I have no obligation to qualify or quantify my concept of a deity because it is irrelevant to the discussion. Rather you should explain why my explication fails without going beyond the bounds of the verses cited.
To the contrary, your meaning of "god" is entirely relevant when you say that from your reading, Jesus was not "god." How am I to know what you mean by "god" especially when your idea (as an atheist) might be different from others here?
If, John 10:30 ("I and the Father are one") is "proof" Jesus and his deity are one and the same "being" why do trinitarians ignore/disregard John 17:21-23 ("21 that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us: that the world may believe that thou didst send me. 22 And the glory which thou hast given me I have given unto them; that they may be one, even as we are one; 23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be perfected into one;} showing what Jesus meant by being "one"?
I might suggest that John 10 itself defines the meaning of "My Father and I are one" while John 17 is some chapters removed and in a different context.
John 10:30-33 KJV
(30) I and my Father are one.
(31) Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
(32) Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
(33) The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
John 10 is in the context of (and understood as) making himself God. The Psalm he cites following contrasts God against the gods, God who judges the gods. Considering that Jesus had already established himself as he who would judge them, it's not hard to understand why they even were more motivated to stone him after this.
John 17:21 KJV
(21) That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
When we read John 17, this is multiple chapters away and in a different conversation and a different context. Rather than being in the context of "maketh thyself God" Jesus shows that this is an analogy. You would consider it absurd if you or I were only allowed to use a word in one way during our lifetimes, that we could only use a word literally or metaphorically but not in both ways in different contexts, and that's why the argument falls flat.
John 17:24 KJV
(24) Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.
... and even continuing that passage in John gives us indication that Jesus has status that he was there before the foundation of the world. No man is able to say that. Perhaps a Calvinist. But not anyone else.
That's what I understand. But if you really want to know why a Trinitarian believes such and such, you should ask a Trinitarian instead.
I agree that the holy spirit is God's spirit/mind/power.
If you blaspheme God's mind, you have blasphemed God.
If God's power cures your blindness, GOD has cured your blindness.
Why couldn't you just come out and say, "The Holy Spirit is God", if you think He is, or, "The Holy Spirit is not God", if you think He isn't? Why did you choose to avoid doing so?
So, you were willing to say that "God is spirit", but you weren't willing to come out and say, "The Holy Spirit is God". Why is that? Do you think that the spirit that you say God is is not holy?
Notice that, whereas you have stated that the Holy Spirit OBVIOUSLY IS GOD, your fellow Christ-hating heretic has excluded the Holy Spirit from being the most high God. Interesting.
Notice, above, that you claim that the Holy Spirit is "part of God". What part of God would you say the Holy Spirit is, and how many other parts would you say God has? What other parts would you say God has, besides the part which you say the Holy Spirit is? List them.
It never mentions "Jesus" or "Jesus of Nazareth" and sections of what was the one surviving manuscript (it was destroyed during the 1800's) are thought to be either forged or added after the original was produced.
Don't try to create a straw man as I've seen you do often. Many scholars, yes even a few Catholic church scholars, think Matthew 28:19 is a later addition because it does not appear in the earliest manuscripts. That aside, as read, it doesn't really do much to bolster the CLAIM the verse raises Jesus (or for that matter the "Holy Spirit") to the level of deity.
As for you other two "proof texts", I fail to see the relevance.
They each mention the Father, Son, and Spirit. Even if you believe Matthew 28:19 KJV is not original, do you also think that the Father, Son, and Spirit's mention in 2nd Corinthians 13:14 KJV and in 1st Peter 1:2 KJV are also corrupted, and not original?
How convenient. Odd though that this "apostolic oral doctrine" didn't find its way from the apostles to being documented on paper for almost 300 years :think:.
See above the Epistle to Diognetus for one thing, and for another, why would you call it "convenient" that oral tradition isn't written down? Wasn't Beowulf transmitted through word-of-mouth for centuries before it was ever written down? And does that fact mean that Beowulf didn't exist until it was written down? Of course not.
You were the one asserting that we can or should worship God through a created being, the onus is on you to support that assertion.
God alone is to be worshipped. I provided scriptures to that.
Asking such a specific question is bad practice, it's like me asking you show me the verse that states God is three persons who is one and is co-equal and co-eternal?
If it's a question, the answer is that there are no verses that state, verbatim, that God is triune, that the Son and the Holy Spirit, as the Father is, are the same one true God.
The trinity is expressed in the Bible indirectly. If you aren't looking for it, you won't find it. And if you aren't careful, you'll miss it, or misunderstand it.
It requires an overview of the Bible that you do not have, because you focus too much on the details, zeroing in on individual verses and passages, missing the forest for the trees, as it were.
Could you provide such a verse that covers all those point? I think not.
Again, prooftexting. Ignoring the context of the passage in question, including the context of all the other verses in the Bible, will never lead you to a proper understanding of scripture.
(Philippians 2:9-11) "..God exalted him [Jesus] to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name, so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend—of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground— 11 and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.."
(John 14:6) "..Jesus said to him: “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.."
Excellent verses that do, in fact, support the trinity, when looked at in context of the entirety of scripture, and cannot be used as a rebuttal to the trinity, as they are used as support for it.
In other words, I accept that those verses mean EXACTLY what they say.
In effect:
Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus,who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God,but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men.And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name,that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth,and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. - Philippians 2:5-11 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Philippians2:5-11&version=NKJV
And
[JESUS]“Let not your heart be troubled; you believe in God, believe also in Me.In My Father’s house are many mansions; if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself; that where I am, there you may be also.And where I go you know, and the way you know.”[/JESUS]Thomas said to Him, “Lord, we do not know where You are going, and how can we know the way?”Jesus said to him, [JESUS]“I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.[/JESUS] - John 14:1-6 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John14:1-6&version=NKJV
As I have stated (and shown) before, Jesus' ministry was focused on Himself. If He were only a man, and not God also, then what He taught would be blasphemy, and we should discard what He taught, for His witness would not be valid.
So then why is Jesus the exception? If he's just another priest, even another high priest, what makes Him, being another man, worthy of being worshipped?
Only God is worthy. If Jesus is not God, He is not worthy of receiving worship.
Here's another question:
How many righteous men in the Bible accepted worship from their fellow men?
but no priest ever had Phil 2:9-11 said about them.
If you read it in context, it goes AGAINST your position.
When you're reading scripture, and a sentence begins with the word "therefore", it's ALWAYS a good thing to see what the "therefore" is there for.
Observe:
[RED]Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus,who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God,but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men.And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.[/RED]Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name,that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth,and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. - Philippians 2:5-11 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Philippians2:5-11&version=NKJV
So, the "therefore" in this passage is connecting two ideas together, that Jesus Christ emptied Himself and took upon Himself the form of a man, THEREFORE God exalted Him and gave Him the name above every name.
Jesus became priest, the person whom was elected to act as a representative of the people to God, thus their worship was given to God by means of the high priest.
Please provide scriptural support for the idea that the people gave worship to the high priest, who then took it to God, because I'm don't recall anywhere where God said for the people to give their worship to the high priest who would then give it to God.
Likewise, Jesus has become our representative today, he is the mediator as taught in scripture (1 Timothy 2:5), this is irrefutable.
(Hebrews 8:1-3) "..We have such a high priest as this, and he has sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, 2 a minister of the holy place and of the true tent, which the Lord set up, and not man. 3 For every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices; so it was necessary for this one also to have something to offer...But now Jesus has obtained a more excellent ministry because he is also the mediator of a correspondingly better covenant, which has been legally established on better promises.."
NWL, who was "The Epistle to the Hebrews" written to?
As stated the priest was a representative for the people, the priest was the ONLY one permitted to enter in the holy place in front of God and gave worship on behalf the people. Jesus has now taken this role.
Please provide the verse where it says that only the Father is to be worshipped.
You can't, because there is no verse that says that.
It DOES say that God is to be worshipped.
And since God is Father, Son, Holy Spirit, then they are coequally deserving of worship, as they are coequally the one God.
(John 4:23) Nevertheless, the hour is coming, and it is now, when the true worshippers will worship the Father with spirit and truth, for indeed, the Father is looking for ones like these to worship him.
You cherry-pick verses to suit your beliefs, and ignore the ones that go against your beliefs.
I, however, have NO verses that go against my beliefs. There are no verses that contradict my beliefs, because I believe the Bible as a whole, without trying to explain away any verses.
I've followed this tread and others of the same genre and, as an atheist disinterested (except for the topic I don't care one way or the other what theists choose to believe) outside observer,
But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing,whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them. - 2 Corinthians 4:3-4 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2Corinthians4:3-4&version=NKJV
Spoiler
No doubt trinitarians will quote John 1,
"1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him; and without him was not anything made that hath been made. 4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shineth in the darkness; and the darkness apprehended it not. 6 There came a man, sent from God, whose name was John. 7 The same came for witness, that he might bear witness of the light, that all might believe through him. 8 He was not the light, but came that he might bear witness of the light. 9 There was the true light, even the light which lighteth every man, coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, and the world knew him not. 11 He came unto his own, and they that were his own received him not. 12 But as many as received him, to them gave he the right to become children of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. 14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father), full of grace and truth. 15 John beareth witness of him, and crieth, saying, This was he of whom I said, He that cometh after me is become before me: for he was before me. 16 For of his fulness we all received, and grace for grace. 17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."
I find it interesting trinitarians say, "The bible is filled with figurative (metaphorical) language", EXCEPT FOR verses such as John 1:1-18.
Throughout John Jesus says he delivers the words his deity has told him to speak. It stands to reason the meaning of John 1:1-18 is the "word was made flesh" through (because of) Jesus speaking the words he was given.
… and...
Perhaps the best among trinitarian "proof texts" on this is John 10...
"22 And it was the feast of the dedication at Jerusalem: 23 it was winter; and Jesus was walking in the temple in Solomon’s porch. 24 The Jews therefore came round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou hold us in suspense? If thou art the Christ, tell us plainly. 25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believe not: the works that I do in my Father’s name, these bear witness of me. 26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep. 27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: 28 and I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who hath given them unto me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. 30 I and the Father are one. 31 The Jews took up stones again to stone him. 32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I showed you from the Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? 33 The Jews answered him, For a good work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. 34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came (and the scripture cannot be broken), 36 say ye of him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? 37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. 38 But if I do them, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father."
The writer of John, whoever he was, is simply documenting what he observed and heard. He isn't drawing any conclusions, the mark of a good historian.
A common and overriding theme of John is the Jews seem to NEVER understand what Jesus is saying even after he explains to them what he means, which is, unfortunately for the Jews, often equally obscure.
The term "son of god" is the title given to the king of the Jews. Saul and David were "sons of god". Jesus, as the messiah (Greek, "Christ") was (to be) the future king of the Jews and by extension the son of god. Exactly why the Jews did not understand this fact is not explained but could be because of time removed from the events of Kings Saul and David.
The prayer Jesus gives to his deity in John 17 explains the meaning of, "I and the Father are one". Sadly, the Jews were not privy to this. The astute reader should notice reference to John 1 and the "word".
"17 These things spake Jesus; and lifting up his eyes to heaven, he said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that the Son may glorify thee: 2 even as thou gavest him authority over all flesh, that to all whom thou hast given him, he should give eternal life. 3 And this is life eternal, that they should know thee the only true God, and him whom thou didst send, even Jesus Christ. 4 I glorified thee on the earth, having accomplished the work which thou hast given me to do. 5 And now, Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. 6 I manifested thy name unto the men whom thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them to me; and they have kept thy word. 7 Now they know that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are from thee: 8 for the words which thou gavest me I have given unto them; and they received them, and knew of a truth that I came forth from thee, and they believed that thou didst send me. 9 I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for those whom thou hast given me; for they are thine: 10 and all things that are mine are thine, and thine are mine: and I am glorified in them. 11 And I am no more in the world, and these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep them in thy name which thou hast given me, that they may be one, even as we are. 12 While I was with them, I kept them in thy name which thou hast given me: and I guarded them, and not one of them perished, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled. 13 But now I come to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they may have my joy made full in themselves. 14 I have given them thy word; and the world hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. 15 I pray not that thou shouldest take them from the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil one. 16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. 17 Sanctify them in the truth: thy word is truth. 18 As thou didst send me into the world, even so sent I them into the world. 19 And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they themselves also may be sanctified in truth. 20 Neither for these only do I pray, but for them also that believe on me through their word; 21 that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us: that the world may believe that thou didst send me. 22 And the glory which thou hast given me I have given unto them; that they may be one, even as we are one; 23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be perfected into one; that the world may know that thou didst send me, and lovedst them, even as thou lovedst me. 24 Father, I desire that they also whom thou hast given me be with me where I am, that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world. 25 O righteous Father, the world knew thee not, but I knew thee; and these knew that thou didst send me; 26 and I made known unto them thy name, and will make it known; that the love wherewith thou lovedst me may be in them, and I in them."
… which makes me wonder why trinitarians are so consistently guilty of ignoring texts contradicting their "doctrine" as shown above.
My conclusion:
Is Jesus "the word made flesh"? Literally, no. Metaphorically, yes.
Is Jesus "the son of god"? Physically and/or genetically, no. As heir to the throne of his father David, yes.
Is Jesus equal to god? No.
Is Jesus "god"? No.
To receive the Trinity as a Catholic or Orthodox Christian (neither of which is required to be an authentic Christian), we must abide by not only the words that they themselves use, but also of the definitions of the words that they use, as instructed by the bishops. "Generates" does not mean "creates." It does mean that the Father is the source of the Son, but it does not mean that the Father and Son are not consubstantial.
Which doesn't make sense at all, because everyone on this board acknowledges figurative language within John 1:1-18, and everyone on this board also recognizes that the Bible contains both literal and figurative language, just as we use both literal and figurative language in our everyday communications.
And neither Mark nor Luke were Apostles, yet the Apostles approved of what they wrote so much so that both of theirs works are in the Christian canon, and are read with the understanding that they are all fully Apostolic, authoritative, authentic, and authorized as the Christian truth. "Apostolic" means either straight from the horses' mouths, or from someone else's mouths, that the Apostles nonetheless approve of. If Tertullian or Arius or Origen or Aquinas happen to say something that is Apostolic, through their own reasoning, then it is within the authority of authentic bishops to authorize those sayings as Apostolic, since the bishops altogether possess the whole Apostolic witness and testimony regarding the faith, against which to compare whatever anybody says or writes /teaches.
You forgot the "Two in One" and "Four in One" and "Five in One" and "Seven in One" doctrines to explain the deity of Jesus, which do not have voices on this board.
You forgot the "Two in One" and "Four in One" and "Five in One" and "Seven in One" doctrines to explain the deity of Jesus, which do not have voices on this board.
99% of Christians believe the Trinity, whether Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox. Of the remaining 1% who do not, do you have a good feel for how it breaks down between unitarian, "oneness," modalism, etc? I do not.
And neither Mark nor Luke were Apostles, yet the Apostles approved of what they wrote so much so that both of theirs works are in the Christian canon, and are read with the understanding that they are all fully Apostolic, authoritative, authentic, and authorized as the Christian truth. "Apostolic" means either straight from the horses' mouths, or from someone else's mouths, that the Apostles nonetheless approve of. If Tertullian or Arius or Origen or Aquinas happen to say something that is Apostolic, through their own reasoning, then it is within the authority of authentic bishops to authorize those sayings as Apostolic, since the bishops altogether possess the whole Apostolic witness and testimony regarding the faith, against which to compare whatever anybody says or writes /teaches.
I don't remember Tertullian claiming that he had an apostolic teaching. He was mainly bad-mouthing Praxaeus and the entire Christian leadership of the city for "banishing the Paraclete" meaning they had kicked out the Montanists that claimed to literally be the Holy Spirit and who spoke as if they were possessed. He also argued that Praxaeus (and presumably others) understood "These three are one" (see 1 John 5:7 ) in the sense of "One" of literal being rather than simply being made of the same substance.
I am not trying to insult you here, but are you blind? You yourself mentioned and acknowledged that I was clearly not admitting that what I said was my original point.
You stated in one of you previous posts to me "Your claim is that Jesus should not be called the Most High God. That is the claim you have pretended to base on what an unclean spirit spoke". I pointed this out as false as nowhere did I make the claim that Jesus was should not be called the most high, my only points was that he is called the son of the most high and is never called the most high. YHWH nowhere in the bible is called the bravest God or the most intellectual God, would I deny God of those attributes based on the lack of scripture saying so? No. Likewise Jesus is nowhere called the "most high", was I attempting to argue that "he should not have that name", no, I was merely stating facts, THEN you started accusing me of making a claim I did not make. All I was stating in my previous posts to you, prior to you accusing of making a different claim to the actual one I made, were facts! No reasoning was involved.
I am well aware of what point I reason one, and I did not appreciate your falsehood that I was making point I never made. Here you are now attempting to tell me what I meant by what I said when I fully well know what I was saying and why I was saying it.
Based on scripture no, since as mentioned Jesus is never called the "most high" but is rather called the son of the "most high".
You specifically said that there was a point--"the point"--that you were "originally arguing". Are you saying that "the point" that you were "originally arguing" is "that [Jesus] is called the son of the most high and is never called the most high"? You weren't ARGUING that, you were merely AFFIRMING it. What, then, was your intention in AFFIRMING it? Did you not expect that which you AFFIRMED to be taken as a PREMISE of an ARGUMENT? If you did not, then why did you affirm it? What (if anything) was your intention?
Genesis says "in the beginning God..."
John says, "In the beginning was the Word..."
There's no "generates" in there....
To save time, I might see where you would say "the Father is the source of the Son" from other passages (no need to keep going there.) But regardless, if one is the "source" of the other, that doesn't make them co-equal persons assuming that these are different persons and not the same persons. In that explanation (that you gave) one owes its existence to the other.
Once upon a time, people had a mathematical model of the heavens where all objects directly orbited around the Earth in nice circles type orbits. That worked for a lot of things but there were still little snags that appeared that didn't follow the theory. It had some of the right idea but it wasn't correctly applied.
Isaiah 9:6 KJV
(6) For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
For example, whomever decided that "the Father is not the Son" forgot to consult Isaiah. That's a central theme of Trinity doctrine in spite of never being stated in scripture, even in spite of a specific scripture saying otherwise. Some right ideas perhaps, but the application isn't perfect. The bible is inspired. Traditions not necessarily.
99% of Christians believe the Trinity, whether Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox. Of the remaining 1% who do not, do you have a good feel for how it breaks down between unitarian, "oneness," modalism, etc? I do not.
And 99% of statistics are made up. Besides that, do you have an idea of how that "Trinity" belief breaks down? I have read articles by Trinitarians complaining that a good portion of those who claim to "believe in the Trinity" actually have a Oneness understanding when questioned. This caused them upset as they considered this heretical. It wasn't a pro-Oneness article, it was a Trinity-article admitting this.
Do you believe that someone can truly believe and have faith in something when someone doesn't understand what it is they claim to believe? If someone says "I believe in Jesus" and you ask them 'who was Jesus" and they say "I dunno... some guy" .... do they really believe in Jesus? Or do they just claim what they think they are expected to claim?
(John 4:23) "..[Jesus said] Nevertheless, the hour is coming, and it is now, when the true worshippers will worship the Father with spirit and truth, for indeed, the Father is looking for ones like these to worship him.."
No mention of true worshipers worshiping Jesus or him stating that ultimate worship should be given to anyone but the Father.
By telling us that, in John 4:23, there is "No mention of true worshipers worshiping Jesus", while telling us, also, that "I do worship Jesus", you've, once again, shown us your hypocrisy, and your irrationality. Thank you.
The "untouchable unfeeling Father" is a concept from Greek philosophy, Plato even. The idea is that God cannot be "perfect" if he can be harmed by his creation, therefore he must be unfeeling, without passion, without emotions. Yet Jesus who is the very image of the invisible God and of his person was certainly not unfeeling or without passion, and the passion of the Christ flies against the Greek notion of God.
When you read Tertullian and how he spoke of what he believed of God and Trinity, he was enraged that anyone would suggest that the Father was passionate or could be harmed (by rejection or otherwise) by his creation. He allowed this for a "second person of the Trinity" the Son of God whom we call Jesus, but not "God the Father!" That God could care and be rejected, that would be heresy most dire, as he saw it.
Again, this is the opposite of what I believe, as I'm an open theist.
That pagan Platonic concept of God is like Tertullian's concept of the First Person Trinity "the Father" but the Hebrew notion of God is quite different. The Hebrew God cares, he is hurt when he is rejected by his people, he loves, he cares, he is dynamic, he is passionate... just as we see in Jesus, our God who was manifest in the flesh. When we see Jesus we see God, not in a third part, or a third of his personalities, but if we have seen Jesus, we have seen the Father.
I am Trinitarian because of what the Bible says, not because of what a pagan philosopher said.
If Trinity is to be faulted as being from paganism, it would be for the reason I gave above, from borrowing elements from philosophy and gnosticism and adding elements to God other than that which we are given, from depriving our Father in heaven of his character and passion. If it is to be praised, it is from where it departs from that outside influence (and Tertullian, etc) and recognizes God as he chose to reveal himself to us.
Where Unitarianism is to be faulted is as it embraces the very thing it supposedly refutes, taking Plato's "perfect God" and Tertullian's "God the Father does not feel and does not have passion" and placing this flawed concept as their only concept of God, rejecting God himself when he made himself flesh and came unto his own. In this they know him not but have only a very muted concept of God, but without his love and his passion, not recognizing his very character. The Greeks might approve of this "perfect God" but it's not what is revealed in our testaments Old and New.
It never mentions "Jesus" or "Jesus of Nazareth" and sections of what was the one surviving manuscript (it was destroyed during the 1800's) are thought to be either forged or added after the original was produced.
It really doesn't matter when only that scholars agree additions were made or even that the entire "epistle" was a forgery used to support a particular doctrine. Don't believe me? Look it up.
Don't try to create a straw man as I've seen you do often. Many scholars, yes even a few Catholic church scholars, think Matthew 28:19 is a later addition because it does not appear in the earliest manuscripts. That aside, as read, it doesn't really do much to bolster the CLAIM the verse raises Jesus (or for that matter the "Holy Spirit") to the level of deity.
As for you other two "proof texts", I fail to see the relevance.
They each mention the Father, Son, and Spirit. Even if you believe Matthew 28:19 KJV is not original, do you also think that the Father, Son, and Spirit's mention in 2nd Corinthians 13:14 KJV and in 1st Peter 1:2 KJV are also corrupted, and not original?
Oh, I see, you thought I meant Father, Son, and Holy Spirit doesn't appear in scripture. No, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit = Trinity, which doesn't appear in scripture even as a concept except in the imagination of the trinitarian. I apologize for confusing you. I at least gave you a straw man to attack. You should thank me.
How convenient. Odd though that this "apostolic oral doctrine" didn't find its way from the apostles to being documented on paper for almost 300 years :think:.
See above the Epistle to Diognetus for one thing, and for another, why would you call it "convenient" that oral tradition isn't written down? Wasn't Beowulf transmitted through word-of-mouth for centuries before it was ever written down? And does that fact mean that Beowulf didn't exist until it was written down? Of course not.
In my opinion, the debate over weather Beowulf started as an oral tradition is MUCH less important than ensuring the preservation (documentation) of a critical Christian theological doctrine. Your priorities my differ.
I would be curious if any of our "Jesus is not God" folk on this board are also Open Theists, because the Open Theist premise eventually leads to "Jesus is God" as well.
The bible doesn't speak of a Trinity let alone say that we should believe in one. You are Trinitarian because that's from your church environment and otherwise you wouldn't even know what the term was. That doesn't mean it isn't a useful model, but don't kid yourself about its source.
The points of those passages are stated. "Where such and such is to be faulted..." and then it explains the perceived fault... but perhaps what I did not further state (and left to be read) is that the error of Unitarianism is inherited from Trinity doctrine.
