The Trinity

[Jensen]

Quote:
Jensen,
it is the Trinitarian belief that Jesus has the firstborn rights over all creation, being that he created and saved creation. The word "Born" only exists as an earthly birth. Jesus became Marys and the Fathers firstborn son (Luke 2:7) at his earthly birth. Hebrews 1:5-6 shows that Angels where already present when Jesus becomes the Fathers Firstborn. (Showing an earthly event) We also read that the Father says "Today" I became your Father, showing The Earth and Sun and all of creation was already made when Jesus became the Fathers Firstborn some 2014 years ago. This all happens after Jesus emptied himself (Ps 22:10)

Jesus is called "Firstborn" to show his rank over creation (Mt 28:18) in which Jesus Created. Col 1:16 explains why he is called Firstborn and Col 1:18 sums it all up. The term "Firstborn" is a male Jewish term to indicate who is supreme. (Not Birth order) Women are never called Firstborn unless they have NO brothers to claim it. If you read Ps 89:26-27 you will see that one is appointed Firstborn and in this case, King David is the last son of Jesse and is the Firstborn son. Also if the writer want to mean First Created, he would of wrote that and he didnt. Firstborn is a heirship title and nothing else in a Jewish Family. (Rom 8:29)


I am not in disagreement as to the meaning of firstborn…as being firstborn of God means being supreme over all creation. My issue wasn’t about what firstborn means, but about that Colossians 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature…shows that Jesus is the image of God, and not God. That was and is the topic here.



Quote:
Remember that Jesus Emptied himself in order that any of this would be possible. Jesus expresses the Father fully and gets the same honor. So to look to Jesus and see anything but God would be saying he isnt expressing the Father fully and complete. Read Is 14:12-14 The god of this world, satan, was trying to be like god and that became his downfall. Jesus is "Like God" in the same way satan was trying to be, Jesus is God. The OT says Jehovah wont share his Glory, but Jesus Shares it. The OT says there is no other Rock but Jehovah, yet the NT says Jesus is the Rock. The list piles up higher and higher showing Jesus is more than just an angel falling short of God.

Ask yourself: Does my Jesus Fully and exactly express God the Father 100% or does he fall short in some wa

Jesus expresses the Father fully because he represents the Father, God sent a representative, that representative would need to present God fully and completely; but this does not make the representative God himself. One isn’t an image of himself, nor needs to be.


Quote:
To see Jesus is to see the Father because Jesus is the Image of God (2cor4:4/Col1:15) and is exactly the same (Heb 1:3/Gen 1:26) Jesus is God veiled with Flesh (Col 2:19/ Phil 2:7) Never do we see a passage saying Jesus is Not God or Not Worthy or Not to be Worshiped. However, we are warned over and over not to be blinded by the Devil and not to under value Jesus... Never do we see anyone lifting Jesus up too high...

Continue


And never do we see a verse saying that I am not God, but that doesn’t mean that I am God, now does it. In your efforts to use verses that support Jesus as God, you use verses that mostly say that Jesus is the image of God. And that is not the same thing.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen anywhere in the bible a verse saying to not under value Jesus. And if we lift Jesus up to what he isn’t, that is God, then we are lifting him to high, to being God, instead of the image of God. Image is not the real thing.


Jensen

 

[Jensen]

There is no way I or anyone else could drive a wedge between God and Jesus, literally.
To have eternal life one must believe in God, and that Jesus died for us, and to repent of our sins. Everything was created except God. It is not demeaning to be a created being. It seems that you think this. Jesus himself called God the only true God. I'll take his word for it above all others.

Jesus is everything that God is because he is the image of God. He represents God fully, as you said yourself, but this doesn't make Jesus God. God choice Jesus to die for us as the bible says that He had to be like us in everyway to save us from our sins, not that he had to be God to do this. Jesus will come again as God's representative and so we will see God thru him as he is the image of God. This still will not make him God.

I believe that Jesus died for us, not just the body, as if only his body died then he didn't actually die at all and we are all still in our sins and not redeemed. And Jesus wasn't resurrected for real if it was only the body that was raised. I believe that the bible says that Jesus died,and was resurrected, not just the body leaving Jesus alive through it all. It was his breath that went back to God, meaning that he did truly die.

It is the bible that says no one can see God. In an earlier post you said that 70 persons saw God in the OT, and a sentence later said that no one can see God. A slight contradiction, as I see it.

Also, I don't know what KIT is.

And no, I have not converted.

The reason why the Jews missed who Jesus was is because they did not accept him as their messiah, not because they failed to see him as God. And not because they do not hold to the trinity.

Can one lift up Jesus to high? Yes, if they are claiming that he is God when he is the Son of God as the bible teaches, and making him out to be what he is not. It feels to me that when claiming that the Son of God is God, that is to under estimate Yahweh God, and that is what is truly serious.

I hope that I have rattled your brain also, in a good way of course. God bless...

Jensen

 

[Shiranui117]

It is perfectly fine if Jesus referred to Himself as God, for it is repeatedly shown that through Him, the Word and Attributes of God was manifested into the World.

I think we have to understand that, in the days of the Biblical authors, the word "Logos" which we translate as "Word," actually was being understood as "the principal through which all things come into being, and the principal which orders the entire universe." Jesus being God's Logos isn't just a statement that He brings a message from God. It's a far more profound statement of the utterly unique role that Jesus has in the world, in both creating and maintaining it.

Again, If we place a Mirror in front of the Sun, what do we see inside it? We see the Sun, so if we point at it and say that is the Sun it is correct, and if we point to Mirror and say that is just a Mirror and not the Sun that is also true. Likewise Jesus said 'whoever has seen Me, has seen the Father', and He also alluded to Himself as son of man.

So if I reflected God, then you would find it perfectly acceptable to refer to me as "our God and Savior Shiranui"?

But according to the scriptures there is only One God.

And we Trinitarians hold the same thing.

But with Trinity such station is not described biblically.

Christianity existed for fifty years before all the books of the New Testament were written, and centuries before the Bible as we know it was mainstreamed and popularly accepted. The Bible is not the source of all Christian teaching. It is a reflection of it.

It seems to me, trinity is playing with words, one in three, and three in one. That is illogical to me.

God Himself is illogical. You can believe in an eternal Being Who has neither beginning nor end, Who created the whole of the universe out of nothing, and is both closer to us than our own heart while also being completely transcendant, but you can't believe that He is three Persons in one God, and one God in three Persons? God is and always has been mysterious and beyond human comprehension. I honestly don't understand why the Trinity is a deal-breaker, when everything else isn't.

BTW, I will be answering your other post later on tonight. I don't have the time for it at the moment.

 

[Shiranui117]

Daniel 12:1-- is who stood up for men.

Michael is the guardian angel of Israel. Hebrews 1 and 2 say that Jesus is greater than any angel. Therefore, Michael is not Jesus. If Michael was Jesus, then we have not been saved.

 

[BigRed]

Paul makes an interesting statement at Romans 1:19,20
"because that which is known about God is evident among them; for since the creation of the world his invisible attributes, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made…."
If what Paul writes here is true this creates a problem for those who believe in the trinity..
How come there is no mention of the trinity in any writings until the 5th century if God’s nature was known since the creation of the world?
If God’s nature was known since the creation of the world, how come God’s chosen people, the Jews didn’t seem to know anything about a trinity?
How come none of the prophets in the Hebrew scriptures ever warns Israel about the trinity in any of the prophetic writings? The prophets seem to cover every other topic but they never say …. Stop believing in just ONE GOD and believe in the trinity.

BigRed

 

[InvestigateTruth]

..... Jesus being God's Logos isn't just a statement that He brings a message from God. It's a far more profound statement of the utterly unique role that Jesus has in the world, in both creating and maintaining it.

Yes, but by creating the World, is not meant the World that existed Before coming of Jesus! But the World as an ever-progressive civilization of Mankind....and this unique station is not confined to only Jesus. All manifestations of God such as Noah, Abraham, Buddha, and most recently Baha'u'llah had unique role in the ever-advancing civilization.

The individuality of Jesus did not exist before His mother existed. Let's remember He was born from Mary. Just a Fact!
But His essence existed before His individuality. It is like the Light. This Light always existed with the Sun, but the Light that appears today from the Sun did not exist before. In another words the Substance existed, not the particular. Now yesterday there appeared a Mirror by the Name Jesus who reflected the Light of God into the World. Before Jesus, there appeared another Mirror, by the Name Moses and Most recently a New Mirror by the Name Baha'u'llah.

Let's again refer to the Biblical analogy of Mirror which also the early Christians believed in. When the image of the Sun appears in a Mirror, we can say, this light has come down from sky. Likewise Jesus reflected the Light of God, which is the symbol of Power, Glory, knowledge and All attributes coming from God, hence Jesus said "I came down from Heaven". This should not be understood that the individuality of Jesus existed. No, His holy Reality existed!

So if I reflected God, then you would find it perfectly acceptable to refer to me as "our God and Savior Shiranui"?

The Manifestations of God are 'spotless Mirror' of God. No regular human can be that.

And we Trinitarians hold the same thing.

It only claims that....

Christianity existed for fifty years before all the books of the New Testament were written, and centuries before the Bible as we know it was mainstreamed and popularly accepted. The Bible is not the source of all Christian teaching. It is a reflection of it.

Yet, True Christianity must be in confirmation with Bible. If there is a version of Christianity that is in contradiction with Bible, or does not take into account the Biblical teaching, that is not true Christian Faith, it is merely an invention with the name of Christianity.....and it is not too hard to invent them. There are thousands of denominations out there.

God Himself is illogical. You can believe in an eternal Being Who has neither beginning nor end, Who created the whole of the universe out of nothing, and is both closer to us than our own heart while also being completely transcendant, but you can't believe that He is three Persons in one God, and one God in three Persons? God is and always has been mysterious and beyond human comprehension. I honestly don't understand why the Trinity is a deal-breaker, when everything else isn't.

God is not illogical! God is the Truth. I can agree God is beyond comprehension, BUT that does not mean He is illogical. In another words you cannot have contradictory statements as in Trinity, describing God.
So if tomorrow a woman comes and says "I am daughter of God, sister of Jesus"..do you believe? She says Jesus is fully God, I am also fully God...so we are 4 in 1 and 1 in 4.

 

[kjw47]

Michael is the guardian angel of Israel. Hebrews 1 and 2 say that Jesus is greater than any angel. Therefore, Michael is not Jesus. If Michael was Jesus, then we have not been saved.

A perfect mortal died to buy back what a perfect mortal lost for mankind. Gods perfect justice scales. Or do you believe Gods scales are tilted?

 

[icebuddy]

Daniel 12:1-- is who stood up for men.

Yes, it is the Christian understanding that Jesus's angels will be with him (2Thes 1:7)
Micheal is one of many princes (Dan 10:13)
Rev 14:14 and Rev 19:17

Perhaps Micheal is the one with Jesus shouting with a loud voice in Rev 14:14 and 1 Thes 4:16

In Love

 

[kjw47]

Yes, it is the Christian understanding that Jesus's angels will be with him (2Thes 1:7)
Micheal is one of many princes (Dan 10:13)
Rev 14:14 and Rev 19:17

Perhaps Micheal is the one with Jesus shouting with a loud voice in Rev 14:14 and 1 Thes 4:16

In Love

Michael came to earth and was called Jesus as a mortal--God would never come into the middle of wickedness, he is holy,holy,holy.

 

[Shiranui117]

A perfect mortal died to buy back what a perfect mortal lost for mankind. Gods perfect justice scales. Or do you believe Gods scales are tilted?

Adam was not a perfect mortal. Adam was a person with the potential to become immortal and perfect. He was not made so from the start, else he would never have fallen.

And Jesus didn't just die to make up for Adam's sin. He died to free us all from slavery to sin and death, to free us from every sin we have ever committed, and to reconcile us to God.

Michael came to earth and was called Jesus as a mortal--God would never come into the middle of wickedness, he is holy,holy,holy.

So in other words, God is too concerned with His dignity to save us? That would be like you drowning in the sea and crying out to me for help, while I stand on the shore, arms crossed, nose turned up and say "Sorry, but I'm too cool to get wet."

Only God can save us from our sins. No angel can bring us salvation. Salvation is of the Lord.

 

[Shiranui117]

Ok, let's see. I believe everything can be well explained with the Mirror Analogy.

That All belongs to Father belongs to Jesus, means, All the Attributes and Qualities of God, such as Power, Glory and knowledge have manifested in Jesus. Again going back to the Mirror and Sun analogy; if We say the Light that comes from the Mirror, belongs to the Sun it is True.

Newsflash: If Jesus is a perfect reflection of the Father, and all the attributes and qualities of God, then Jesus is truly God, and one in essence with the Father. Because no human can be as perfect as God is. No human can be omniscient or omnipotent or omnipresent like God is. No human can be wholly free from the effects of sin from birth onward like Jesus is.

If Jesus truly possesses all the qualities and attributes of God (which must, by the way, include the fact that God is Uncreated, eternal and without beginning, and possessing the indivisible divine nature and divine essence), then this can only mean that Jesus is not merely human, but really and truly God, because Jesus would have to have all these qualities if He, as you say, is a true mirror of His Father.

With regards to the Sources, here they are:

Alright, just taking this from your own source, copying the contents of a link...

1. The question of crucial importance for the churches of the late first century was that of understanding Jesus in and through the events of his ministry. Though in a variety of particular forms, the Christology of incarnation dominated the literature of the end of the first century and the beginning of the second. Ignatius, the bishop of Antioch, for whom Jesus the Christ is to be understood as "our God" (Ephesians 3.2), polemicizes against Docetism, the view that the fleshly. bodily side of Jesus is mere "appearance", but insists that Christ was truly born, truly suffered, and was truly crucified (Smyrnaeans 1-2). For Ignatius, there are two dimensions of the person of Christ. In Jesus, spirit and flesh, divine and human , are at one. "There is only one physician - of flesh, yet spiritual, born yet unbegotten, God enfleshed, genuine life in the midst of death, sprung from Mary as well as God" (Ephesians 7.2).



2. Christologies of this incarnational form are evidences in other writings from other sectors of the church. The document called 1 Clement, a letter from the Roman congregation to that at Corinth uses the language of the biblical book of Hebrews to portray Jesus as the reflection of God's splendor, the "mirror" of "God's... transcendent face" (1 Clement 36) and the "scepter of God's majesty" (1 Clement 16.2). A somewhat later writing from Rome, The Shepherd of Hermas, combines the idea of "the holy pre-existent Spirit which created the whole creation" (Similitudes 5.6) with the picture of Jesus as the suffering and exalted servant.


And as regards Jesus being the "mirror" of God, if it means what you define it as, then it can only mean that Jesus is God, because God's perfection is without limit. If Jesus mirrors perfection without limit and can utterly reflect everything about God, then this places Him above every created thing.


As regards 1 Corinthians 13:12, seeing in a mirror dimly doesn't refer to Jesus as being a mirror, but to our human perception as being limited, which the context makes clear:


For we know in part and we prophesy in part; 10 but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away. 11 When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I [d]became a man, I did away with childish things. 12 For now we see in a mirror [e]dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known. 13 But now faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the [f]greatest of these is love.


Likewise, it seems 2 Corinthians 3:18 refers to our perception, which is now unveiled, but still, we see God's glory indirectly. 2Cor 3:18 doesn't name Jesus as the mirror of God's glory.

Now, with regards to your comment that Jesus existed always. I understand this in these ways:

Let's say, had John the Baptist in His time have said: "In previous Ages I was there".

Alright, fair, but... St. John the Baptist never said that. So it's a moot hypothetical, like asking what if Mars was blue instead of red.

This would be correct because in a spiritual sense Elijah was John according to the scriptures and He was there in the Age of Moses. Yet the 'physical' presence of John did not exist. But a person with the same Qualities existed.

By "St. John the Baptist is St. Elijah", the Bible means, "St. John the Baptist fulfills the role of Elijah." St. John is not St. Elijah in any way other than a symbolic sense.

Likewise the physical presence of Jesus did not exist before,

His physical presence did not exist before, this is true. This is because Jesus had not yet been incarnate. Yet He was with the Father before all things (John 1). And not just in a symbolic sense; He created the world. Notice that God created the world through His word--i.e. His Logos.

Just as the Mirror example. If we say the Sun that has appeared in the Mirror existed in previous ages, it is True, but yet the Mirror did not exist before.
Therefore Should God say, before Abraham I am, His words are Manifested through the Mirror. Jesus was the Light. But this Light was the Light of God that was reflected through the Mirror. Likewise Jesus was the Word of God, meaning that the Word of God was revealed by Him. Therefore if We say Jesus was a New Moses, it is True, as it was prophesied that a Prophet Like Him shall come among the Israelites. Likewise in Bible symbology we see Glory of God was Manifested by Moses and Jesus, as "their faces glow as the Sun".

Yes, Moses was transformed by God, yet the glory of God transforming Moses' face was not something which happened with him before. Jesus was disguising His divinity, yes, and He could show it as He pleased. Moses, however, first required an encounter with God. Manifesting the glory of God was not an inherent thing that Moses had; it was given to him by God's grace. Jesus, however, had it by His very own nature as true God. As regards Jesus being the word of God, I have already addressed this, that our English word "Word" does the Greek word "Logos" a great injustice. The Greek word "Logos" was also understood as the principle which established (i.e. created) and maintained the universe.

And as a matter of fact such concept also exist in other Religions such as Buddhism and Hinduism. For example Buddha said:

'I am not the first Buddha to come upon this earth; nor shall I be the last. Previously, there were many Buddhas who appeared in this world. In due time, another Buddha will arise in this world, within this world cycle.'

What Buddhists Believe - The Future Buddha

Therefore Buddha also said He always existed. You can find similar sayings from Krishna, Muhammad, the Bab and Baha'u'llah.

Buddha simply means "enlightened one." Anyone can become a Buddha. Siddhartha Gautama was the Buddha in a special sense, in that he founded Buddhism as we know it. But, (this is something I remember reading back in the day where I considered myself a Buddhist for a hot minute), the Buddha was not the first of his type--that is, a Buddha that creates a "religion" that would be a vehicle for enlightenment.

And Yes, I understand that the Trinity is different and believes Jesus Himself always existed, not just His Type. But The Trinity is NOT from early Christianity, nor the Term 'Trinity' is in Bible, But the analogy of 'Mirror' is found in early Christianity and Bible.

Just because the word "Trinity" isn't there doesn't mean that the Bible and early Christianity didn't teach the Trinity.

Also, your Baha'i analogy of Jesus as the mirror is not found in the Bible, and you only have a snippet out of Clement to support your view.

The Holy Spirit can be understood with analogy of the 'Rays of the Sun'.. Just as the Rays of the Sun, precede from the Sun, the Holy Spirit precedes from God. Through the Holy Spirit the creative Will of God is expressed. Therefore when the Light is reflected by the Mirror, it can be said this same Light is the Holy Spirit who God created the World by it. But not that this same Mirror created the World. That it is written in NT, by Him the World is created is a reference to the Light and Image of God manifested in the Mirror, and not the Mirror itself.

The Word of God, which is God, became flesh in Jesus--John 1:1 and John 1:18. It does not say that the Word of God was reflected like a mirror in Jesus.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Well, firstly, it is good you are getting engaged with the concept of Mirror of God. I may change the order of your post a bit to reply in a relevant order:

As regards 1 Corinthians 13:12, seeing in a mirror dimly doesn't refer to Jesus as being a mirror, but to our human perception as being limited, which the context makes clear:
For we know in part and we prophesy in part; 10 but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away......................

"seeing in a mirror Darkly" is a reference to speaking in dark speeches. It means that the Will of God which was manifested in the Mirror of Jesus, was to reveal many things using figurative language and not plainly, but for the second coming He shall reveal clearly and plainly (as in face to face) as recorded in John 16:25. He said a time is coming I speak to you plainly... By this is meant the second coming of Christ, even as He said "I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear", the idea is that, since in those days humanity was still in the stage of childhood, it did not have the capacity to understand more, hence Jesus simply alluded to certain things with Figurative language instead of speaking details plainly. This analogy can be seen in these words: "When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me." 1 cor. 13:11

"Also, your Baha'i analogy of Jesus as the mirror is not found in the Bible, and you only have a snippet out of Clement to support your view."

Well, the concept of Mirror is actually from the Bible, and not just from Clement and Origen.

"and we all, with unvailed face, the glory of the Lord beholding in a mirror, to the same image are being transformed, from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord." 2 cori 3-18 Also:

"For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known." 1 Cor. 13:22

By Seeing in a Mirror in the above verses, is meant seeing the Manifestation of God revealing the Word and Will of God, as well as All His Attributes such as Glory of God, through His image that was manifested in the Mirror being Jesus. In fact the term 'image of God', means when an image is manifested in a Mirror. What does an image mean? It would not mean a dead image as a paint, but it means a living image, as the image of living God such as appears in a mirror to manifest His Live Will.

In fact these are the verses that Clement and Origen must have got the idea of 'Mirror' being Jesus.

Just because the word "Trinity" isn't there doesn't mean that the Bible and early Christianity didn't teach the Trinity.
The Word of God, which is God, became flesh in Jesus--John 1:1 and John 1:18. It does not say that the Word of God was reflected like a mirror in Jesus

Newsflash: If Jesus is a perfect reflection of the Father, and all the attributes and qualities of God, then Jesus is truly God, and one in essence with the Father. Because no human can be as perfect as God is. No human can be omniscient or omnipotent or omnipresent like God is. No human can be wholly free from the effects of sin from birth onward like Jesus is.

If Jesus truly possesses all the qualities and attributes of God (which must, by the way, include the fact that God is Uncreated, eternal and without beginning, and possessing the indivisible divine nature and divine essence), then this can only mean that Jesus is not merely human, but really and truly God, because Jesus would have to have all these qualities if He, as you say, is a true mirror of His Father...His physical presence did not exist before, this is true. This is because Jesus had not yet been incarnate. Yet He was with the Father before all things (John 1). And not just in a symbolic sense; He created the world. Notice that God created the world through His word--i.e. His Logos.

The problem I see here with Trinity is not just the word Trinity. It is the concept of 'incarnation' as opposed to 'Image' and 'Mirror'. This is exactly where Trinity deviates from original Biblical Teachings. Here I would like to get your attention to the usage of the word 'incarnation' in your post, which really comes from Trinity and not Bible.
When we place a Mirror in front of the Sun, its image appears in the Mirror, but that does not mean that the Sun has moved down from sky inside the Mirror. Likewise when it is said Jesus being the Mirror showing the image of God, it does not mean God has moved down inside the body of Jesus. In both case, it means that the Light of the Sun which symbolizes Knowledge, power, glory and all the attributes of God has 'appeared' in the Mirror.
In another Words Jesus is Mirror of God and Not His incarnation. The Word of God was revealed and reflected in this Mirror. That is the meaning of 'flesh became Word'. It means reflection in the Mirror, or 'Manifestation' of the Word of God in the Perfect Human Jesus, who is the 'image of the living God'. St. Basil also explains the commandments that Jesus received by " the reflexion of an object in a mirror"
Trinity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Therefore, saying that 'the word became flesh' is no different than to say 'the Mirror became the Sun' when the Mirror is placed in front of the Sun. But the Mirror by itself without the Sun can show no image and light, as Jesus said 'by myself I can do nothing'..... Therefore, since the Sun of Truth manifested in the Mirror of Christ, His Light was reflected as Word that were the cause of enlightening, hence "the Word became Flesh".

Alright, just taking this from your own source, copying the contents of a link...

1. The question of crucial importance for the churches of the late first century was that of understanding Jesus in and through the events of his ministry. Though in a variety of particular forms, the Christology of incarnation dominated the literature of the end of the first century and the beginning of the second. Ignatius, the bishop of Antioch, for whom Jesus the Christ is to be understood as "our God" (Ephesians 3.2), polemicizes against Docetism, the view that the fleshly. bodily side of Jesus is mere "appearance", but insists that Christ was truly born, truly suffered, and was truly crucified (Smyrnaeans 1-2). For Ignatius, there are two dimensions of the person of Christ. In Jesus, spirit and flesh, divine and human , are at one. "There is only one physician - of flesh, yet spiritual, born yet unbegotten, God enfleshed, genuine life in the midst of death, sprung from Mary as well as God" (Ephesians 7.2).

2. Christologies of this incarnational form are evidences in other writings from other sectors of the church. The document called 1 Clement, a letter from the Roman congregation to that at Corinth uses the language of the biblical book of Hebrews to portray Jesus as the reflection of God's splendor, the "mirror" of "God's... transcendent face" (1 Clement 36) and the "scepter of God's majesty" (1 Clement 16.2). A somewhat later writing from Rome, The Shepherd of Hermas, combines the idea of "the holy pre-existent Spirit which created the whole creation" (Similitudes 5.6) with the picture of Jesus as the suffering and exalted servant.
.........

Again, considering 'image of God', versus 'God' Himself. Jesus said the Father is greater than I. I do whatever and however the Father wills. This is just like Mirroring the Will of God.

Alright, fair, but... St. John the Baptist never said that. So it's a moot hypothetical, like asking what if Mars was blue instead of red.

It is not really hypothetical. I did not say John was Elijah 'incarnated'. John was the return of Elijah in a spiritual sense. Meaning the Spirit of Elijah and John were identical in terms of all qualities and power, and Jesus and Scriptures confirm that.

Yes, Moses was transformed by God, yet the glory of God transforming Moses' face was not something which happened with him before.
Jesus was disguising His divinity, yes, and He could show it as He pleased. Moses, however, first required an encounter with God. Manifesting the glory of God was not an inherent thing that Moses had; it was given to him by God's grace. Jesus, however, had it by His very own nature as true God. As regards Jesus being the word of God, I have already addressed this, that our English word "Word" does the Greek word "Logos" a great injustice. The Greek word "Logos" was also understood as the principle which established (i.e. created) and maintained the universe.

To be fair Both Moses and Jesus are referred to as 'Lord' or 'god' in the scriptures. Both has manifested the 'sun' according to scriptures, and both did and said things that God asked them to do or to say.

Buddha simply means "enlightened one." Anyone can become a Buddha. Siddhartha Gautama was the Buddha in a special sense, in that he founded Buddhism as we know it. But, (this is something I remember reading back in the day where I considered myself a Buddhist for a hot minute), the Buddha was not the first of his type--that is, a Buddha that creates a "religion" that would be a vehicle for enlightenment.

Yes Buddha means the enlightened one, but that is just a title. It is different than I get enlightened, then I be called a Buddha too. Messiah means 'anointed one', but this term alone does not show All qualities and power He had.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

I honestly don't understand why the Trinity is a deal-breaker, when everything else isn't.....

In addition to my previous posts describing the reason why Trinity doctrine is not Biblical. It is noteworthy to refer to history on the development of Trinity Doctrine.

In the early Christian era, While all Christians believed that Jesus was indeed the Son of God, the exact nature of his Sonship was contested, together with the precise relationship of the "Father," "Son" and "Holy Spirit" referred to in the New Testament.



What is noteworthy is that eventually, the Christian Church accepted the teaching of St. Athanasius a man who apparently does not have a clean record:


"Throughout most of his career, Athanasius had many detractors. There were allegations of defiling an altar, selling Church grain that had been meant to feed the poor for his own personal gain, and for suppressing dissent through violence and murder.[29] It cannot be claimed, beyond all doubt, whether any or all of these specific allegations were true, but Rubenstein suggests that Athanasius employed a level of force when it suited his cause or personal interests.[30]"
Athanasius of Alexandria - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Can you trust a man like him?

 

[InvestigateTruth]

1+1+1=1? or 1+1+1=3 or 1+1+1= something else?

"Because we speak of a king, and of the king’s image, and not of two kings. The majesty is not cloven in two, nor the glory divided. The sovereignty and authority over us is one, and so the doxology ascribed by us is not plural but one"
- Saint Basil

NPNF2-08. Basil: Letters and Select Works - Christian Classics Ethereal Library


"Now if we say that we have seen the Sun in two mirrors—one the Christ and one the Holy Spirit—that is to say, that we have seen three Suns, one in heaven and the two others on the earth, we speak truly. And if we say that there is one Sun, and it is pure singleness, and has no partner and equal, we again speak truly. "

Bahá'í Reference Library - Some Answered Questions, Pages 113-115

 

[kjw47]

Adam was not a perfect mortal. Adam was a person with the potential to become immortal and perfect. He was not made so from the start, else he would never have fallen.

And Jesus didn't just die to make up for Adam's sin. He died to free us all from slavery to sin and death, to free us from every sin we have ever committed, and to reconcile us to God.

So in other words, God is too concerned with His dignity to save us? That would be like you drowning in the sea and crying out to me for help, while I stand on the shore, arms crossed, nose turned up and say "Sorry, but I'm too cool to get wet."

Only God can save us from our sins. No angel can bring us salvation. Salvation is of the Lord.

This is what takes care of sin--Acts 3:19--repentence gets sin blotted out-)-but also one still must pay the wages of that sin with death. So if Jesus covered all sins--Why should one repent--Why should one die?


All spirit beings were made perfect--with free will--excercising free will is the error on anyones part. Millions of perfect angels--fell by excercising free will--Eve fell because she excercised free will so did Adam.

 

[kjw47]

Adam was not a perfect mortal. Adam was a person with the potential to become immortal and perfect. He was not made so from the start, else he would never have fallen.

And Jesus didn't just die to make up for Adam's sin. He died to free us all from slavery to sin and death, to free us from every sin we have ever committed, and to reconcile us to God.

So in other words, God is too concerned with His dignity to save us? That would be like you drowning in the sea and crying out to me for help, while I stand on the shore, arms crossed, nose turned up and say "Sorry, but I'm too cool to get wet."

Only God can save us from our sins. No angel can bring us salvation. Salvation is of the Lord.

Is God concerned with his dignity---Jesus was--Our Father who art in heaven--let your name be sanctified( hallowed) --The occurrences in Eden--dragged Gods name through the mud.

 

[icebuddy]

You said: Jensen, What I believe is many peoples problem is that they see the Greek word "and" to say it separates God from Jesus when it does the exact opposite.

Actually both. Being that they are mention separately they are two different individuals, but connected in what the context is, that is what is being written in the those verses. It would not make them the same individual though, just as if I said that John and Jill went to the store, they are connected in that it was both that went to the store, but separate being that they are mentioned each separately. Hope that makes sense.

[FONT=&quot]Jensen,
When i read the old Testament we read that Jehovah is God and Savior. The same word "and" is used and doesnt separate. If you look up the Greek word for and, you will see it includes not separates. But we can look to Isaiah 44:6 where we read That Jehovah and Repurchaser of him (Jehovah of armies) speaking as one God. Clearly separate, but speaking as one God. How do you read Isaiah 44:6?
Also in Titus 2:13 (also 2 Peter 1:1) i read that Paul & Peter has no problem calling Jesus God and Savior, which ties in nicely with Is 44:6 and Is 45:21

[/FONT]

Jesus was not the savior mentioned in the OT, as he had not come to earth yet to die for mans sins. And being that it was God who decided that his Son would die for us, God is the original savior. And so in 1 Corinthians 8:6 when it says one God, the Father and one Lord Jesus Christ, it is emphasizing that they are two different individuals.

i disagree with you. Paul went as far to telling the Jews that the one they knew as God who followed and protected them as their Redeemer was Jesus Christ (1 Cor 10:1-4) You keep saying that this shows 2 different individuals and as a Trinitarian I Agree with you on that. I am not a Oneness Pentecostal... i believe God has revealed himself in 3 persons and that is why i have no problem with your statement that the Father and Son are 2 different persons. The Old Testament Ties the Trinity together. For example: God says only he is the Rock, creator, savior, maker, ect... Yet we read Jesus is Rock, savior, maker... God says that he will not share his glory with another, yet we read Jesus is his Glory and has it. We read that Gods says there is no one like him, yet we read Jesus is exactly like God in every way. Just as the Universe is revealed to us as Time, Space, and Matter. i believe God is revealed to us as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Hosea 1:7 even says Jehovah will be sent to deliver his people. On and On it goes... prepare the way for Jehovah (Mat 3:3) That is why when we read that the "Eternal Word" (1John1:1-6) was God and with God (John 1:1) although equal to God (phil 2:5-7) didnt consider that something to hold on to, humbled himself to become a man even to die in our place. Showing the Greatest love one can express.

Using verses that appear to support that the Father and Son are the same ( Is 9:6) can not be used to support the trinity being that Trinitarians do not believe that Jesus is the Father, in fact they deny that. At best those verses could be used to support Oneness if anything, yet I do not think Oneness is correct either.

Is 9:6 is calling Jesus Mighty God the same as Jehovah at Isaiah 10:21 ...
it also calls Jesus Everlasting Father in the sense that he is Father of Eternity or uncreated as shown also in 1John1:1-5 where the Eternal Word is the Everlasting Life. Isaiah isnt Calling Jesus the Father, but rather the Master over Eternity. Just as satan is the Father of Lies (john 8:44)
Satan is the Originator of Falsehoods where Jesus is the Originator of Eternity. To say these things of a created being would be odd and absurd...

Jesus being the image of God, therefore the image of the Father is all that can be taken from those verses being that Jesus himself called the Father the one true God.

You are getting focused on Jesus as a humbled man. If I called Jesus the one True Lord, would you expect people to say the Father isnt Lord or True? Jesus is Called Mighty God and God are we to think he is not True? Jesus is part of the True God with the Father and Holy Spirit. Read the next verse at John 17:5... What was Jesus's Glory before the world began? God and with God, creator, Eternal word of Life, Father of eternity, the Root of David, and many many more...

1Jo 5:20 And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding so that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.

Jesus is included in the True God and Eternal Life for he is the Eternal Life and True God with the Father and Holy Spirit.

Rev 2:11 is speaking about God the Father and not Jesus. Start reading further up in the Chapter and maybe you will see why I see it this way.

Not sure about Rev 2:11(maybe miss type)... but Read Revelation 22:12-16 and who do you see Speaking? There is no reason to say it is anyone else than Jesus.

In most bibles where the word LORD is used all in capitals it is because the correct word for that position in the verse originally was Jehovah or Yahweh. Also, many are called Lord. God, Jesus and man have been called Lord. Being called Lord does not make one God.

The New Testament quotes passages of LORD Jehovah and applies them directly to Jesus. Hebrews 1:10-12 is a great example of the Father calling Jesus Jehovah of psalms 102:25-27... Look at Hebrews 10:13 for another example. Verse 9 clearly says we are to confess Jesus as Lord. verse 12 says the same lord (Jesus) is lord of all. Verse 13 says "Everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord be saved". The JW bible NWT changed Lord to Jehovah although the clear intention is to call upon the Name Jesus (Acts 4:10-12 clearly states this) Also continue to read verses 14-15 where is says How beautiful the feet who teach upon the one whom we are to call upon. So is it Jesus or Jehovah? The Direct quote is more proof to me that Jesus is Jehovah and the Lord that they preached day and night was Jesus (acts 5:42 and Acts 16:30-31)

Again, an image is just that an image and not the real thing.

Jesus is the "Real Thing"!! The Eternal word who was God and with God had to humble himself and become a man so that we could see this Image. You are focusing upon the Humbled Jesus and saying his image is not the Real Thing? Yet he is both the Real Thing and the Image... Only God could express Gods Glory to us exactly and correctly. God even says he will not share his glory with another and will not give his praises to Idols(Images) (Isa 42:8) We also read that Jehovah will be the Stone that causes many to stumble (Isa 8:13-14) and at Isa 8:8 Jehovah is called "Immanuel". That is why we read all of these quotes of Jehovah of the OT and they are "ALL" applied to Jesus.

Do I honor that Son and the Father the same? Yes, each for what and who he is, the one as God, the other as the Son of God, the Christ.

The term "Son of God" carries less value today, then it did 2000 years ago... The Jews saw this as claiming equality with God... Do you worship Jesus? How do you see Rev 5:12-14 ... Do you see Jesus as being worshiped here or do you see differently?

I will honor both equally, but as to who and what each one is, I do not worship an image, but only God, but I do honor the Son of God. Hope you see what I am trying to say. Thanks.

Im assuming your answer to Rev 5:14 will be interesting... However, I love that you Love God and Jesus. I am just trying to open your eyes to my belief. Being a Quaker you should know that it all starts like the Thief on the cross next to Jesus. He was saved and knew very little, more than most people today however... I am here to tell you that The Father gave us an Image for us to worship in his son Jesus. You cannot worship Jesus and go wrong. One should not look to the Image of God and say "Not God, not my worship". (Not that you say that, but you may be doing it in your heart) As they say at Revelation 5:12 "Worthy is the Lamb"!

I know that you are not writing your messages out of anger or hate, but because it is what you really believe, and God loves you as much as me or anyone for that matter. Thanks.

Yes, God loves us! Gods word is like a sword to all of us. I dont see you attacking me or anything like that either... Read 1 John 5:20 and see that Jesus is part of the True God and Eternal life, not apart... Then Read 1 John 1:1-5 and see that the Word was Eternal and is the Everlasting Life... This will help you understand Trinitarians beliefs in a positive lite..

Always in Love

 

[Shiranui117]

This is what takes care of sin--Acts 3:19--repentence gets sin blotted out-)-but also one still must pay the wages of that sin with death. So if Jesus covered all sins--Why should one repent--Why should one die?

Jesus united Himself to us through experiencing the human experience by sharing in our pains, sorrows and death. He wants us to reciprocate that by dying not in the body, but to sin, and share in Christ's vanquishment over sin. As Christ was tempted by sin but never yielded, so He wants us also to do. As Christ rose to new life and opened the door to Paradise, He will also raise us up with Him and wants us to follow Him to paradise. We are saved through synergy with God--working together with Him. Relationships are two-way affairs.

All spirit beings were made perfect--with free will--excercising free will is the error on anyones part. Millions of perfect angels--fell by excercising free will--Eve fell because she excercised free will so did Adam.

No, there is nothing wrong with exercising free will. God gave us free will. To have free will, to be able to discern good and evil, and the gift of reason, is what it means to be made in God's image. Free will is not a bad thing--only how we use it can be bad. Having free will is not limited to good vs. evil. Free will can also be deciding between one good action and another--do I give a poor man some money, or do I buy him some food, or do I give him my spare coat, or do I open my home to him for a night?

Is God concerned with his dignity---Jesus was--Our Father who art in heaven--let your name be sanctified( hallowed) --The occurrences in Eden--dragged Gods name through the mud.

Mankind's petty sins could not even possibly begin to dishonor the infinite God with infinite majesty. Nothing in Heaven or on earth could diminish God's honor and glory, anymore than anything could diminish His divinity, might and wisdom. God humbling Himself down to our level only adds to His glory, for it shows His lovingkindness and concern towards man, and His humility, and that He leaves nothing undone until He brings us His kingdom to come.

 

[Shiranui117]

"Because we speak of a king, and of the king’s image, and not of two kings. The majesty is not cloven in two, nor the glory divided. The sovereignty and authority over us is one, and so the doxology ascribed by us is not plural but one"
- Saint Basil

NPNF2-08. Basil: Letters and Select Works - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

Putting that in context for you:

For we do not count by way of addition, gradually making increase from unity to multitude, and saying one, two, and three,—nor yet first, second, and third. For “I,” God, “am the first, and I am the last.”1088 And hitherto we have never, even at the present time, heard of a second God. Worshipping as we do God of God, we both confess the distinction of the Persons, and at the same time abide by the Monarchy. We do not fritter away the theology1089 in a divided plurality, because one Form, so to say, united1090 in the invariableness of the Godhead, is beheld in God the Father, and in God the Only begotten. For the Son is in the Father and the Father in the Son; since such as is the latter, such is the former, and such as is the former, such is the latter; and herein is the Unity. So that according to the distinction of Persons, both are one and one, and according to the community of Nature, one. How, then, if one and one, are there not two Gods? Because we speak of a king, and of the king’s image, and not of two kings. The majesty is not cloven in two, nor the glory divided. The sovereignty and authority over us is one, and so the doxology ascribed by us is not plural but one;1091 because the honour paid to the image passes on to the prototype. Now what in the one case the image is by reason of imitation, that in the other case the Son is by nature; and as in works of art the likeness is dependent on the form, so in the case of the divine and uncompounded nature the union consists in the communion of the Godhead.1092 One, moreover, is the Holy Spirit, and we speak of Him singly, conjoined as He is to the one Father through the one Son, and through Himself completing the adorable and blessed Trinity. Of Him the intimate relationship to the Father and the Son is sufficiently declared by the fact of His not being ranked in the plurality of the creation, but being spoken of singly; for he is not one of many, but One. For as there is one Father and one Son, so is there one Holy Ghost. He is consequently as far removed from created Nature as reason requires the singular to be removed from compound and plural bodies; and He is in such wise united to the Father and to the Son as unit has affinity with unit. 2946. And it is not from this source alone that our proofs of the natural communion are derived, but from the fact that He is moreover said to be “of God;”1093 not indeed in the sense in which “all things are of God,”1094 but in the sense of proceeding out of God, not by generation, like the Son, but as Breath of His mouth. . .

St. Basil is teaching good Trinitarian theology in the little snippet you pointed out--not what the Baha'is teach. St. Basil teaches that yes, Jesus is indeed the image of God, but not because He is an imitation of God, but because Jesus has the same divine Nature as the Father--in other words, they are two distinct Persons Who are one and the same undivided God.

"Now if we say that we have seen the Sun in two mirrors—one the Christ and one the Holy Spirit—that is to say, that we have seen three Suns, one in heaven and the two others on the earth, we speak truly. And if we say that there is one Sun, and it is pure singleness, and has no partner and equal, we again speak truly. "

Bahá'í Reference Library - Some Answered Questions, Pages 113-115

Taking a few things from your link...

"The Divine Reality is sanctified from singleness, then how much more from plurality. The descent of that Lordly Reality into conditions and degrees would be equivalent to imperfection and contrary to perfection, and is, therefore, absolutely impossible. It perpetually has been, and is, in the exaltation of holiness and sanctity. All that is mentioned of the Manifestations and Dawning-places of God signifies the divine reflection, and not a descent into the conditions of existence. 1 God is pure perfection, and creatures are but imperfections. For God to descend into the conditions of existence would be the greatest of imperfections; on the contrary, His manifestation, His appearance, His rising are like the reflection of the sun in a clear, pure, polished mirror."

^This contradicts John 1, where the Logos of God, which is God, became flesh--i.e. according to the Bible, God became flesh. The Baha'is reject this as an impossibility. One difference between the Baha'is and the Bible.

Taking the snippet you originally quoted, the Baha'is explain the Trinity as merely being God reflecting Himself off of other created beings. Yet Jesus is spoken of as being eternal, before the world was, and indeed the means by which everything that was been created, has been created--and as we have seen, the early Church Fathers (including St. Ignatius of Antioch, who was a personal student of St. John the Apostle and almost certainly acquainted with St. Peter) believed that Jesus was uncreated--i.e. that He is God, not by reflection, but by nature. One difference between the Baha'is and early Christianity.

One last thing from your article:

"This is the signification of the Three Persons of the Trinity. If it were otherwise, the foundations of the Religion of God would rest upon an illogical proposition which the mind could never conceive, and how can the mind be forced to believe a thing which it cannot conceive? A thing cannot be grasped by the intelligence except when it is clothed in an intelligible form; otherwise, it is but an effort of the imagination. "

God Himself cannot be conceived of by the mind. He is ineffable; the mind can never truly grasp an eternal God Who is without limit, Who is perfection beyond perfection, Who is omnipresent, omnibenevolent, omniscient and omnipotent. Even God's creation of the world out of nothing is beyond the mind's ability to understand. We cannot even comprehend the nothing that preceded creation. How can we hope to understand He who made everything out of that nothing?

In addition to my previous posts describing the reason why Trinity doctrine is not Biblical. It is noteworthy to refer to history on the development of Trinity Doctrine.

Yes, and I'm rather familiar with it.

In the early Christian era, While all Christians believed that Jesus was indeed the Son of God, the exact nature of his Sonship was contested,

Yes. In the earliest days, it was "Is Jesus God and not man, or is He both God and man?" Docetism was likely the first Christological heresy to arise; it's the first one mentioned, and even St. Ignatius had to rebut it in his letters written around 105 AD.

together with the precise relationship of the "Father," "Son" and "Holy Spirit" referred to in the New Testament.

All three are referred to as God. Jesus is called God and Uncreated, and pre-existent. The Holy Spirit is known as the Paraclete, and often spoken of as being a unique personage. The identity of the Father was always clear.

What is noteworthy is that eventually, the Christian Church accepted the teaching of St. Athanasius a man who apparently does not have a clean record:

"Throughout most of his career, Athanasius had many detractors. There were allegations of defiling an altar, selling Church grain that had been meant to feed the poor for his own personal gain, and for suppressing dissent through violence and murder.[29] It cannot be claimed, beyond all doubt, whether any or all of these specific allegations were true, but Rubenstein suggests that Athanasius employed a level of force when it suited his cause or personal interests.[30]"
Athanasius of Alexandria - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Can you trust a man like him?

A few things to keep in mind: First, St. Athanasius was not the first one to teach the Trinity. He was its most vigorous defender, but he was one among a sea of those defending the Trinity against the newfangled Arian heresy.

Also don't forget that Athanasius suffered greatly for the Truth, being exiled at least five times, often being under very harsh persecution by the Arians, and dying as an outcast in the desert.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Putting that in context for you:
......

St. Basil is teaching good Trinitarian theology in the little snippet you pointed out--not what the Baha'is teach. St. Basil teaches that yes, Jesus is indeed the image of God, but not because He is an imitation of God, but because Jesus has the same divine Nature as the Father--in other words, they are two distinct Persons Who are one and the same undivided God.

I am not saying that whatever St. Basil said is the Truth. I only wanted to show you that, Jesus being called 'Mirror' who reflects 'the Word' is a concept that originally was believed in early Christianity, and it is Biblical and now almost a forgotten thing....but later gradually other man-made ideas were added instead. It is like finding the traces of Truth, between a bunch of man-made ideas, such as incarnation.

And I don't see how you can have it both. As I said you cannot reconcile 'incarnation' with 'image manifested in Mirror'.
I gave the analogy of the Sun and the image in the Mirror.....you did not reply to that portion. Why?

^This contradicts John 1, where the Logos of God, which is God, became flesh--i.e. according to the Bible, God became flesh. The Baha'is reject this as an impossibility. One difference between the Baha'is and the Bible.

The verse of Bible is True. Baha'i Scripture has a different interpretation of the verse "the word became flesh'. I already explained that in my previous post and you seem to miss it or ignore it. That would be the reply...please refer to it.
Therefore my suggestion is, first you establish how 'image of God in the Mirror' is equivalent with 'incarnation'.....which I don't think they are reconcilable.

When Scripture says "the Word became flesh, this is not a literal verse. It is figurative. It seems to me that Trinity takes this verse literally to mean incarnation.

Here I quote the Baha'i Scripture explaining the verse:

"As it is said in the Gospel of John, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God”;* then the Holy Spirit and the Word are the appearance of God. The Spirit and the Word mean the divine perfections that appeared in the Reality of Christ, and these perfections were with God; so the sun manifests all its glory in the mirror. For the Word does not signify the body of Christ, no, but the divine perfections manifested in Him. For Christ was like a clear mirror which was facing the Sun of Reality; and the perfections of the Sun of Reality—that is to say, its light and heat—were visible and apparent in this mirror. If we look into the mirror, we see the sun, and we say, “It is the sun.” Therefore, the Word and the Holy Spirit, which signify the perfections of God, are the divine appearance. This is the meaning of the verse in the Gospel which says: “The Word was with God, and the Word was God”

Some Answered Questions, p.92

Taking the snippet you originally quoted, the Baha'is explain the Trinity as merely being God reflecting Himself off of other created beings. Yet Jesus is spoken of as being eternal, before the world was, and indeed the means by which everything that was been created, has been created--and as we have seen, the early Church Fathers (including St. Ignatius of Antioch, who was a personal student of St. John the Apostle and almost certainly acquainted with St. Peter) believed that Jesus was uncreated--i.e. that He is God, not by reflection, but by nature. One difference between the Baha'is and early Christianity.

The analogy tells us there is a Sun in Sky, and this Mirror is showing its image. Now you say this Mirror (Jesus) always existed. I say No!. The Sun existed before, but this Mirror did not exist before. You seem` not be able to recognize difference between 'image of the Sun' and the Sun. You say the Sun and the image of Sun are both equal and the same. Do you not? If not, then how can you say God and His image are equal and the same?

When the Scripture appears to be talking about pre-existence of Christ, that is in reference with His divine attributes, and not with His individuality. Please Note. It is like pointing to the image of the Sun in the Mirror and saying this Sun existed from beginning. .....and your assumption is incorrect regarding the Nature of Christ. The Baha'i Scriptures describes Jesus and other Manifestations as having a totally different nature than regular human beings, which places them infinitely above regular human, but below God.

God Himself cannot be conceived of by the mind. He is ineffable; the mind can never truly grasp an eternal God Who is without limit, Who is perfection beyond perfection, Who is omnipresent, omnibenevolent, omniscient and omnipotent. Even God's creation of the world out of nothing is beyond the mind's ability to understand. We cannot even comprehend the nothing that preceded creation. How can we hope to understand He who made everything out of that nothing?

Please note the difference between illogical fallacy and incomprehensible.

Yes, and I'm rather familiar with it.

Yes. In the earliest days, it was "Is Jesus God and not man, or is He both God and man?" Docetism was likely the first Christological heresy to arise; it's the first one mentioned, and even St. Ignatius had to rebut it in his letters written around 105 AD.

All three are referred to as God. Jesus is called God and Uncreated, and pre-existent. The Holy Spirit is known as the Paraclete, and often spoken of as being a unique personage. The identity of the Father was always clear.

As I quoted even from Basil..... We talk about one King and One image of King, and not Two Kings! Please note. We talk about One God and one Image of God who is Jesus and not two God. When you say Father is Fully God, and Jesus is Fully God, you are contradicting with what Scriptures teaches. The Scriptures describes Jesus 'image of God'.
To me, Trinity is in contradiction with Bible, and it is very obvious it is illogical fallacy.

A few things to keep in mind: First, St. Athanasius was not the first one to teach the Trinity. He was its most vigorous defender, but he was one among a sea of those defending the Trinity against the newfangled Arian heresy.

Also don't forget that Athanasius suffered greatly for the Truth, being exiled at least five times, often being under very harsh persecution by the Arians, and dying as an outcast in the desert.

The Trinity was gradually formed. But Athanasius was the one who finally leaded most Christians (in my view to the wrong path)....Athanasius was a man who applied force whenever it was in his favour. Seems a bit against the teachings of Christ.