The Trinity

[Jstwebbrowsing]

I imagine that I am the only nontrinitarian present on the forum.  If anyone wants to discuss this topic and learn the point of view of a nontrinitarian, I don't mind discussing it.

[Teaspoon Shallow]

Good for you Jst.  This is a very honest and straight forward approach I appreciate.

I have to admit I have learned a lot more about the bible, translations and the difficulty in proving Jesus is equal to the father than I used to believe.
I used to think John 20:28 was some how very difficult to reconcile with the non-trinitarians.
"28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God."

The lack of capitals makes this one more ambiguous than I first thought.

What are your thoughts on this passage?

[eyeshaveit]

Good for you Jst.  This is a very honest and straight forward approach I appreciate.

I have to admit I have learned a lot more about the bible, translations and the difficulty in proving Jesus is equal to the father than I used to believe.
I used to think John 20:28 was some how very difficult to reconcile with the non-trinitarians.
"28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God."

The lack of capitals makes this one more ambiguous than I first thought.

What are your thoughts on this passage?

Most Jehovah's witnesses give the head-bob answer, with Thomas referring to both the resurrected Christ (as my Lord) and Jehovah (as my God).

[Jstwebbrowsing]

Good for you Jst.  This is a very honest and straight forward approach I appreciate.

I have to admit I have learned a lot more about the bible, translations and the difficulty in proving Jesus is equal to the father than I used to believe.
I used to think John 20:28 was some how very difficult to reconcile with the non-trinitarians.
"28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God."

The lack of capitals makes this one more ambiguous than I first thought.

What are your thoughts on this passage?

In my studies I have found three possible interpretations from scholars.

One is that Thomas is referring directly to Christ as his God.

Another is that Thomas was making an exclamation of astonishment but was actually referring to Jesus' God, the Father (John 20:17).

The third is that Thomas was addressing him as "God" like many of his predecessors had addressed angelic representatives of Jehovah as God  (Ge 16:7-11, 13; 18:1-5, 22-33; 32:24-30; Jg 6:11-15; 13:20-22). In like manner, Thomas may have spoken to Jesus as ?my God? in this sense, acknowledging or confessing Jesus as the representative and spokesman of the true God.

To me, the correct interpretation must be one that does not contradict the context or the rest of the inspired scriptures.  For example, in verse 20 Christ himself said, "I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God.  I don't believe Thomas was contradicting this or Jesus' own words that he himself heard, "The Father is greater than I am." (John 14:28). 

So I don't think the first possibility is correct because it does not agree with the context or Jesus' own words.  The other two possibilities do not cause contradictions.  Which one of those is correct, I do not know.  I personally lean toward the latter because it is something I could see myself doing.   



   

 

[Teaspoon Shallow]

In my studies I have found three possible interpretations from scholars.

One is that Thomas is referring directly to Christ as his God.

That does appear to be the simplest interpretation.

Another is that Thomas was making an exclamation of astonishment but was actually referring to Jesus' God, the Father (John 20:17).

And he was not immediately rebuked by Christ?
That seems inconsistent and unreasonable.

The third is that Thomas was addressing him as "God" like many of his predecessors had addressed angelic representatives of Jehovah as God

This I would like to unpack:

Ge 16:7-11, 13;

Spoiler

Genesis 16:7-13King James Version (KJV)
7 And the angel of the Lord found her by a fountain of water in the wilderness, by the fountain in the way to Shur.

8 And he said, Hagar, Sarai's maid, whence camest thou? and whither wilt thou go? And she said, I flee from the face of my mistress Sarai.

9 And the angel of the Lord said unto her, Return to thy mistress, and submit thyself under her hands.

10 And the angel of the Lord said unto her, I will multiply thy seed exceedingly, that it shall not be numbered for multitude.

11 And the angel of the Lord said unto her, Behold, thou art with child and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael; because the Lord hath heard thy affliction.

12 And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren.

13 And she called the name of the Lord that spake unto her, Thou God seest me: for she said, Have I also here looked after him that seeth me?

[close]

Where does she call the angel God in this passage?


Gen 18:1-5

Spoiler

Genesis 18:1-5King James Version (KJV)
18 And the Lord appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day;

2 And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground,

3 And said, My Lord, if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant:

4 Let a little water, I pray you, be fetched, and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree:

5 And I will fetch a morsel of bread, and comfort ye your hearts; after that ye shall pass on: for therefore are ye come to your servant. And they said, So do, as thou hast said.

[close]

Where does he call the angel God in this passage?


Gen 18:22-33

Spoiler

Genesis 18:22-33King James Version (KJV)
22 And the men turned their faces from thence, and went toward Sodom: but Abraham stood yet before the Lord.

23 And Abraham drew near, and said, Wilt thou also destroy the righteous with the wicked?

24 Peradventure there be fifty righteous within the city: wilt thou also destroy and not spare the place for the fifty righteous that are therein?

25 That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?

26 And the Lord said, If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will spare all the place for their sakes.

27 And Abraham answered and said, Behold now, I have taken upon me to speak unto the Lord, which am but dust and ashes:

28 Peradventure there shall lack five of the fifty righteous: wilt thou destroy all the city for lack of five? And he said, If I find there forty and five, I will not destroy it.

29 And he spake unto him yet again, and said, Peradventure there shall be forty found there. And he said, I will not do it for forty's sake.

30 And he said unto him, Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak: Peradventure there shall thirty be found there. And he said, I will not do it, if I find thirty there.

31 And he said, Behold now, I have taken upon me to speak unto the Lord: Peradventure there shall be twenty found there. And he said, I will not destroy it for twenty's sake.

32 And he said, Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak yet but this once: Peradventure ten shall be found there. And he said, I will not destroy it for ten's sake.

33 And the Lord went his way, as soon as he had left communing with Abraham: and Abraham returned unto his place.

[close]

Where does he call the angel God in this passage?


Gen 32:24-30

Spoiler

Genesis 32:24-30King James Version (KJV)
24 And Jacob was left alone; and there wrestled a man with him until the breaking of the day.

25 And when he saw that he prevailed not against him, he touched the hollow of his thigh; and the hollow of Jacob's thigh was out of joint, as he wrestled with him.

26 And he said, Let me go, for the day breaketh. And he said, I will not let thee go, except thou bless me.

27 And he said unto him, What is thy name? And he said, Jacob.

28 And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed.

29 And Jacob asked him, and said, Tell me, I pray thee, thy name. And he said, Wherefore is it that thou dost ask after my name? And he blessed him there.

30 And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.

[close]

Where does he call the angel God in this passage?



Jg 6:11-15

Spoiler

Judges 6:11-1521st Century King James Version (KJ21)
11 And there came an angel of the Lord, and sat under an oak which was in Ophrah, that pertained unto Joash the Abiezrite; and his son Gideon threshed wheat by the wine press to hide it from the Midianites.

12 And the angel of the Lord appeared unto him and said unto him, ?The Lord is with thee, thou mighty man of valor.?

13 And Gideon said unto him, ?Oh my lord, if the Lord be with us, why then has all this befallen us? And where are all His miracles which our fathers told us of, saying, ?Did not the Lord bring us up from Egypt?? But now the Lord hath forsaken us and delivered us into the hands of the Midianites.?

14 And the Lord looked upon him, and said, ?Go in this thy might, and thou shalt save Israel from the hand of the Midianites. Have not I sent thee??

15 And he said unto Him, ?Oh my Lord, with what shall I save Israel? Behold, my family is poor in Manasseh, and I am the least in my father?s house.?

[close]

Where does he call the angel God in this passage?




Jg 13:20-22

Spoiler

Judges 13:20-2221st Century King James Version (KJ21)
20 For it came to pass, when the flame went up toward heaven from off the altar, that the angel of the Lord ascended in the flame of the altar. And Manoah and his wife looked on it, and fell on their faces to the ground.

21 But the angel of the Lord appeared no more to Manoah and to his wife. Then Manoah knew that he was an angel of the Lord.

22 And Manoah said unto his wife, ?We shall surely die, because we have seen God.?

[close]

Where does he call the angel God in this passage?

In like manner, Thomas may have spoken to Jesus as ?my God? in this sense, acknowledging or confessing Jesus as the representative and spokesman of the true God.

John 20:28
28 And Thomas answered and said unto Him, ?My Lord and my God!?

The other passages refer to a Lord or lord but not God.  Is there a difference?

To me, the correct interpretation must be one that does not contradict the context or the rest of the inspired scriptures.  For example, in verse 20 Christ himself said, "I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God.  I don't believe Thomas was contradicting this or Jesus' own words that he himself heard, "The Father is greater than I am." (John 14:28). 

So I don't think the first possibility is correct because it does not agree with the context or Jesus' own words.  The other two possibilities do not cause contradictions.  Which one of those is correct, I do not know.  I personally lean toward the latter because it is something I could see myself doing.   

I think you raise a valid point here Jst.  It does not make sense to me that the father be greater than the son if they are co-equal in a god-head of the trinity. 

Analogy: 3 CEO's of the same company and have equal shares but one is more experienced and with greater knowledge but all are equal under the banner of CEO?

[Jstwebbrowsing]

That does appear to be the simplest interpretation.

I agree.  However, Occam's razor is not an infallible principle.  The simplest answer is not always the right answer.  In this case, I think there is reason to believe that the simplest answer is not the right answer.

And he was not immediately rebuked by Christ?
That seems inconsistent and unreasonable.

Why would he be rebuked by Christ if he is exclaiming "My Lord and my God" in reference to Jehovah?

Then she called on the name of Jehovah, who was speaking to her: ?You are a God of sight,?+ for she said: ?Have I here actually looked upon the one who sees me?" (Gen 16:13)

Here she is calling on the name of Jehovah "who was speaking to her".  The angel was speaking to her.  Then directly addressing the angel she said, "You are a God of Sight......"

Afterward, Jehovah appeared to him among the big trees of Mam?re while he was sitting at the entrance of the tent during the hottest part of the day. 2

He looked up and saw three men standing some distance from him. When he saw them, he ran from the entrance of the tent to meet them, and he bowed down to the ground. 3

Then he said: ?Jehovah, if I have found favor in your eyes, please do not pass by your servant. (Gen 18:1-5)

Here he is addressing three men [angels] directly as "Jehovah".  He continues to do so through the rest of the chapter.  This also applies to verses 22-33.

Later Jehovah?s angel came and sat under the big tree that was in Oph?rah, which belonged to Jo?ash the Abi-ez?rite. His son Gid?e?on was beating out wheat in the winepress in order to hide it from Mid?i?an. 12

Jehovah?s angel appeared to him and said: ?Jehovah is with you, you mighty warrior.? 13

At this Gid?e?on said to him: ?Pardon me, my lord, but if Jehovah is with us, why has all of this come upon us? Where are all his wonderful acts that our fathers related to us, saying, ?Did Jehovah not bring us up out of Egypt?? Now Jehovah has deserted us and given us into Mid?i?an?s hand.? 14

Jehovah faced him and said: ?Go with the strength you have, and you will save Israel out of Mid?i?an?s hand. Is it not I who send you?? 15

Gid?e?on answered him: ?Pardon me, Jehovah. How can I save Israel? Look! My clan is the least in Ma?nas?seh, and I am the most insignificant in my father?s house.? 16

But Jehovah said to him: ?Because I will be with you, you will strike down Mid?i?an as if they were one man.?

Here is referring to Jehovah's angel as Jehovah.

As the flame ascended from the altar heavenward, Jehovah?s angel ascended in the flame from the altar while Ma?no?ah and his wife were looking on. At once they fell with their faces to the ground. 21

Jehovah?s angel did not appear again to Ma?no?ah and his wife. Then Ma?no?ah realized that he was Jehovah?s angel.+

22 Ma?no?ah then said to his wife: ?We are sure to die, because it is God whom we have" seen.?

Here he sees Jehovah's angel, but reports "it is God whom we have seen".

John 20:28
28 And Thomas answered and said unto Him, ?My Lord and my God!?

The other passages refer to a Lord or lord but not God.  Is there a difference?

No I do not think so.  I think the reference comes from Thomas' realization that this man really was sent by Jehovah.  It would be exactly the same if a prophet delivers a message and the recipient replies as if talking directly to Jehovah. That's because Jehovah is actually there, only he is talking through someone else, in this instance, his only begotten son.  That's why Christ said "For I have not spoken of my own initiative, but the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment about what to say and what to speak." (John 12:49)

Christ is the mediator between God and man.  He speaks for God.

Analogy: 3 CEO's of the same company and have equal shares but one is more experienced and with greater knowledge but all are equal under the banner of CEO?

John 12:49 above and many others like it do not present coequal status and certainly not equal authority.  At every turn Christ is seen in complete submission to Jehovah's will.  In many other ways I do believe they have equal status.  Jehovah and Christ are both immortal, incorruptible, omnipresent, etc.  But this is because it has been bestowed upon Christ because of his faithfulness, not because he is the source of it.

"All authority" was "given" to him except obviously authority over Jehovah, but this was not even done until AFTER his resurrection.  But even in future prophecy, Christ is still seen in submission to Jehovah.  So I don't believe coequal status is reflected in the Bible.

[Teaspoon Shallow]

So Jst, I can't follow what you have addressed in an order.
Can you reformat it to quote the passage you are referring too please?

[Jstwebbrowsing]

So Jst, I can't follow what you have addressed in an order.
Can you reformat it to quote the passage you are referring too please?

"Then she called on the name of Jehovah, who was speaking to her: [the angel] ?You are a God of sight,?+ for she said: ?Have I here actually looked upon the one who sees me?" (Gen 16:13)

"Then he said: ?Jehovah, if I have found favor in your eyes, please do not pass by your servant." (Gen 18:3)

"So Jacob named the place Pe?ni?el, for he said, ?I have seen God face-to-face, yet my life was preserved." (Gen 32:30)

"Gid?e?on answered him: ?Pardon me, Jehovah. How can I save Israel?" (Jg 6:15)

"Ma?no?ah then said to his wife: ?We are sure to die, because it is God whom we have seen.? (Jg 13:22)


Here are an example of an angel calling itself God:

"I am the true God of Beth?el, where you anointed a pillar and where you made a vow to me. Now get up, go out of this land, and return to the land of your birth.?" (Gen 31:13)


Here is an angel talking as if it were Jehovah:

"I brought you up out of Egypt into the land about which I swore to your forefathers." (Jg 2:1)

[Case]

@Jstwebbrowsing,

A trinitarian interpretation would alleviate your difficulty here. These OT passages refer to the pre-incarnate Christ, who is Jehovah. This makes the best sense of the biblical narrative as a whole. I'd be happy to further examine any particular passage with you further, if you desire.

[Jstwebbrowsing]

I don't see it as a difficulty.  Even humans are referenced as gods.  "I said, 'You are "gods"; you are all sons of the Most High.'" (Psalm 82:6)

In reference to that scripture, Christ did not even claim that title for himself.  "Jesus answered them, ?Is it not written in your Law, ?I have said you are ?gods??? 35 If he called them ?gods,? to whom the word of God came........Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ?I am God?s Son??" (Jn 10:35,36)

He didn't say, "he called you gods, so why can't I be called god".  He is saying "you are accusing me of blasphemy for a lesser claim."

If I were to take a Trinitarian view then there are other scriptures that I see as difficulties.  John 17:3 is a very prominent one.  In prayer Christ said, "This means everlasting life, their coming to know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ."

To me, that eliminates any possibility of a trinity.  Who is Jesus speaking to that he identifies as the "only true God"?

[Case]

I don't see it as a difficulty.  Even humans are referenced as gods. (Psalm 82:6)

The difference here is between referring to something as a god, as in this instance, and referring to Jehovah, as in the previous instance.

"I said, 'You are "gods"; you are all sons of the Most High.'" In reference to that scripture, Christ did not even claim that title for himself.  "Jesus answered them, ?Is it not written in your Law, ?I have said you are ?gods??? 35 If he called them ?gods,? to whom the word of God came........Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ?I am God?s Son??" (Jn 10:35,36)

He didn't say, "he called you gods, so why can't I be called god".  He is saying "you are accusing me of blasphemy for a lesser claim."

Is he making a lesser claim though? In that instance Jesus is comparing his audience to "gods" who judge unjustly and will die like men. These are false gods. Jesus claims to be the Son of God. I don't think we can say he was making a lesser claim.

Psalm 82 is condemning unjust judges, and Jesus is using it to condemn those who are unjustly judging him. "If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me; but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.? (vs 37-38)

If I were to take a Trinitarian view then there are other scriptures that I see as difficulties.  John 17:3 is a very prominent one.  In prayer Christ said, "This means everlasting life, their coming to know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ."

To me, that eliminates any possibility of a trinity.  Who is Jesus speaking to that he identifies as the "only true God"?

I don't have time to respond to this now, I will try to get to it later.

I appreciate talking to you Jst. Have a good morning.

[Jstwebbrowsing]

I appreciate talking to you too.  It was a good morning but cold.  How have you been?

The difference here is between referring to something as a god, as in this instance, and referring to Jehovah, as in the previous instance.

Right, but they are not actually talking to Jehovah.  In most of the examples it specifically says an angel of Jehovah, not Jehovah himself.

Is he making a lesser claim though? In that instance Jesus is comparing his audience to "gods" who judge unjustly and will die like men. These are false gods. Jesus claims to be the Son of God. I don't think we can say he was making a lesser claim.

Yes, I think so.  He is contrasting them being called "gods" and him calling himself God's son.  If it is okay for them to be called god then it's okay for him to be called God's son.   I think if he were God then he wouldn't be shy nor apologetic about saying it, just like Jehovah is not.  When Jehovah is speaking he has no hesitation in making it unambiguously clear that he is God.  He does not say he is one with God, or that he is God's son, or in Jehovah's case, God's father.  He says he is God.  Those are two different claims, I think.

Also, I have one more comment about John 17:3.  Notice that Jesus refers to himself separately from the only true God and also there is no mention of knowing a third person. 

[Case]

Jesus says that the Father is the only true God. This makes sense because the Father is the only true God, the Son is the only true God, and the Spirit is the only true God. Jesus does not deny that the Son the only true God. The Father and the Son are one, so if the Father is the only true God, then so is the Son.

This doesn't mean that the Father is the Son, Jesus is not praying to himself, but the Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father. In this way, Jesus can claim the name Jehovah for himself, as he does in John 8:58. If Christ were not the only true God, the Jews would have been justified in stoning him for blasphemy.

[Jstwebbrowsing]

Jesus says that the Father is the only true God. This makes sense because the Father is the only true God, the Son is the only true God, and the Spirit is the only true God. Jesus does not deny that the Son the only true God. The Father and the Son are one, so if the Father is the only true God, then so is the Son.

And the trinity is the only true God.  For me to insert the trinity there I would have to completely change the meaning of the language.  When you say something is the only one, you necessarily exclude the possibility of others.  If I tell the postman there is only one dog in my yard and he actually finds three then he's going to question my honesty.  If a cop finds a bag of drugs in my car and I tell him that's the only bag of drugs but he finds two more, have I not damaged my credibility?

This doesn't mean that the Father is the Son, Jesus is not praying to himself, but the Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father. In this way, Jesus can claim the name Jehovah for himself, as he does in John 8:58. If Christ were not the only true God, the Jews would have been justified in stoning him for blasphemy.

I think if Christ had claimed to be the only true God the Jews would have stoned him.

The Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father

And Christians are in the Son, but that doesn't make them all the only true God, does it?  And Christians can claim the name of Christ and Jehovah for themselves, but that doesn't make them all the only true God, does it?

[Case]

And the trinity is the only true God.  For me to insert the trinity there I would have to completely change the meaning of the language.  When you say something is the only one, you necessarily exclude the possibility of others.  If I tell the postman there is only one dog in my yard and he actually finds three then he's going to question my honesty.  If a cop finds a bag of drugs in my car and I tell him that's the only bag of drugs but he finds two more, have I not damaged my credibility?

You don't have to insert the doctrine of the Trinity into John 17. You do need to interpret the passage in light of the whole of Scripture. Jesus is right in saying the Father is the only true God. In other passages, we learn that Jesus is also the only true God. And we know from Scripture that there is only one true God, "Hear, O Israel: Jehovah our God is one Jehovah." So there cannot be three true Gods as you imply in your illustration, this is polytheism, and a sin "for I Jehovah thy God am a jealous God..." We know from Scripture there is one true God, and we know that the Father and the Son are both true God. If Christ were not true God, it would be blasphemous for him to say he was one with the Father, for "There is none like unto thee, O Jehovah".

I think if Christ had claimed to be the only true God the Jews would have stoned him.

In the passage I mentioned, it says the Jews intended to stone him "but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple." And we know that the Jews crucified Jesus on charges of blasphemy. What blasphemy was he being accused of, in your view?

And Christians are in the Son, but that doesn't make them all the only true God, does it?  And Christians can claim the name of Christ and Jehovah for themselves, but that doesn't make them all the only true God, does it?

Christians are united to Christ in his humanity, Christ is united to the Father in deity. This is how he is able to act as our perfect mediator before the Father. Christians know that our humanity will one day be perfected, but we will never be united to God in deity. We are creatures, not the Creator.

[eyeshaveit]

I think if Christ had claimed to be the only true God the Jews would have stoned him.

"So the Jews said to him, ?You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?? Jesus said to them, ?Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.? So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple." - John 8.

"Jesus answered them....I and the Father are one.? The Jews picked up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them, ?I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?? The Jews answered him, ?It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.? - John 10.

[Jstwebbrowsing]

You don't have to insert the doctrine of the Trinity into John 17. You do need to interpret the passage in light of the whole of Scripture. Jesus is right in saying the Father is the only true God. In other passages, we learn that Jesus is also the only true God. And we know from Scripture that there is only one true God, "Hear, O Israel: Jehovah our God is one Jehovah." So there cannot be three true Gods as you imply in your illustration, this is polytheism, and a sin "for I Jehovah thy God am a jealous God..." We know from Scripture there is one true God, and we know that the Father and the Son are both true God. If Christ were not true God, it would be blasphemous for him to say he was one with the Father, for "There is none like unto thee, O Jehovah".

I am not implying there are three true Gods.  That's what you are saying.  The Father is the only true God....the Son is the only true God....the Holy Spirit is the only true God.  The language does not allow for that.  The Son can't be the only true God if the Father is the only true God.  Neither of them can be the only true God if the Holy spirit is the only true God.  That is three.  Plus there is also the trinity itself.  Is it also the only true God?  That is four.

In the passage I mentioned, it says the Jews intended to stone him "but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple." And we know that the Jews crucified Jesus on charges of blasphemy. What blasphemy was he being accused of, in your view?

But when he was correcting them he didn't claim equality with God. 

He was killed for claiming to be King of the Jews, a challenge to Roman rule.

Christians are united to Christ in his humanity, Christ is united to the Father in deity. This is how he is able to act as our perfect mediator before the Father. Christians know that our humanity will one day be perfected, but we will never be united to God in deity. We are creatures, not the Creator.

The bible does not teach that.  It teaches the unity is in spirit.  Jesus prayed, "that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me." (Jn 17:21)

Jesus doesn't say the unity is different.  He says the unity is the same.

It appears to me you are changing the meaning of language and changing Jesus' own words.

[Case]

Hi Jst. Sorry for the delay in my response.

I am not implying there are three true Gods.  That's what you are saying.  The Father is the only true God....the Son is the only true God....the Holy Spirit is the only true God.  The language does not allow for that.  The Son can't be the only true God if the Father is the only true God.  Neither of them can be the only true God if the Holy spirit is the only true God.  That is three.  Plus there is also the trinity itself.  Is it also the only true God?  That is four.

The doctrine of the Trinity does not state that there are two or three or four gods. It's really just the logical conclusion of what Scripture teaches. We know that:

1. There is only one true God.
2. The Father is true God, the Son is true God, and the Spirit is true God.
3. The Father, Son, and Spirit are distinct persons.

But when he was correcting them he didn't claim equality with God. 

He was killed for claiming to be King of the Jews, a challenge to Roman rule.

He did not correct them in the passage I mentioned, John 8:58.

The bible does not teach that.  It teaches the unity is in spirit.  Jesus prayed, "that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me." (Jn 17:21)

Jesus doesn't say the unity is different.  He says the unity is the same.

It appears to me you are changing the meaning of language and changing Jesus' own words.

I believe Christians are united to Christ by his Holy Spirit. We are united to the Father only through His Son, because the Son is at once fully man and fully God.

I'm confused, are you saying that created human beings can be united in nature to the one, true God?

[Teaspoon Shallow]

1. There is only one true God.
2. The Father is true God, the Son is true God, and the Spirit is true God.
3. The Father, Son, and Spirit are distinct persons.

The holy spirit is a weird concept.
Jehovah is a spirit.
Jehovah is holy.
Jehovah is god.
Jehovah has a name.

The holy spirit is a spirit.
The holy spirit is holy.
The holy spirit is god.
The holy spirit has no name.

Why does Jehovah need another one of himself?
How can you differentiate Jehovah the holy spirit and the holy spirit?

[eyeshaveit]

1. There is only one true God.
2. The Father is true God, the Son is true God, and the Spirit is true God.
3. The Father, Son, and Spirit are distinct persons.

The holy spirit is a weird concept.
Jehovah is a spirit.
Jehovah is holy.
Jehovah is god.
Jehovah has a name.

The holy spirit is a spirit.
The holy spirit is holy.
The holy spirit is god.
The holy spirit has no name.

Why does Jehovah need another one of himself?
How can you differentiate Jehovah the holy spirit and the holy spirit?

Did God 'need' a name before his creatures (us) had a want for one?
Did God's son (Jesus Christ) have a name before he became incarnate?
When Moses asked about the LORD's name, God offered him a verb, why?

And one reason for the Trinity is love, as explained in this video:
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/only-the-triune-god-is-love/

[Case]

Why does Jehovah need another one of himself?
How can you differentiate Jehovah the holy spirit and the holy spirit?

Not really sure what you are asking. Jehovah is triune.

[Teaspoon Shallow]

Why does Jehovah need another one of himself?
How can you differentiate Jehovah the holy spirit and the holy spirit?

Not really sure what you are asking. Jehovah is triune.

The father is a trinity?  Or is the father part of a trinity?

If the father is a holy spirit, why does the father need another part who is its own person and is a holy spirit?  Seems they are the same but the trinity means they are different.  The trinity seems to be an after thought to reconcile unreasonable scriptures.

[bad actor]

Matthew 27:46 & Mark 15:34 Jesus says " My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?"

Did Jesus not know he was one third of god, or god, or whatever?

[Case]

If the father is a holy spirit, why does the father need another part who is its own person and is a holy spirit?  Seems they are the same but the trinity means they are different.  The trinity seems to be an after thought to reconcile unreasonable scriptures.

It's not as simple as the idea of the Trinity being an afterthought to harmonize problematic texts. If you were to study the Bible seriously, you would recognize this. The authors very intentionally use language from OT references to Jehovah and apply it to Christ. The same authors refer to the Spirit as divine, most of whom were strictly monotheistic Jews, so we should assume that they understood the implications of what they wrote.

[Case]

Matthew 27:46 & Mark 15:34 Jesus says " My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?"

Did Jesus not know he was one third of god, or god, or whatever?

badactor,

I commend you for taking the conversation back to Scripture. Yes, Jesus claimed to be God. That's why the Pharisees wanted to kill him. And your question is excellent, if Jesus was God, who was he praying to? This is why we say that Scripture proclaims a triune God: we know there is only one God, Jesus is God, and we know that Jesus' Father is God.  However, we don't believe Jesus was talking to himself when he prayed. The Father and the Son are distinct, but they are one in divinity.

[eyeshaveit]

Matthew 27:46 & Mark 15:34 Jesus says " My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?"

Did Jesus not know he was one third of god, or god, or whatever?

Jesus has a divine (spirit) nature and a human (physical) nature at the same time,
Jesus quoted Psalm 22 while dying on the cross, "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?",
Jesus? crying out did not separate his human nature from his divine nature or in any way eliminate the Trinity,
The Father and the Son both understood that Jesus was taking away the sin of the world; Christ wasn't questioning the darkness.

[Jstwebbrowsing]

The doctrine of the Trinity does not state that there are two or three or four gods. It's really just the logical conclusion of what Scripture teaches. We know that:

1. There is only one true God.
2. The Father is true God, the Son is true God, and the Spirit is true God.
3. The Father, Son, and Spirit are distinct persons.

I don't see that as a logical conclusion.  #1 and #2 are logically impossible.  There is either one true God or more than one.  It can't be both. 

Plus the Bible only ever identifies one person as the only true God. 

He did not correct them in the passage I mentioned, John 8:58.

In John 14:9 the same Greek verb eimi? is used to render Jesus? words: "Even after I have been with you men for such a long time, Philip, have you not come to know me?" 

There are both ancient and modern translations that render it "I have been" or similar.  Here are more examples of the Greek word being used (Lu 2:48; 13:7; 15:29; Joh 1:9; 5:6; 15:27; Ac 15:21; 2Co 12:19; 1Jo 3:8)  It appears to me that translating it "I am" is done in order to fit a preexisting doctrine.  Jesus is not here claiming the name of Jehovah.  He is making a statement about his prehumen existence. The word eimi? is not a name or a title.

Plus contextually Jesus was not trying to portray himself as God but rather his father.  "Jesus answered: ?If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father who glorifies me, the one who you say is your God.  Yet you have not known him, but I know him. And if I said I do not know him, I would be like you, a liar. But I do know him and am observing his word." (v 54,55)

We are united to the Father only through His Son, because the Son is at once fully man and fully God.

But it does not logically follow that he must be fully God in order to be an intercessor.  Being fully man and fully God is logically impossible.  Either your are limited or unlimited.

I'm confused, are you saying that created human beings can be united in nature to the one, true God?

No I am repeating what Christ said.  "That all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me."

Christians become united in the same way as Christ, by sharing a single spirit.  Christians do not receive a different spirit than Christ received.  They receive the spirit that makes them sons.  Those in the new covenant are equal sharers with Christ.

But they will certainly never become Almighty God.  They are sharers of God along with Christ.  He is the first fruit.

The Father is the universal sovereign.  That's why Christ himself always obeys him.

[kevin]

may i ask a question?

why does it matter?

i believe that members of both traditions would agree that the message of the christian god is similar, whether it comes from an arian or a trinitarian point of view.

what is the purpose of focusing on this disagreement?

[Case]

may i ask a question?

why does it matter?

It matters whether Jesus Christ is the one and only true God incarnate or not. If Jst is right, then I do not know the true God. If I am right, Jst does not know the true God. This is essential doctrine from both of our points of view.

i believe that members of both traditions would agree that the message of the christian god is similar, whether it comes from an arian or a trinitarian point of view.

what is the purpose of focusing on this disagreement?

To study scripture more deeply and to know who God is.

[Jstwebbrowsing]

may i ask a question?

why does it matter?

i believe that members of both traditions would agree that the message of the christian god is similar, whether it comes from an arian or a trinitarian point of view.

what is the purpose of focusing on this disagreement?

Well my intention is to be informative rather than argumentative.  It is easy to lose sight of that.  But the purpose is to educate curious persons with a nontrinitarian view since I imagine most people are familiar with the trinitarian view.

I do think carrying out the message of Christ is important.  I think that part is the most important.  But all truth matters.  Our relationship and opinion of Jehovah is affected by truth or lack thereof.  Truth brings people closer to him.  In turn, that affects our willingness to carry out his will.

I find that I have a particular dislike of the trinity doctrine because it actually takes honor away from God.  To me, the trinity doctrine paints the human creation as an abysmal failure.  Man is not capable to carrying out his God given purpose.  God had to literally come down and do it himself.  Would you then call man a successful creation? 

If however, Christ is fully man....period.  Then the human creation becomes awe-inspiring.  Not only that but it would have been unjust to condemn Adam if he were anything less than Christ's equal.   It just paints an all around bad picture that is not support in the Bible or with logic.