. They are all true.
It is not a matter of "extrabiblical" anything. If we just read the OT we might be like the Jews and not see the divinity of the Messiah if we read the NT and compare what is said there with what the OT says we can see the deity of Jesus.

The argument was if the John 20:28 merits the creation of a triune. The quotes, as per my position, indicates faith/belief in Jesus entails faith/belief in God. Thomas reacted by the miraculous presence of Christ, as affirmation of Christ and God. He is not called Doubting Thomas for nothing.
I agree all verses are true, but I do not create a triune godhead to explain it.
Mathematical closure is same number of equations as variables. Biblical inerrancy demands all answers/premises are within the bible as the bible states it. No extra biblical anything.

Sounds like the Wikipedia author could not explain it either.
When God said to Moses, say that "I am has sent me unto you" (Ex 3:14) was this God speaking from the bush or was it an angel (the angel of the Lord---Ex 3:2) If it was an angel why does He speak as if He is God?
Could it be that God could send an angel who is also God?
This happens at a number of places in the OT and each time the appearance is identified as God.
Regular angels (messengers) say that God has sent them and that God say..............

Messengers of God are merely that. Tools to be used. How God uses His Tool is God`s business.
"I Am" is not specific identifier of God. God may certainly use it and make it famous and potent, but it is not reserved by God.

 

[Brian2]

Where is it you have studied and understood the Divine Nature? Tell me how to see past alpha to where you find all this knowledge of the Divine. If you can`t, it is just another conjecture of man.
As for the son having the same nature as the father - Thomas Aquinas, Augustine, Athanasius - All upstanding men of the roman state church. Not Scriptural.
I conjecture nothing beyond what I can see.

Heb 1:2 But in these last days He has spoken to us by His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, and through whom He made the universe. 3 The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of His nature, upholding all things by His powerful word. After He had provided purification for sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high. 4 So He became as far superior to the angels as the name He has inherited is excellent beyond theirs.…

Phil 2:6 Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
7 rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!
This passage tells us that Jesus kept being in the form of God (having the nature of God) even while a man.
It contrasts inner form (nature) with outer form (human likeness and appearance).
We know the Son was there in the beginning with the Father and had the nature of the Father.
Moicah 5:2 But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come forth for Me One to be ruler over Israel— One whose origins are of old, from the days of eternity.
In timelessness there are no days in eternity, and so this passage means that the Son was eternal along with the Father and of course the Spirit.

Why is one required to reinterpret "greater"? Eisigesis, anyone. The Father is God to Jesus as Father is God to me see John 20:17.
Also are you preaching a form of modalism? Jesus the human is different from Jesus the Spirit.
Once again why reinterpret "firstborn" to some other meaning not even contained in πρωτότοκος. As I rejected unitarian claims of Jesus as the Mandated Human by use of the "firstborn" reinterpretation, so too will I reject the trinitarian claim by the same argument.

Joe Biden is greater than I am but is not better. We have the same human nature.
The Father is the God of Jesus because Jesus was and still is a man even if now He is not the lowly human servant on earth who serves His Father, He is the Son who sits at the right hand of God and who rules as King,,,,,,,,,,,,,,He has taken back His godship, He has inherited what was His all along.
Not only being a man but also being the Son puts Jesus in a position of submission to His Father if He is the good Son, which He is.
The Father being the God of Jesus does not exclude Jesus from being the God of us.
Psalm 89:27 And I will appoint him to be my firstborn,
the most exalted of the kings of the earth.
This man David whom God found was 'appointed' to be firstborn.
If 'firstborn' here meant 'first one born' then He would not have been appointed firstborn. And what did 'firstborn' mean in this Psalm, it was a position of power and authority and privilege. (the most exalted of the kings of the earth.)

"Divine" has many meanings while "God" has only One. The point is that Divine was used so it may accommodate more meanings not just the trinitarian.

You are looking at translations of John 1:1 and translations by trinitarians who wanted "divine" to have the trinitarian meaning.
The point is I guess that the Greek word used was 'God' and was not "divine". But the sense of the word used seems to have been a description of the Word.

The argument was if the John 20:28 merits the creation of a triune. The quotes, as per my position, indicates faith/belief in Jesus entails faith/belief in God. Thomas reacted by the miraculous presence of Christ, as affirmation of Christ and God. He is not called Doubting Thomas for nothing.
I agree all verses are true, but I do not create a triune godhead to explain it.
Mathematical closure is same number of equations as variables. Biblical inerrancy demands all answers/premises are within the bible as the bible states it. No extra biblical anything.

If I am going beyond what is written then point it out.
John 20:28 by itself without the other evidence of Jesus deity may not be enough to imply a trinity, but with the others places I would say it does.
I think it has to be remembered that Thomas was addressing Jesus and certainly seems to be saying of Jesus, "My Lord and My God", with Jesus agreeing by saying that Thomas believed now that he had seen the risen Christ.

Messengers of God are merely that. Tools to be used. How God uses His Tool is God`s business.
"I Am" is not specific identifier of God. God may certainly use it and make it famous and potent, but it is not reserved by God.

The Jews who heard Jesus say "Before Abraham was I am" certainly thought He was blaspheming and should be stoned.
Was God using an angelic tool when the elders of Israel saw Him.
Ex 24:10 and they saw the God of Israel. Under His feet was a work like a pavement made of sapphire, as clear as the sky itself. 11But God did not lay His hand on the nobles of Israel; they saw Him, and they ate and drank.
John 1:17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is Himself God and is at the Father’s side, has made Him known.
People saw and even felt the Son, Jesus, when He was a man and this Son it seems is also God and the God of Israel and imo was the one whom the Israeli elders saw even though nobody has seen the Father, the invisible one true God in whom is His Son.
The Father is the one true God imo because He is the source His Son and His Spirit, but they have the same nature as the Father and are in Him.
Hard to completely grasp but I don't think it is going beyond scripture.

 

[Earthtank]

Do you believe

1. God is only one being shared by three persons

or

2. God is three beings in one being?

I believe that 1+1+1 does NOT = 1

 

[LactoseIntolerant]

Heb 1:2 But in these last days He has spoken to us by His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, and through whom He made the universe. 3 The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of His nature, upholding all things by His powerful word. After He had provided purification for sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high. 4 So He became as far superior to the angels as the name He has inherited is excellent beyond theirs.…

Phil 2:6 Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
7 rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!
This passage tells us that Jesus kept being in the form of God (having the nature of God) even while a man.
It contrasts inner form (nature) with outer form (human likeness and appearance).
We know the Son was there in the beginning with the Father and had the nature of the Father.
Moicah 5:2 But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come forth for Me One to be ruler over Israel— One whose origins are of old, from the days of eternity.
In timelessness there are no days in eternity, and so this passage means that the Son was eternal along with the Father and of course the Spirit.

I agree Heb 1:2-4
1) Jesus is Heir. He will be Granted and Exercise All Sovereignty - Given by Father and Worked in the New Heaven and New Earth.
2) Jesus and Father are One in Purpose, not Nature (see below)
3) By His Death, Jesus was Anointed as High Priest of the Heavenly Temple and as King of the Davidic line at the Right Hand Side of God. (see below)

"Nature" in Heb 1:3 is Greek ὑπόστασις. It has various meanings -
Definition: a support, substance, steadiness, assurance
Usage: (lit: an underlying), (a) confidence, assurance, (b) a giving substance (or reality) to, or a guaranteeing, (c) substance, reality.
Why Nature? Would not Purpose achieve the translation and would not generate dissonance with other verses. Consider Heb 1:4, by Jesus having to die before Ascendency over the angels. Is this a form of modalism, by the way?. As Jesus is at the Right Hand of God (no heavenly throne) why must Jesus be part of a godhead. As Jesus will be the Davidic King (Iron Scepter) will Jesus, being part of a godhead, need the Anointment of the Father?

"Nature" Phil 2:6 is μορφή
Definition: form, shape
Usage: form, shape, outward appearance.
What is the form of an Invisible God. The Acts and Words. Jesus speaks and acts as God would Speak and Perform Miracles. Nature of the the Invisible is conjecture.

Micah 5:2 "eternity" uses עוֹלָם
Definition: long duration, antiquity, futurity
I agree that the Word was with God at/before alpha. Jesus, as a part of the godhead cannot be inferred by the hebrew עוֹלָם

Joe Biden is greater than I am but is not better. We have the same human nature.
The Father is the God of Jesus because Jesus was and still is a man even if now He is not the lowly human servant on earth who serves His Father, He is the Son who sits at the right hand of God and who rules as King,,,,,,,,,,,,,,He has taken back His godship, He has inherited what was His all along.
Not only being a man but also being the Son puts Jesus in a position of submission to His Father if He is the good Son, which He is.
The Father being the God of Jesus does not exclude Jesus from being the God of us.
Psalm 89:27 And I will appoint him to be my firstborn,
the most exalted of the kings of the earth.
This man David whom God found was 'appointed' to be firstborn.
If 'firstborn' here meant 'first one born' then He would not have been appointed firstborn. And what did 'firstborn' mean in this Psalm, it was a position of power and authority and privilege. (the most exalted of the kings of the earth.)

I understand the Joe Biden analogy if the category is "human". But if the category is "animal", then there are more profound differences that have to be addressed. One notional consideration is am I taking the glory away from Biden if he was being compared to an animal muskrat. The Father is God to Jesus as the Father is God to me. Except Jesus is Perfect. And Divine. Jesus is the Means by which all is created - the necessary axiom for an anthropic universe. God is the Creator - the necessary axiom for all things to exist.

The eldest is the property of God. From the firs born of the flock(blemish free), to the eldest of the Levites, they are God's. Assignment of the firstborn status is symbolic of being God's property. The story of Passover, is an example of saying the Israelites are the property of God (death of the eldest per household) The difference is Jesus is "literally" the Firstborn (Word), and literally is the Only-Begotten Son. Angels and man are all created by "means" of Jesus. There is no need to bring symbology when Jesus is exactly as described. Jesus is the Archetype by whom we must emulate. By emulation of the Perfect Example, we will become eldest in the Eyes pf God.

 

[LactoseIntolerant]

You are looking at translations of John 1:1 and translations by trinitarians who wanted "divine" to have the trinitarian meaning.
The point is I guess that the Greek word used was 'God' and was not "divine". But the sense of the word used seems to have been a description of the Word.

The Greek phraseology, from what I can gather, results from the fact there is no specific word for Divine in hebrew, As judaism a monotheist belief system, there is only One God to ascribe otherworldliness of the Holy Kind. It is a quirk of translation.

If I am going beyond what is written then point it out.
John 20:28 by itself without the other evidence of Jesus deity may not be enough to imply a trinity, but with the others places I would say it does.
I think it has to be remembered that Thomas was addressing Jesus and certainly seems to be saying of Jesus, "My Lord and My God", with Jesus agreeing by saying that Thomas believed now that he had seen the risen Christ.

My contention is that meaning of any specific verse is eisigetically biased, Because of the preconceived trinity, the meaning of verses are filtered to prove trinity. Consider this from a trinitarian website
The Doctrine of the Trinity: No Christianity Without It
"Second, where is the doctrine of the Trinity found in the Bible? Although the word “Trinity” is famously absent from Scripture, the theology behind the word can be found in a surprising number of verses."
Trinity is not explicitly stated or expounded in the Scriptures ("There is one God in three Persons, co-equal in Nature" - or something to that effect). How can one draw out the concept of trinity from the Scriptures? The only way is by the reader's choices. If by bible inerrancy states that nothing can added or subtracted, it includes the mind/predisposition of the reader. Your predisposition violates bible inerrancy.

The Jews who heard Jesus say "Before Abraham was I am" certainly thought He was blaspheming and should be stoned.
Was God using an angelic tool when the elders of Israel saw Him.
Ex 24:10 and they saw the God of Israel. Under His feet was a work like a pavement made of sapphire, as clear as the sky itself. 11But God did not lay His hand on the nobles of Israel; they saw Him, and they ate and drank.
John 1:17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is Himself God and is at the Father’s side, has made Him known.
People saw and even felt the Son, Jesus, when He was a man and this Son it seems is also God and the God of Israel and imo was the one whom the Israeli elders saw even though nobody has seen the Father, the invisible one true God in whom is His Son.

I also imagine that Jesus is the most Authentic Representative in this time space continuum. But there is no definitive proof to move imagination to words. It is prudent to ask God and Jesus in the New Earth and not preach that which is not guided with the Holy Spirit.

The Father is the one true God imo because He is the source His Son and His Spirit, but they have the same nature as the Father and are in Him.
Hard to completely grasp but I don't think it is going beyond scripture.

2nd commandment
"You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth."
Extrapolate wood to doctrine. Words by which to live or die. Literally.

 

[Muffled]

three gods. Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva.

I believe that is one God with each name reflecting attributes of God

 

[Muffled]

That remark was uncalled for, especially given that I simply answered the OP’s question which was not directed solely to Christians and given that I did not make a value judgement about any other person’s beliefs.

Of course, given the remarks you have made over the years on the forum, I can’t say that your response was a total surprise.

Whatever.

I believe this is a debate. I questioned the validity of your statement. It is up to you to describe it and defend it. That is how a debate works.

I think you would be surprised at how many people value their fantasies over reality. The saying is that ignorance is bliss. And in the movie Labyrinth the goblin king states that the truth hurts.

If you think I am that way I believe you should listen to God, lol.
Amos 5:21 “I hate, I despise your feasts, and I take no delight in your solemn assemblies.

 

[Muffled]

According to the offical trinity doctrine and most christian denominations in the world God is only one being shared by three persons. Christians believe only in one God.

According to the offical trinity doctrine and most christian denominations in the world it is a heresy to believe God is three beings. That heresy is called tritheism.

So to think trimurty is similar to the trinity is wrong. Christians do NOT believe God is three beings/gods/entities who work and live in unity. That is a heresy called tritheism

Opinion 2 is NOT the correct trinity doctrine. Opinion 2 is close to tritheism.

The reason i wrote opinion 2 in this tread is because I wanted to see if many christians have misunderstood or believe wrong about the trinity doctrine.

I believe the issue I had was the concept of persons. The confusion is that there are many definitions of the word and the Trinity does not fit the familiar ones to non-scholars of the Bible and only fits a religious definition.

 

[Muffled]

Yes you are correct about that.

According to the offical trinity doctrine and most christian denominations in the world God is only one being shared by three persons. Christians believe only in one God.

I believe I may ask what is official. Is that the Roman Catholic church because they ruled for a bunch of years?

 

[Starlight]

I believe I may ask what is official. Is that the Roman Catholic church because they ruled for a bunch of years?

Yes the offical trinity doctrine is what the roman catholic church, ortodox churches and most protestant churches teaches.

 

[Starlight]

I believe the issue I had was the concept of persons. The confusion is that there are many definitions of the word and the Trinity does not fit the familiar ones to non-scholars of the Bible and only fits a religious definition.

I don't understand what you mean

What do you believe a person in the trinity is?