20 Reasons Why the Trinity Is Unbiblical (19)
November 25th, 2010 by Guest Author
by Chuck LaMattina of Grace Ministry International.
19. Jesus was in all ways made like his brethren.
“Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, 15 and release those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. 16 For indeed He does not give aid to angels, but He does give aid to the seed of Abraham. 17 Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. 18 For in that He Himself has suffered, being tempted, He is able to aid those who are tempted.†(Hebrews 2:14-18)
The Scripture says that the Lord Jesus “in all things…had to be made like His brethren.†If Jesus Christ is the God/Man, was he truly made like his brethren in “all things�
The article says, “The Scripture says that the Lord Jesus “in all things…had to be made like His brethren.†If Jesus Christ is the God/Man, was he truly made like his brethren in ‘all things’?”
The other thing I don’t understand is that the bible repeatedly says that Yeshua will be our High Priest and the mediator between us and God the Father. If it is true that Yeshua is actually God. Then – How can God be our High Priest and the mediator between us and God the Father???
This makes absolutely no sense to me. It’s just like the Trinitarian teaching that Yeshua/Jesus was begotten but not made. The word begotten means created (brought into existence). It makes absolutely no sense to say that someone was begotten but not made. You might as well be saying that someone existed but didn’t exist.
Just like it’s a contraction in terms to say someone was eternally begotten. You are either eternal or begotten. You might as well be saying that Yeshua is totally pure and good, but at the same time evil. From my point of view, these Trinitarian teachings, just seem like a bunch of double talk (gibberish).
At least it does to me anywaze…
Thomas,
I encourage you to talk to some Trinitarians and see if your understanding of what they say is the same as what they mean by what they say.
Now, I suppose there may be some that simply say things they have been conditioned to say, or are in the habbit of saying some things because they’ve always heard them that way, but I think there are some who have thought things through.
Ray,
The word eternal means that it has no beginning (it always existed). The opposite of the word eternal is begotten, which means something was brought into existence. You can’t join two words together, that have opposite meanings, and create a new word (like “eternally begotten”). If you do you end up with a word that is completely nonsensical. It’s like saying something is “wet dry” or “hot cold” or “hard soft” etc…
Anyone reading this blog with an open mind will see the absurdity of a word like “eternally begotten”, which by the way is found nowhere in the bible or in any early Christian writings. It is clearly a “nonsensical” man-made word that was invented to try to explain the non-biblical concept of the Trinity. Prior to the invention of the Trinity no-one would have dared to try to put these two opposite words together to describe something.
However the bible does say that Y’shua is the mediator between us and God. It is also “nonsensical” to have God (in the disguise of another person) being the mediator between us God. How can God be the mediator between us and God???
Another “nonsensical” concept that was invented to try to explain the Trinity is this idea that Y’shua was begotten but not made. The word begotten means brought into existence (created). You can’t say something was created but not created. You might as well be saying something was destroyed but not destroyed, or was invented but not invented, or was discovered but not discovered, etc…
I’m really hoping that someone of the Trinitarian persuasion will come along and try to make sense out of all this nonsense. I’d be most interested in hearing their explanations…
I don’t think it strange for a person to think that when Jesus came from God, out from the Father, to take unto himself another form, at the time the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary, to think to himself, that he is perceiving a “being born” of the spirit.
This is not to say that Jesus in this situation had never existed from eternity. It is simply to say, by what has been observed by the reader, that Jesus was born of the spirit of God in this situation, and this may be a man’s perception of what he has taken notice of.
Wasn’t Jesus in some form of “spirit” when he was conceived by God in the womb of Mary? Then, it seems to me that something of the spirit of God took form in her womb, and this is the miracle of divine conception that people speak of, a marvelous thing indeed.
By my dictionary’s defining the term “beget”, there are two uses of the word. One of the uses is of bringing into being. But there is more than just one use of the word beget. The other use is of means to be the father or sire of; procreate.
When Jesus was born of God in this world, God was the Father of him. I tend to think that God had always been the Father of Jesus, even from everlasting, that from everlasting Jesus had always been God’s Son who was dwelling in him and with him, and because he has always been a part of the Godhead, (the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) in that sense, he has been God (sense of Agency here?) to angles and people here on this earth.
I don’t find it so strange that God is the Father of one who is from everlasting, one Jesus by name.
Ray,
You said, “Wasn’t Jesus in some form of ‘spirit’ when he was conceived by God in the womb of Mary?”
This is what the Trinitarians believe, but I don’t see anything in the scriptures that convinces me that Y’shua existed prior to his conception in Mary’s womb. Of course I understand that some Unitarians (like yourself) believe this, but I am not convinced that this is true. The only way that the word “eternally begotten” makes any sense is if it meant someone was being begotten over and over again from the beginning of time, hence they were eternally being begotten.
No Trinitarian would say that Y’shua was being “eternally begotten” in this way.
You also said, “I tend to think that God had always been the Father of Jesus, even from everlasting, that from everlasting Jesus had always been God’s Son who was dwelling in him and with him, and because he has always been a part of the Godhead…”
I realize that you believe in a preexisting Y’shua, but again I don’t see it that way at all. I also don’t see anything in the scriptures that says that Y’shua is part of the Godhead, or that a Godhead even exists, at least in the way Trinitarians think that it does. I of course don’t believe this is a salvation issue. Like we have done before when discussing this issue, I think it is best if we just agree to disagree.
Have a great Sunday and God Bless…
I don’t think I’ve used the term “eternally begotten”. I haven’t often seen it. I don’t think many people use it.
I began to see that Jesus did in fact exist before he was born into this world, especially when I looked at Micah 5:2. I couldn’t explain Micah 5:2 any other way.
It takes some effort to enter in the straight and narrow gate. Keep pressing in. Sometimes it feels like putting a camel through the eye of a needle.
Ray,
You said, “It takes some effort to enter in the straight and narrow gate.”
I can agree with that, but if something is illogical and doesn’t seem to make any sense, then it probably is illogical and doesn’t make any sense. You can’t just explain it away by saying that you personally believe that Y’shua preexisted and was begotten but not made so I (and others) have to ignore our common sense and accept your point of view, just because you believe it.
You are free to believe whatever you want. I was just pointing out how illogical and absurd some these Trinitarians concepts are when you actually take the time to think about it. If you allow your common sense to guide you, instead of just clinging on to your preconceptions that you had since even before you began to study the scriptures, you might be able to understand why I believe what I believe.
I personally try my best to ignore my preconceptions and let the scriptures guide me in what I should or should not believe. We’ve discussed Micah 5:2 before and I believe that when it says, “from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose coming forth is from of old, from ancient days”, it means that Y’shua was part of the plan “from of old, from ancient days.”
You can’t just take a vague passage that doesn’t directly say that Y’shua preexisted and use it to negate your common sense and to negate other “direct” passages that talk about Y’shua being begotten in Mary’s womb. Everybody knows what the word begotten means but the Trinitarians just ignore it’s true meaning because it contradicts their preconceptions that Y’shua preexisted and had no beginning. This is not what the word begotten means.
Like you said, “…there are two uses of the word. One of the uses is of bringing into being. But there is more than just one use of the word beget. The other use is of means to be the father or sire of; procreate.” There is no definition of begotten that means someone preexisted and then took on another form (human form). This is not what the word beget means. The N.T. writers used the word begotten for a reason if they had wanted to say that he preexisted as a spirit and then took on a human form they would have said so.
There is no reason to believe the word beget/begotten doesn’t mean exactly what you said above that it means. Your gave a perfect definition of the word begotten which of course does not fit with the idea of a preexisting Y’shua. I understand you believe he preexisted but I just don’t see it that way. Like I said above, “I think it is best if we just agree to disagree.” I don’t see any point in continuing this conversation. It is obvious to me that neither one of us is going to convince the other.
I don’t mean to be rude, but I just don’t agree with your point of view on this…
There’s a note in my 1599 Geneva Bible on Micah 5:2 which says “He showeth that the coming of Christ and all his ways were appointed of God from all eternity.”
This I agree with, but I am convinced that it’s saying more than that alone.
Psalm 2:6 which says “Even I have set my King upon Zion mine holy mountain.” (1599 Geneva) can be taken to be speaking of David, but I think it’s also about Jesus, who is the King that God had in Zion with him, at the time David wrote this.
David in some ways was a type and shadow of Christ, as was Joseph, Isaac, and others.
David wrote, “Kiss the Son, lest he be angry…”(Psalm 2:12) and he wrote, “The Lord said unto my Lord…”. (Psalm 110:1) Though some think that this is only a prophetic word that Christ would one day come and will one day (which is today, but for David it had not yet come) sit at God’s right hand in the heavenlies, I see that as being a present reality for David at the time he wrote it.
People have differing views on that.
I don’t think it to be so strange that many people believe Jesus has been with God before the creation of the world. I too am among that number. It doesn’t seem to be so strange to me.
Thomas,
People found their faith upon the existence of Christ prior to his physical birth into this world, not upon the word begotten, but upon quite a few scriptures that do not have within the verse that particular word.
Ray,
You said, “People have differing views on that.”
I understand that, and I do respect your right to interpret the scriptures the way that you do. Like I said, “I don’t mean to be rude, but I just don’t agree with your point of view on this.” You and I have had this discussion before and in the end we agreed to disagree. This is not a salvation issue and I don’t see any reason for either one of us to try to force our views onto the other. It is enough that we try to walk in each other’s shoes, and see things through each other’s eyes.
I have tried to explain my point of view to you (on more than one occasion) as best as I can. All I can do is ask that you respect my right to disagree with you. Just like I respect your right to disagree with me. God created all of us to be different, just like snowflakes. I don’t think it is necessary that you and I (or anyone else) have to agree on everything.
It would actually be rather strange and abnormal if we did… 🙂
I’d like to talk about the divine conception, look at some possibilities, and ask a few questions.
I was at a Sunday school meeting for adults one morning and no teacher showed up. So someone asked if anyone wanted to be the teacher that day, or if anyone had anything they wanted to share.
I went up to the front where there was a dry erase board and I talked about how Jesus came into this world. I think I made mention of the first few verses of Genesis, about how the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters, and how God said, “Let there be light.”, and I have noticed that sometimes God speaks in ways that are types, and shadows of things to come, but I want to take a look at Luke 1:35.
And I said that if I could illustrate this in some way by my very limited artistic ability, I suppose I could ….well, how might one draw a picture of God? Mary is easy. Just draw a triangle and then a small circle above it, add a few stick arms and legs and there, you have a primitive drawing of a woman, but how can I draw a picture of God? I drew a cloud. Now I know that that isn’t big enough but it’s just a way of drawing God who is Spirit.
Now the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary, and he who had been in God from eternity, being a part of him from everlasting, must have come out from where he was, in some form, by the Spirit of God and entered the womb of Mary, and this is a wonderful thing to behold.
When I looked at that on the board, it reminded me of a birth, a being born of God, even though Jesus became born of Mary a little while after this even recorded in Luke 1:35.
And I remember saying that when we tell this event to people, there’s power in it because when a person believes this, they can become a child of God. I believe this event is that powerful. It’s that important. It’s enough for a person to become born of the spirit and begin a new life in Christ Jesus.
And the people liked that short teaching.
Now I’d like to consider some other possibilites that are suggested.
One suggestion is that Jesus did not exist in any form prior to his conception in the womb of Mary, or at least not before the overshadowing by the Holy Spirit. They suggest that Luke 1:35 is the beginning of the Lord Jesus Christ in any shape or form.
Now I can go along with this being his beginning in any shape or form of man in a womb, but I do believe that he had been in the form of God from the beginning, being a part of the threefold Godhead. (the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit)
But for those who do not believe in his existence in any way prior to what we read of in Luke 1:35, what will you say to someone who might say to you that you are only representing him as a special human being, not as the Son of God?
How will you make your defense on that point? Is what they say fair or unfair, and if so, how so?
John 1:12 comes to mind here.
My 1599 Geneva has the word “prerogative†instead of the word “powerâ€.
Ray,
Please include our your comments in one post.
Ray,
You asked, “What will you say to someone who might say to you that you are only representing him as a special human being, not as the Son of God?”
Some Unitarians (that don’t believe in a preexistent Jesus) believe that Y’shua was adopted as the Son of God at his baptism, and others would say he was adopted as the Son of God at his resurrection. Other Unitarians (that don’t believe in a preexistent Jesus) believe that because of the miraculous birth, when Mary was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit, that Y’shua was the Son of God right from his inception in Mary’s womb.
The reason there are so many different points of view is because the bible is not clear on this. We do not know the mechanics of exactly how Y’shua is the Son of God. Therefore all anyone can do is speculate. I personally believe Y’shua was “FULLY AND COMPLETELY HUMAN” (just like us). If Y’shua had preexisted since the beginning of time with God in heaven, and participated in the creation of the Universe, then he “couldn’t” possibly be human like the rest of us.
Anyone that had existed from the beginning of time with God in heaven, and had participated in the creation of the Universe, would have had more knowledge and experience then any other person that has ever lived (even to this day). For example Y’shua as a small baby, or child, would have been able to understand and speak every language that had ever existed. He would have been able to start sharing this tremendous knowledge and experience with others at a very young age.
There were other prophets in the O.T. that started their ministry at a young age, like Daniel for instance. Yet Y’shua led a very normal uneventful life up until about the age of 30 when he first began his ministry. There is no evidence that he could speak fluently (in even one language) as a baby or as a toddler. There is also no evidence that he had the knowledge of someone who had participated in the creation of the Universe when he was a toddler, or child.
Moses said in Deuteronomy 18:15, 17-19, “(15) The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brothers—it is to him you shall listen…. (17) And the LORD said to me… (18) I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers. And I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him. (19) And whoever will not listen to my words that he shall speak in my name, I myself will require it of him.”
Moses prophesies that the Messiah will be like “him” (Moses) and that he will be from among his brothers (in other words completely and fully human). For the Messiah to be like Moses he has to be “FULLY AND COMPLETELY” human otherwise he wouldn’t be “like Moses” and he wouldn’t be “from among his brothers.” Like I pointed out above a creature that has existed from the beginning of time with God in heaven and that participated in the creation of the Universe could “NOT” possibly be human like his brothers (us) or like Moses.
I personally believe that even though Y’shua was “fully and completely” human he was God’s Son spiritually. Just like we (who are “fully and complety” human) are the “children of God” spiritually. But, this is just my own personal opinion and I could be wrong. Like I said above the bible is not clear on this and it is open to interpretation. We do not know the exact mechanics of how Y’shua is the Son of God.
Was he adopted as the Son of God at his baptism or at his resurrection???
Was he the Son of God right from the time the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary???
No one knows (for sure) the answers to these questions. We can only speculate. I know this was a long response, but I hope it fully answers your question above.
Now I have a question for you. The word eternal means “without a beginning or an end”. If Y’shua is eternal then, How can God be his Father???
The way I see it, in order for Y’shua to be God’s son then he must have had a beginning…
Every believer knows that God is from everlasting, and by faith we understand that nobody created God. He simply existed from eternity, from before the world was made, going back in time, as we understand time, how far, we can not fathom.
I think we all accept such things by faith, and by faith I understand that Jesus was with God, being a part of the fellowship of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, from before the world began and even before that time, going back, as I understand time, I say that anything back there is eternity to me.
I know of no point in time when Jesus began, just as I know of no time when the Father began, or when the Holy Spirit began. Those three to me are the Godhead, and I believe the Godhead was from eternity.
This is something I accept by faith. I can’t understand certain scriptures any other way, so this is where I am at this time.
I simply believe that Jesus always was with and in God the Father, as was the Spirit of God, from everlasting. That’s where I find my peace. I simply rest in that fact.
Now can you imagine all of us who believe in Christ, one day being changed, being far different than the day we were born in this world, having eternal life with God and Christ in heaven, being like the angels, yet having a past different than they, because we did exist in the flesh in this world, we were born of women, we did suffer in the flesh, we did bleed when we were cut, we did live our years in the flesh, while angels of God did not.
If we can conceive in some way a life like that in heaven with God for eternity, we can understand that there is a heavenly life with God, and that there is an earthly life that was separated from God by sin.
The earthly life and the heavenly life are not the same. I don’t know if I am going to remember everything I did on this earth for eternity. I’ve been told that in heaven, being with the Lord and beholding him, there is no remembrance of sin.
I suppose that’s a part of being in fellowship with God in heaven where Jesus is, being clothed by him, being changed by him, being kept by him, having been made new by him, and living with him.
In order for Christ to redeem us, didn’t he have to be like us, even to the point of being one of us? For that to be, didn’t God make a way?
Isn’t it possible for Christ to have come into this world without all the knowledge he once possessed?
What is it that some Trinitarians say about this….? Is it that Jesus
left off his Divinity…or something like that? I’m not sure how they talk of this matter….He left his Divinity behind, or something like that? He emptied himself? I think I’ve heard something like that before.
Let’s never think that there are certian things the scripture says that can never be found out. Let’s at least be willing to ask God about things we want to understand, or think we should understand when we are willing to learn, when we are ready to receive, and let’s not be afraid to ask.
When we do get the wisdom we seek, we should find peace, for as the scripture says, The wisdom that is from above is peaceable, pure, gentle, easy to be entreated, full of mercy, good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy. (James 3:17)
Ray,
You said, “I know of no point in time when Jesus began…”
This is where you and I disagree. The way I see it, Y’shua cannot be the son of God if he has always existed just like God. In order for God to be his Father there must have been a time when the Father existed prior to his son. Otherwise Y’shua cannot be God’s son, but maybe a brother or some other coequal deity.
You also said, “In order for Christ to redeem us, didn’t he have to be like us, even to the point of being one of us? For that to be, didn’t God make a way?”
God did make a way. The bible is very clear that Y’shua was begotten (created) in Mary’s womb. Like I have repeatedly said, that is what the word begotten means, being brought into existence, fathered, sired, etc…
You also said, “I simply believe that Jesus always was with and in God the Father, as was the Spirit of God, from everlasting. That’s where I find my peace. I simply rest in that fact.”
Like I said, I respect your right to interpret the scriptures the way that you do. You have every right to disagree with me. All I am asking is that you respect my right to disagree with you and have my own beliefs on this subject. The way I see it my beliefs are just as valid as yours.
You also said, “Let’s at least be willing to ask God about things we want to understand, or think we should understand when we are willing to learn, when we are ready to receive, and let’s not be afraid to ask. When we do get the wisdom we seek, we should find peace, for as the scripture says, The wisdom that is from above is peaceable, pure, gentle, easy to be entreated, full of mercy, good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy. (James 3:17)”
That was beautifully written. I can completely agree with what you are saying here. In Mathew 7:7 Y’shua says, ” Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.” (ESV)
Like I have said in my other posts, this is not a salvation issue and there is no reason for us to try to force our beliefs on each other. That’s why I think it would be best if we just agree to disagree.
Have a great week and God Bless…
As I was reading from Dean Braxton’s book, ” In Heaven”, I came to a part where he was saying that there is only one God, and that God is God the Father, and Jesus.
I don’t think it so strange to talk that way. What I wrote above isn’t his exact wording, but I think it to be the jist of what he was saying in his book, at the part I was reading.
Dean often talkes in his book about how his perspectives changed by what he saw while he was in heaven. On earth men tend to have their “boxes” as Dean called them. He tells of how his own boxes were being broken by the things he saw.
I think that’s why we need to be flexible, and willing to keep learning.
Since God is from everlasting and from him comes everything, it doesn’t seem strange to me that Jesus his Son was a part of him, even from that time, before time as we know it, began.
I believe that with God, that certainly is possible. I also do not think it to be impossible that as Jesus was being formed in the womb of Mary, that in that condition, he did not possess all the knowledge of God that he had as he had once, at the time when he was with God in his glory, before the world was made.
It’s about him taking on another form, the form of a man, and he really did do that to be the saviour of the world as God had planned.
It’s as if God took a part of himself and sent that part to us.
Ray,
You said, “I think that’s why we need to be flexible, and willing to keep learning.”
I agree with that. I didn’t mean to come across that I was inflexible and not willing to learn. But, you have said nothing to convince me that Y’shua was everlasting and existed before time as we know it began. You just keep repeating that that’s what you believe. I’ve already said I respect your right to believe this, but I am also making it clear that I don’t agree with you on this.
You also said, “…there is only one God, and that God is God the Father, and Jesus.”
That makes two Gods. Jesus is not God. He is the son of God, just like we are the children of God. You can’t say there is one God and that he is comprised of two separate and distinct persons. That doesn’t make any sense. If you say Jesus is God then that means there is no such a person as Jesus. Jesus was just God pretending to be his own son.
I know you are convinced that this Dean Braxton really went to heaven and came back and told us all about it. But, your common sense should tell you that there is just “ONE” God and that Jesus/Y’shua is his son. Y’shua cannot be God and be God’s son at the same time. The way I see it is he has to be either one or the other. It’s just nonsense to say there is only one God, and that God is God the Father and Jesus.
I really have a hard time understanding where your coming from at times. You readily admit that God and Jesus are two distinct and separate individuals, but then you say that they are both (together) the only one God. I’m sorry, but I don’t see how this makes any sense whatsoever. It’s like your speaking some kind of foreign language where the meaning of your words don’t match the English words that I am familiar with.
Since the Trinitarians use this same kind of language I guess we could call it Triniteese… 🙂
Ray/DT – as I read your comments, I am smiling. I’m thinking of a photograph of the Last Supper. I can stare at that for awhile, but then I move on.
Then I’m thinking of a jigsaw puzzle of the Last Supper (except I don’t know what the actual picture is until I am well into building it). I spend hours and hours (maybe even days) pouring over that puzzle.
What I notice building puzzles is you get to know every little nuance of the picture. I might initially see a section of blue sky, but as I work on it, I begin to notice subtle differences in the color of blue. I would never have noticed that if it was just a picture – I would have moved on long before.
My point is that I think God makes himself a puzzle to us for the same reason. Look how much time we spend debating the nature of Jesus by not being told clearly who he is? We pour over scripture and try to wring every ounce of information we can out of it, whereas if scripture read like Dr. Suess, we would have moved on long ago.
I remember how Dean said that in heaven everything is one. God loves everyone the same and has a place for everyone.
At times Dean talked about seeing Jesus, at other times he talked about seeing God in some way or another. There was a distinction.
God and Jesus together don’t necessarily make two Gods. The Father and Jesus are one. Do people who worship Jesus and God worship two Gods? I think they worship one. They worship God the Father and they will worship Jesus also. I’ve seen it in songs in church.
I know that we do worship Jesus. I know that we do worship the Father. I know we worship one God, for there is but one God to us.
DT – Luke 2:49 – Jesus asks his parents ‘Didn’t you know I had to be in my Father’s house?’
I wouldn’t consider this a slam dunk, but it supports the idea that Jesus was the ‘Son of God’ before his resurrection and before his baptism.
Personally, I favor the idea that he was the ‘Son of God’ from conception in the womb. He was created like Adam – that is, he was not tainted like all of us other humans with a sin nature. And that is due to having the ‘holy spirit’ as the father. But, I like to entertain the different options and see where they go, comparing them (like the Bereans) with what scripture we have to see if it fits.
Antioch,
I can understand why you read our conversation and smile. It’s almost like we are talking past each other instead of to each other. I realize that I’m never going to convince Ray to see things the way that I do. But, I do hope to convince him that I have good reasons for my beliefs and that my beliefs are just as valid as his.
Ray,
You said, “I know that we do worship Jesus.”
We just had a long conversation about this in another thread. (“Should we worship Jesus” written by Sean on April 2nd. 2011). There were a lot of comments (93 and counting) and it was very clear that you were the “only” one on this site that said it was alright to worship Jesus. So when you say, “I know that ‘WE’ do worship Jesus”, you are not talking about anyone else on this site but yourself.
You also said, “God and Jesus together don’t necessarily make two Gods.”
Yes it does make two Gods. The only way it would not make two Gods is that if Jesus was not really a separate and distinct person, and was really just God pretending to be his own son. In Msg. #16 you said, “It’s as if God took a part of himself and sent that part to us.”
If Jesus is just a piece of God, then he is not a separate and distinct person from God. In other words you are saying that a (human) man named Jesus never did exist, but that Jesus was just a piece of God walking around with us on earth in the form of a human. You are free to believe that if you want, but I certainly don’t believe that…
Antioch,
Luke 1.35 is an excellent text tieing Jesus’ human birth to being the son of God.
Another good verse that tells us that Jesus is the Son of God is Matt 16:27. There are so many and all of them are important. John 1:14 is another.
Jesus talked in John 12:23 about how the hour had come when he would be glorified. I’m quite sure he’s speaking of the cross, the Father’s cup of wrath that we deserved for our sins, that he was about to drink. This became his glory.
This had been prophesied about him throughout the scriptures. The lamb that the priests placed on the burning altars, the 9:00 AM and the 3:00 PM sacrifices, were about him.
The scriptures spoke of how God would atone for sin. Jesus came to declare the Father’s name and that he did. (John 12:28, 14:13)
John 17:5 is an interesting verse. I think it says so much about Jesus being the Son of God.
John 17:3 is interesting to look at also. Here it is from the 1599 Geneva Bible along with some of the notes on the verse:
John 17:3
And this is life eternal, that they may know thee to be the 1 only very God, and whom thou hast sent, Jesus Christ.
17:3 1. He Calleth the Father the only very God, to set him against all false gods, and not to shut out himself and the holy Ghost. For straightway he joineth the knowledge of the Father and the knowledge of himself together, and according to his accustomed manner, setteth forth the whole Godhead in the person of the father. So is the Father alone said to be King, immortal, wise, and dwelling in the light which no man can attain unto, invisible, Rom 16:17; I Tim 1:17.
———————————————————————
So Jesus honored God as supreme which is as natural as a son should honor his father. In this world that is how sons should do, and Jesus did the same to his father, the Father, God.
Sometimes I wonder about typo’s. I looked up Romans 16:17 and now think they may have been intending Romans 16:27 instead. I wonder about this because of the context.
Correction: third paragraph of post 23 should be “lambs” not lamb.
Antioch,
You said, “DT – Luke 2:49 – Jesus asks his parents ‘Didn’t you know I had to be in my Father’s house?’ I wouldn’t consider this a slam dunk, but it supports the idea that Jesus was the ‘Son of God’ before his resurrection and before his baptism.”
The O.T. repeatedly refers to the Israelites as the “children of God” and Y’shua told us in Mathew 23:9, “And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven.”
It doesn’t surprise me that Y’shua would call the temple “my Father’s house”. I used to believe, like most Unitarians, that because of the miraculous birth Y’shua was the son of God right from his inception. But Robert (who used to post here) sent me some links talking about how some of the early church Fathers had said that there were no birth narratives in the original/early gospels (that they had access to).
Robert believes that Trinitarians added the birth narrative later on (I’m not sure exactly when) to support their belief that Y’shua was no just an ordinary man, but some sort of God man. The Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, etc… had a long history of stories about one God or another impregnating a women and giving birth to a God man. This idea would readily have been readily accepted by the Gentiles of the time.
I know that almost all Christians just accept the Gospels as being inspired (or written) by God and would just dismiss such ideas. But, because of my doubting nature I’m not so sure about whether these birth narratives are authentic or not. Robert believed that Y’shua was chosen as the son of God at his baptism because he was the only human that had ever lived that led a sinless life in the eyes of our Father.
I like to keep an open mind on this myself. The birth stories may be authentic and maybe Y’shua was the chosen son of God right from his inception, or maybe Robert is right and Y’shua was chosen as the son of God at his baptism. I’ve even heard some people say that Y’shua became the son of God at his resurrection (but I’m not sure of the reasoning behind that).
I don’t really think it matters much when Y’shua became the chosen “son of God”, it’s just important that we recognize that he is the “son of God” and not God in disguise as a human. Which is also a pagan idea. There were many pagan stories of God’s disguising themselves as humans and walking around doing miraculous things, etc…
I personally believe that the early Trinitarians borrowed some of their ideas from some of these pagan stories about different God’s walking around the earth, etc… The question of when Y’shua was chosen as the “son of God” is certainly something that I don’t think it is worth arguing about. Like I said, “I like to keep an open mind on this myself”. I can understand why there are differing views on this. I know one day we will all find out the truth about these things.
On that day there will be no more doubts about anything…
Lots of questions.
When was Jesus first recognized by God as being his Son?
At his baptism?
When he was a child?
When he was born of Mary?
When the Spirit of God overshadowed Mary?
When he said, “Thy will be done.”, at the garden the night he was arrested?
When he died on the cross?
When he was put in the grave?
When he arose?
When he presented himself to the Father right after his resurrection?
When he taught the disciples after his resurrection?
When he ascended?
When he sat at the Father’s right hand in heaven?
When?
When was the first time he was Alpha?
When was the first time he was Omega?
When was he the beginning?
When was he the end?
When did he first have glory with the Father? …when the scriptures prophesied about him? …when God first made his plan of salvation?…when the angels of God first shouted for joy?
These things we can take to God in prayer, and see what happens.
I was just watching T.V. and they said the world will end today at 6 P.M. details tonight at 11… 🙂
I wonder if we should all stay indoors for about 24 hours and keep our lights off. Maybe they would walk outside, see nobody, no traffic, no lights in the houses, nobody walking the streets….
I was just talking with an 88 year old lady that I haven’t seen in years and she was telling me how scared she was about all this end of the world stuff she was hearing about on the news. She said she didn’t think it right for someone to terrify people like this, and I think she’s right. This other lady I was talking to thought that all Christians believed that the end of the world was coming yesterday (she was not a Christian).
I had to explain to her that it was only a very small group who unfortunately had a very loud voice…
I have to think that at least some of the hype was mainstream media types enjoying the opportunity to mock people of faith
Antioch,
You are of course correct. The mainstream media bears the lion’s share of the blame for fanning the flames of fear in people. Predictions of major calamities are nothing new. I remember reading about how in the dark ages someone predicted that a certain major city in Europe (I forget which one now) was going to be destroyed. It just so happened that a distant volcano erupted (around the same time) which caused the moon to turn to a blood red color.
The city went into a complete panic and the king himself led the people of this great city (of several hundred thousand people) out of the city gates and they set up camp in the countryside a few miles away from the city. They stayed there for 2 or 3 days before they finally realized that the city wasn’t going to be destroyed after all. There has been all kinds of talk, for years now, about the world ending sometime in 2012.
I guess it just proves that even though we have advanced technologically we haven’t changed that much from our superstitious ancestors…
I’ve been attending a new church for two Sundays now. Last Sunday a young lady talked about how someone predicted the end of the world and how the Lord was going to come on the 21st of May, and how that didn’t happen. She said she had something she wanted to predict and that was that God wasn’t finished with us yet, that he is continuing to do his work…etc.
At the end of the service there was an invitation to pick up a small book about starting out new with the Lord, and so I picked it up. I
thought it was pretty good. It was full of a lot of good encouragement.
As I flipped the pages, as I often will do before reading a book, I saw something about the Holy Spirit and how he is a person.
So I determined that the one who wrote this book is a Trinitarian.
Did you ever hear of someone say that the Holy Spirit is a person, (and then begin talking about how the Holy Spirit works with us, etc) who is not a Trinitarian?
I think that so often goes with being a Trinitarian, so often in fact, that when I read it I tend to believe that the one who wrote it is a Trinitarian, one who was brought up in the Trinitarian manner or custom.
In the book the man said that the reason we know the Holy Spirit is a person is because of the characteristics that people have, that they can feel, have joy, be grieved, etc. Though this was not his exact words, this is the idea of what he said.
So I thought about the Holy Spirit being a person. I have always thought of the Holy Spirit as being a particular Spirit, the Spirit of God, the gift of God that he sent on that day of Pentecost of Acts 2, according to the prayer, and purpose of the Lord Jesus Christ, and that the Lord will be with us in that Spirit.
The verse came to mind about how the Spirit can be grieved, (Eph 4:30) and how we are not to grieve the holy Spirit of God.
I also thought about the verse that tells us to not quench the Spirit. (I Thess 5:19)
I also wondered if a person can be quenched. The word quenched seems to be speaking more of a fire than a person. The scripture does say that God is a consuming fire. (Heb 12:29)
I know there are figures of speech in the Bible. There are many comparisons used in the Bible and I also should know that people use comparisons also, and I don’t always know how they are using their words.
I thought also, about how the only person I ever saw quenched was a wicked witch on The Wizard Of Oz. I remember watching that as a young child. I’m not sure exactly how it happened, if it was Dorothy who lit the witch on fire with her broomstick, or who it was that threw a bucket of water on her, but I remember how she melted into the stone floor of the castle and disappeared.
I remember being scared at the time because though I had simply thought of her as being a person, now it appeared to me that she was the manifestation (though I didn’t know that word at the time) of some kind of evil spirit.
I suppose I should think of Jesus as being a manifestation of God in this world, and also the manifestation of a new kind of man, in the flesh as we are, but new in quality of life and living because of the spirit of God which was in him, because God himself was in him, a sinless man, living in holy communion with God at all times.
Jesus certainly is unique.
I wondered too if many a Trinitarian perceives Satan as being a person, or if all evil spirits are persons to them. I tend to think of Satan as being an evil spirit, a fallen angel. I think of all evil spirits as being of Satan.
I wonder if it is that by using the word “person” we give more honor,.. or if that is the perception that people have.
Regardless of the different ways or customs that Christians have in communicationg God, speaking of the gospel, and talking of Christ, I would rather be found to have been one that built bridges between
Christians rather than to have been one that drove wedges to divide them.
I do think we should all work to help separate others from evil and that we should be able to help according to how well we ourselves have separated from it.
Hopefully we will soon come into greater unity of the faith that is in Christ Jesus.
When we see greater unity in the Church, especially when that unity is godly, we should see a greater manifestion of the things of God happening, and also see others coming to Christ for salvation, restoration, and healing.
It’s important that I be connected to the Body, and one of the best ways for that to happen is to be connected to a local church.
I want to get connected and to talk to some of them about these things.
I’m reading in a book about how the Holy Spirit is fully God.
I can agree with that. I think that’s a good way to perceive the gift that God gave us, as being everything that God is.
Or, should I respond by saying that I too believe the Holy Spirit is God, and that the gift that he gave on the day of Pentecost which I read of in Acts 2, is also like God himself.?
I think God is a lot bigger than our doctrines about him. He doesn’t always fit our particular boxes does he?
In the book I was reading, the man says that the Holy Spirit is fully God, that there is one God in three persons, and that the Holy Spirit dwells in us because God sent the Spirit as Jesus said he would.
Though our perspectives may be slightly different at different times, there is so much that we do agree on as Christians, as members one of another in Christ.
Most of the things we differ on seem to be so few, and I hope they are getting to be fewer.
Ray,
You said, “Or, should I respond by saying that I too believe the Holy Spirit is God, and that the gift that he gave on the day of Pentecost which I read of in Acts 2, is also like God himself.?”
I agree that the gift of the Holy Spirit is like God (or reflects God), since it comes from God, but I don’t agree that “the Holy Spirit is God”.
You also said, “I think God is a lot bigger than our doctrines about him.”
Now that I completely agree with. Any doctrine that says “the Holy Spirit is God” is severely limiting God. I believe God is much much more then just “the Holy Spirit”. The Holy Spirit is a manifestation of God. It is something that God sends to guide us and strengthen us so that we can be closer to Him, and walk in His ways. There is nothing in the scriptures that say anything about “the Holy Spirit” being a person, just like there is nothing in the scriptures that say that “the Holy Spirit” is God.
It seems to me that these are just man-made ideas/doctrines. There is an old saying that says, “If you repeat something long enough people will begin to believe it is true”. That is what seems to have happened with so many of our modern beliefs. For example; ever since we were young children we have heard it said that people go directly to heaven (or to hell) when they die. Naturally we carry these beliefs (and others that we have heard) into adulthood.
It doesn’t matter to people that there is no scripture that says that people go to heaven (or hell) immediately after they die, just like it doesn’t matter that there is no scripture that says “the Holy Spirit” is a person, or that “the Holy Spirit” is God. People will still believe it anyway. It is very difficult to get someone to change a belief that they have held onto all of their lives.
You also said, “…there is so much that we do agree on as Christians, as members one of another in Christ.”
Now that I completely agree with. Even though you and I and others see things differently, we still try our best to follow Christ’s teachings in our day to day lives. That’s what makes us “ALL” members of Christ’s body. Unfortunately there are some (maybe many ???) people that say you must agree with everything that they believe in order to be a brother in Christ (or fellow member of Christ’s body).
I of course respectfully disagree with them…
I think when people say something like “The Holy Spirit is God.”, we should want to hear how it is that they are saying that he or it (the Spirit of God) is God.
Are they saying that he is God in the sense of making a comparison
such as for example, that Salt is Light because it is good, speaking of salt as being truthful, honest, just, or something pure.
It’s important how we say things and also important in how we hear each other.
It seems to me that Jesus and God are one God. I’ve heard it said that “that” is very important, something every believer in Christ needs to understand.
Ray,
You said, “It’s important how we say things and also important in how we hear each other.”
I agree with that. I think that we (as Christians) should try to put ourselves in the other persons shoes so we can understand why the other person believes what he or she believes. Of course that doesn’t mean we have to agree with them, just try to understand where it is they are coming from.
You also said, “It seems to me that Jesus and God are one God. I’ve heard it said that ‘that’ is very important, something every believer in Christ needs to understand.”
Now that I disagree with, but I can understand why you say that. Trinitarians will say that you must understand that Jesus and God (together) are one God. Some of them will even say that if you don’t believe this then you are not a true Christian and cannot attain salvation (since belief in a false Messiah can’t save anyone). However the reality is that there is again nothing in the scriptures that says “Jesus and God (together) are one God”.
The way I see it this is just another man-made idea/doctrine that people are taught at very young age. Because they are indoctrinated into these beliefs at such a young age it is difficult to get them to be open minded when looking at the scriptures regarding this. They will read these ideas into vague scriptures and then try to use these vague scriptures as some sort of proof to support their preconceptions.
If only people could read the bible with a completely open mind having no preconceptions beforehand. Of course this is impossible. All of us (including myself) have preconceptions which effect the way we look at the world around us. This is all just part of the human condition we find ourselves living in. It takes a lot of effort to try to ignore your preconceptions and to open your mind to new possibilities and new ways of looking at things…
Thomas, It’s important to understand that Jesus and God are one just as Jesus said and that there are not two Gods.
Ray,
It all depends on what you mean by “one”. Jesus is not God and God is not Jesus. Just like when we become one together in the body of Christ, we are not God nor are we Jesus. We are all still “separate” individuals. If you and your father were in business together, someone might say that you and your father are one (when it comes to things related to the business), but no-one would misunderstand this and think that you and your Father are one and the same being.
Jesus and God are similar in so many different ways, but they are “NOT” one and the same being. I think it is important to remember that there is nothing in the scriptures that says they are one and the same being. Being able to understand this is what identifies us as Unitarians…
http://www.equip.org/articles/loving-the-trinity
99% of all pastors and historians trained in Greek and hermanutics understand the trinity and support it. The Trinity is really the nature of God, not some magic word. Drop the term trinity, study the nature of God, and it all comes back to what the church fathers believed since the first century. Martin Luther was trinitarian, I challenge any one of the pastors/teachers of non-trinitarian doctrine if they understand the scriptures more than he did. He translated the Bible for goodness sake.
http://www.equip.org/perspectives/trinity-doctrine-is-the-trinity-biblical
When we compare scripture with scripture not just taking one passage out of context it all comes together. Peace!
Mike,
I appreciate your concern for our souls and our ‘incorrect doctrine’. Myself, and I am sure many others on this forum, are happy to compare your interpretation of scripture that you believe supports the trinity and provide you the counter interpretation that shows it does not. Let’s be Bereans.
Meanwhile, here is my short list of questions for trinitarians:
1) Deu 6:4, this most weighty passage says God is One. If God is really three in one, doesn’t this passage make God out to be a parser of words?
2) Mt 6:9, Jesus instructs us to pray to the ‘Father’ – the Father’s will and the Father’s kingdom. Doesn’t that violate the ‘co-equal’ clause in the doctrine (unless you want to stand on functional subordination)?
3) Paul’s greetings, why does Paul never include the holy spirit in his greetings? Is Paul snubbing 1/3rd of the trinity?
4) The Jews are strictly monotheistic. Jesus disciples would have been as well until they changed their mind. At what point did Jesus’ disciples switch and become trinitarians and why is that not clearly mentioned anywhere in the NT?
5) Why does Jesus argue against the claim that he is making himself equal with God in John 10:33-38 if he really is God?
There are dozens and dozens of passages that require mental gymnastics to fit with the trinity. It reminds me of the Ptolemaic orbits from the days when 99% of the people believed (because the church told them to) that the earth was the center of the universe.
Peace to you as well. May God convict us with his spirit if our doctrine will preclude us from being citizens in his kingdom.
Mike,
You said, “99% of all pastors and historians trained in Greek and hermanutics understand the trinity and support it.”
None of them read the bible without already having the preconception that the Trinity existed planted in their minds. Every single one of these pastors and historians believed in the Trinity long before they ever first opened the bible to study it. I am convinced that no-one could study the bible and come up with this complex theory of the Trinity from the scriptures alone.
The doctrine of the Trinity states that Jesus is not God, God is not the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is not Jesus. Yet all three of these persons are one and the same being (or essence). There is no scripture that says the Holy Spirit is a person. There is no scripture that says the Holy Spirit is equal to God. There is no scripture that says that Jesus is equal to God (but there are many that say he isn’t.).
So how is it possible for someone come to these conclusions from reading the scriptures???
It would be impossible. They would have to read extra-biblical writings that explained this complex theory of the Trinity in order to be able to understand it. None of the basic precepts that the Trinity teaches (that I mentioned above) are clearly mentioned anywhere in the bible. Trinitarians have to take vague verses and then read their preconceptions about the Trinity into those vague (unspecific) scriptures.
The word Trinity doesn’t even appear in any ancient writing until near the end of the 2nd. century. Like Antioch asked above, “At what point did Jesus’ disciples switch and become trinitarians and why is that not clearly mentioned anywhere in the NT?” There must have been some point in Jesus’ ministry where they suddenly realized that Jesus wasn’t “JUST” the son of God, but “GOD THE SON”.
Yet there is no mention of this key turning point when the monotheistic disciples suddenly started to believe this complex theory of the Trinity. Why don’t any of the Jewish leaders (mentioned in the bible) challenge this idea that Jesus is equal to God??? Especially since it went against (and still goes against) everything that the Jewish people believed about the “ONE SINGLE” omnipotent and all powerful God that has “NO” equal.
Why do the writers of the N.T. make no attempt whatsoever to explain this complex theory of the Trinity (that apparently is a mystery because no-one can understand it)???
Why does the word Trinity not appear in any early Christian writings???
An inquisitive mind might want to think about some of these questions…
Correction;
I just realized that I misstated the Trinity doctrine above. The 3rd. paragraph in Msg. #41 should say, “The doctrine of the Trinity states that Jesus is not the Father, the Father is not the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is not Jesus. Yet all three of these persons are one and the same being.”
Of course this means that Jesus is God, the Holy Spirit is God, and the Father is God. Sorry that I got it wrong in my above message, but the whole thing is so confusing and I have hard time keeping it straight, since it doesn’t really make any sense to me….