According to the Trinity:
1) God the Son has a "head" or someone who is over him (1 Corinthians 11:3), which means that a person of God has someone over him.
2) God the Son had all things submitted to him, but he will one day submit himself to the one who submitted all things to him in order that "God" may be all things to everyone (1 Corinthians 15:24-28). What does it mean for one divine person to submit himself to another, yet be the same God as that person?
3) God the Son has a God (Revelation 3:12).
4) There is more than one person who is the God over all, through all, and in all in contrast to what Ephesians 4:6 states.
Of course, Trinitarians will offer responses for each of these points, but their explanations fail to convince and sound forced and based on numerous presuppositions like the Incarnation.
Sunday, December 08, 2024
The Triune God and the Scriptures
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
95 comments:
It's sad how many Trinitarians don't like to accept that they practice eisegesis over exegesis, it's purely dependent on the presuppositional lens of Trinitarian dogma that was later developed in the 3rd century. Many like to analyze the Scripture with philosophical ideals derived from later church fathers and speak on the Trinity economy as a "support" for when we speak of the Father being superior and the Son inferior; they rely on the Incarnation or Economy of the Trinity. Without these ideas read into the narrative, we can clearly see how it opposes Nicene's aspects.
I have an example to share that many already know, and it is simply how there are verses like Deuteronomy 6:4 or Galatians 3:20 and any other verses that signify the oneness of God. Many like to speak of the Godhead as one subsisting 3 hypostases but that isn't really the case at all, I like to say that if we scrutinize language carefully and don't assert heavy unnecessary metaphysics then we can easily identify that God is a unipersonal being.
1) 1 Corinthians 11:3 describes relational roles rather than ontological inferiority. The term "head" (kephalΔ in Greek) does not necessarily imply inequality of essence or being but a distinction in roles or functions. For example, in a marriage, the husband is described as the "head" of the wife, yet both are fully human and equal in worth and dignity (Genesis 1:27). When considering Christ, this hierarchy reflects His voluntary submission to the Father during His earthly ministry as part of His incarnational role (Philippians 2:6-8). Christ’s submission was not a statement of inferiority in nature but of function and mission within salvation history. In the Trinity, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are co-equal in essence and nature (John 1:1, Colossians 2:9), even as they have distinct relational roles.
2) 1 Corinthians 15:28: The Son’s submission to the Father at the end of time reflects the culmination of His redemptive work. This is not about inequality in divinity but the fulfillment of His mission as the Mediator and Redeemer. The Son’s submission here demonstrates perfect unity and harmony within the Trinity. The Son willingly submits to the Father so that the divine purpose—bringing all creation under God’s reign—will be fully realized. The phrase "that God may be all in all" emphasizes the divine unity. The submission of the Son does not suggest subordinationism (inferiority) but highlights the functional distinctions within the triune Godhead.
3) Revelation 3:12: During His earthly ministry and even in His glorified state, Jesus refers to "My God" to express His real and continuing human nature. The doctrine of the Incarnation holds that Christ is fully God and fully man (John 1:14; Colossians 2:9). As a man, He acknowledges the Father as "My God," aligning with His role as the Mediator between God and humanity (1 Timothy 2:5). In His divine nature, the Son is ontologically equal to the Father. In His human nature, He worships the Father, which is consistent with His dual nature as fully God and fully man.
4. Ephesians 4:6: The passage emphasizes the oneness of God, consistent with the Trinitarian doctrine. The unity of essence in the Trinity ensures that there is one God, not multiple gods. While the Father is described as "God and Father of all," this does not exclude the Son and the Spirit from also being fully God. Rather, it reflects the biblical pattern of focusing on the Father as the source within the Trinity (1 Corinthians 8:6), while affirming the full deity of the Son (John 1:1, Titus 2:13) and the Spirit (Acts 5:3-4). Jesus submitted himself (hypotasso) to the Father (1 Cor 15:28), “that God may be all in all,” but this does not imply ontologically inferiority at all, for He also submitted himself (hypotasso) to Mary and Joseph (Luke 2:51), and Col 3:11 states that “Christ is all in all.”
5) The Incarnation is not a presupposition imposed upon Scripture; it is a revealed truth central to the gospel. The Incarnation is directly taught in passages like John 1:14 ("The Word became flesh") and Philippians 2:6-8 ("though he was in the form of God... he humbled himself") and is foundational to understanding Christ’s work of salvation. The Incarnation helps explain the functional distinctions between the persons of the Trinity without compromising their unity in essence. It addresses how the eternal Son could willingly take on human nature to fulfill the Father’s redemptive will.
You suggest that the Trinity is a third-century innovation. However, this misrepresents historical development. While the formal articulation of the doctrine took time, the foundational elements of the Trinity are present in Scripture and were recognized by early Christians (Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, etc.). The formal definitions at Nicea (AD 325) and later councils did not invent the doctrine but clarified it against heresies like Arianism, which denied Christ’s full divinity.
You argue that verses like Deuteronomy 6:4 ("The LORD is one") and Galatians 3:20 emphasize the unipersonality of God. However, these verses affirm monotheism, not unipersonalism. The Bible reveals God's oneness and yet also reveals distinctions within the Godhead. The Hebrew word echad in Deuteronomy 6:4 can denote a composite unity, as in Genesis 2:24, where a man and woman become "one flesh." This usage allows for the understanding of God as one essence shared by three persons.
You reject the Trinitarian explanation of "one essence in three hypostases" as unnecessary metaphysics. However, this framework arises from the need to describe the biblical data without contradiction. This framework avoids the heresies of modalism (denying distinctions), tritheism (professing three separate gods), and Arianism (denying full divinity).
ππππ
“The Hebrew word echad in Deuteronomy 6:4 can denote a composite unity,” - when all subjects are defined in the context
Gen 2:24 has 2 subjects all subjects are defined by the context .. not one like Deut 6:4
Morey and Bowman abandoned these arguments 20 years ago because of their flaws - why you continue to use flawed arguments I am uncertain..
“The Incarnation is not a presupposition imposed upon Scripture” - not what was meant and you know it.
The doctrine of Christ becoming flesh is in the bible yes
Is the doctrine of the incarnation in the bible… nope not at all.
( if you can’t figure this out, please go back to school)
The biblical monotheism and Christian monotheism today are two totally different things aswell…
Plenty of books on this subject, I think even Edgar’s book covers it abit from memory..
What we affirm in faith is this: all the attributes that differentiate created beings as distinct individuals—substance, essence, nature, rank, wisdom, love, mercy, justice, goodness, power, glory, and so forth—are equally and inseparably shared among the Father, the Word (or Wisdom of God), and the Holy Spirit. This includes their mind and will, that is, their consciousness.
In other words, the Trinity represents the most perfect unity among distinct persons, beyond which nothing greater can be imagined. Any alternative view either collapses their distinct personhood into a singular identity, erasing what makes them distinct, or introduces inequality by suggesting one possesses something the others lack or has more of it.
Scripture, and even early theological terminology, often reflect different emphases. While our tradition later highlights the shared substance and attributes of the Father, Son, and Spirit by naming them all “God,” earlier usage of the term “God” frequently referred specifically to the Father. This reflects the dual significance of "God"—as both the ultimate origin of all things and the kind of being that God is. This distinction is evident in the Greek of the New Testament and even in the Hebrew Scriptures, where Moses is called “God” to Pharaoh or where the Psalmist describes humans as “gods, sons of the Most High.”
Thus, within this theological framework, we can speak of the Father alone as “God” in the sense that He is the unoriginated source from whom the Son and Spirit proceed. Yet this does not imply that the Son and Spirit are creatures—manufactured entities separate from God's essence. Just as human children are not “created artifacts” but proceed from the very being of their parents, so the Son and Spirit proceed from the depths of God’s essence. Like children share their parents’ nature as human beings, the Son and Spirit share the Father’s divine nature. For this reason, we can truly and rightly affirm that they are God.
In the New Testament, when the Son or Spirit is depicted as praying to or addressing God, it reflects their relational dynamic with the Father, who is their origin.
Here lies the crucial difference between Christianity and Islam. Islam denies that God can communicate His divine nature to another; it holds that God’s essence is incommunicable. For Christians, however, God’s ability to share His divine nature is central to the doctrine of salvation. Salvation is not merely moral transformation but participation in the divine life—a process of deification where we share in God's nature through adoption. The Son and Spirit, as the means by which we partake in this inheritance, must themselves fully possess the divine nature, not in the limited manner granted to creatures by grace, but in its fullness. For us to share even a strand of this inheritance, the Son and Spirit must embody the fullness of divine glory.
This rejection by Islam of God’s ability to share His essence stems, I believe, from a misunderstanding of God’s majesty. It is rooted in a kind of misplaced piety that envisions God as a monarch jealously guarding His glory, rather than as the generous Father who delights in sharing His riches. In truth, God’s power and majesty are most fully expressed in His capacity to give, to share, and to empower others with His goodness.
When God declared it was not good for Adam to be alone, He revealed something of His own nature. Just as Adam required another to share his likeness, God, in His perfect love, eternally begets the Son—a perfect equal and reflection of Himself in every way. The Son, like the Spirit, exists not as a subordinate or servant, but as the perfect sharer of the Father’s life and glory.
It is worth noting that while the New Testament identifies Christ with God in certain passages, it also distinguishes Him from God in others. This is because the term “God” can refer specifically to the Father as the unoriginated source, or more broadly to the divine nature that the Father, Son, and Spirit share. This distinction is essential to understanding passages like John 10, where Christ asserts His divinity by pointing to Scripture that declares humans can be called “gods” as sons of the Most High. If creatures can receive some share in God’s nature, how much more does the Son, the Logos through whom all was made, possess it fully?
Nicene theology occupies a middle ground between modalism, which conflates the Father and Son as the same individual, and Arianism, which sees the Son as a created being distinct from the Father. The Nicene Fathers affirmed that the Son, though distinct as a person and originating from the Father, is “begotten, not made.” This means that the Son is not created as an artifact but proceeds from the Father as His true offspring, inheriting His nature completely. Like human children, who share their parents’ essence, the Son is fully divine because He proceeds from the Father’s very being.
The central truth of Nicene Christianity is that the Son and Spirit possess the fullness of the Father’s divine nature, enabling us to share in it through grace. This belief secures the foundation of salvation: through the Son and Spirit, we are adopted into the divine family and given a share in God’s eternal life.
This concept—that God’s nature is communicable to others—stands in stark contrast to Islamic theology. The Christian understanding recognizes God’s majesty not in His isolation or self-sufficiency, but in His overflowing generosity and the richness of His self-giving love.
True. This is a interesting article.
* Is the Shema's 'one' (Hebrew 'echad'), one or more?
https://www.academia.edu/40466836/Is_the_Shemas_one_Hebrew_echad_one_or_more
How does this address my argument?
This is trying to ram a square peg into a round hole.. which shows nothing about wanting constructive dialogue ( posts like this are not constructive)
This is even more unconvincing than your usual arguments..
The word “essense” is used to mean about 4 different things by Tettulian alone..
But are the children equal to their parents? According to philo parents are “gods”
I would say Amen, in part, God's majesty is in his self-giving love, i.e. the determining of himself by a truely other, i.e. by creation. I wrote an article some years ago in the Journal "Theology" as to why I think the trinitarian (at least many trinitarian) concepts of God as love in the trinity just don't work.
https://www.academia.edu/74360012/God_as_love_in_creation
The last part of this post was important, of course trinitarians have answers for this (and every scripture and argument), no theological issue this embedded is going to be resolve by just pointing to some scriptures (as though no trinitarian theologian has ever seen them before). The point is to look at scripture afresh, and allow for different interpretations, and see which one makes more sense, once one allows onesself to see scripture without pregiven doctrine, the trinity fairs far less well.
The argument asserts that ECHAD always means "absolute one" and cannot signify a composite unity. However, this claim oversimplifies the semantic range of the word. The Hebrew ECHAD (ΧֶΧָΧ) means "one," but its precise meaning depends on the context. Examples of ECHAD denoting a composite unity: Genesis 2:24: "They shall become one (ECHAD) flesh" – referring to two distinct persons, a man and a woman, united in marriage. Numbers 13:23: "One (ECHAD) cluster of grapes" – a single cluster composed of multiple grapes. These examples illustrate that ECHAD can and does refer to a unity comprising multiple components. In Deuteronomy 6:4, "Yahweh is one (ECHAD)" emphasizes God's unique, singular identity. While this does not explicitly define a composite unity, it also does not exclude it. The context affirms monotheism without precluding the Trinitarian understanding of a unity within God's being.
The Shema ("Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one") does not contradict the doctrine of the Trinity but affirms the unity of God. The Trinity asserts that God is one essence in three persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). This is not tritheism but a nuanced understanding of divine unity. Biblical monotheism in the Shema emphasizes that Yahweh alone is God, distinct from the polytheistic deities of surrounding nations. The New Testament affirms this monotheism while revealing the plurality within God's unity (e.g., Matthew 28:19, John 1:1, 1 Corinthians 8:6).
The critique claims that context excludes composite unity in Deuteronomy 6:4. However context determines meaning, and the broader biblical narrative reveals a God who is one yet reveals Himself in relational plurality. Genesis 1:26: "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness" – hints at a divine plurality in unity. Isaiah 48:16: "And now the Lord GOD has sent me, and His Spirit" – a reference to three entities within the Godhead. While ECHAD in Deuteronomy 6:4 emphasizes Yahweh's singular identity, the broader biblical context reveals that God's unity is not incompatible with the Trinitarian understanding.
The claim that Trinitarians “impose” the idea of "compound unity" on ECHAD to support the Trinity is a straw man argument. Trinitarians do not claim that ECHAD always means composite unity but that its use allows for such a meaning when supported by context. The appeal to other uses of ECHAD (e.g., in Numbers 13:23, Deuteronomy 19:15) demonstrates its flexibility. These examples support the idea that ECHAD can convey unity involving multiple elements, depending on the context. The argument isolates Deuteronomy 6:4 from the rest of Scripture. The New Testament reveals the relational plurality within the one God (John 10:30, Matthew 28:19, Corinthians 13:14) The Trinity arises from the entirety of Scripture, not merely from one word or passage. Instead a holistic understanding of the Bible Arians focus on a few cherry-picked, one-liner “prooftexts”, cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prooftext
The assertion that "Trinitarians abandoned ECHAD arguments" is inaccurate. Scholars like James White, Richard Bauckham, and others continue to defend the compatibility of the Shema with the Trinity. While some outdated approaches may have been discarded, modern Trinitarian scholarship robustly defends the biblical basis of the Trinity, including the nuanced understanding of ECHAD.
@Anonymous
You claim that the doctrine of the Incarnation is not in the Bible. If by "doctrine," you mean a fully developed theological statement akin to what the Councils of Nicea or Chalcedon articulated, then no, such precise formulations are not in Scripture. However, the core truth of the Incarnation is explicitly biblical. The doctrine merely systematizes and clarifies what is revealed in the biblical text (John 1:14, Philippians 2:6-8, 1 John 4:2). The Incarnation doctrine is the synthesis of these and other biblical passages, not an invention imposed upon the text. To deny this is akin to denying that the doctrine of the Trinity or justification by faith alone has any biblical foundation merely because those terms aren't explicitly used.
It is true that Tertullian used terms like "substantia" and "essentia" in various contexts, but this reflects the development of theological language, not confusion or inconsistency. Early Christian writers often borrowed terms from philosophy to articulate doctrines revealed in Scripture. Substantia (substance) referred to the shared divine essence of the Father, Son, and Spirit. Persona (person) distinguished the Father, Son, and Spirit as relational identities within the Godhead. Tertullian's writings show remarkable clarity in affirming both the unity of God's essence and the distinction of persons. For example:
“All are of One, by unity (that is) of substance; while the mystery of the dispensation is still guarded, which distributes the Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the three Persons— the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in substance, but in form; not in power, but in aspect; yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God, from whom these degrees and forms and aspects are reckoned, under the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” (Against Praxeas, Chapter 2)
The Bible may not use the term "essence," but it conveys the concept (cf. Colossians 2:9, John 10:30. The theological vocabulary developed later to explain what Scripture reveals, but this development does not undermine its biblical basis.
While human familial analogies help explain aspects of divine relationships, they cannot be applied simplistically. In human families, children grow, learn, and mature, whereas the Son of God is eternally begotten of the Father, sharing His divine nature fully and completely from all eternity. The Nicene Creed clarifies that the Son is "begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father." This means the Son's relationship to the Father is unique—He is not a created being but shares the same divine nature. Key biblical texts affirm this equality (John 5:18, Philippians 2:6). Philo’s view of parents as "gods" reflects his philosophical musings, not the biblical understanding of divine sonship. Jesus' sonship is not a metaphorical or moral status but an eternal relationship grounded in His divine nature (e.g., John 1:1, John 1:14, Colossians 1:15).
If the arguments I’ve presented appear insufficient, it might be because the doctrine of the Trinity and Incarnation are profound mysteries, not easily reducible to human logic or simplistic analogies. However, the goal of theology is not to simplify these mysteries into human terms but to faithfully express what Scripture reveals. Theology serves as a bridge between divine revelation and human understanding.
@Roman
Montero critiques the Trinitarian understanding of "God is love" by arguing that love requires a relationship with something external, such as creation. This reasoning, however, conflates human love (which is dependent and contingent) with divine love (which is self-sufficient and eternal). The Christian doctrine of the Trinity asserts that the eternal relationship between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit provides the foundation for God’s self-definition as love (1 John 4:8). This internal relationality is not contingent upon creation. Jesus declares, “Father… you loved me before the foundation of the world” (John 17:24). This clearly identifies that the relationship of love within the Godhead predates creation. God does not need creation to be love because the Father eternally loves the Son, and the Spirit proceeds as the bond of that love.
Montero’s reliance on Hegel’s dialectical logic to critique the Trinity introduces unnecessary complexities. Hegel’s notion that "determinate being" requires an "other" may apply to finite beings but fails when applied to the infinite and eternal God. Classical theism affirms that God’s being is not contingent or dependent upon anything external. God’s nature as love is rooted in His self-sufficient tri-personal relationship, which exists eternally. The attempt to frame God's identity as requiring creation undermines His aseity (self-existence) and immutability. Montero’s application of dialectics leads to a contradiction. If God’s love requires creation to be actualized, then God is dependent on creation, negating His necessary and eternal being. This is incompatible with the Biblical revelation of God as the "I AM" (Exodus 3:14) — the self-sufficient and eternal One.
Montero’s interpretation aligns with Karl Rahner’s rule that the immanent Trinity (God as He is in Himself) is the economic Trinity (God as revealed in salvation history). While Rahner’s rule emphasizes that God's actions in history reveal His eternal nature, it does not imply that God's triune relationality is contingent upon creation. The immanent Trinity is not dependent on the economic Trinity. The Father begets the Son, and the Spirit proceeds from both eternally, apart from creation. Creation is an act of God’s free will, not a necessity for God to be love. The Gospel of John portrays the Son as eternally begotten of the Father, not as a product of creation (John 1:1–3). The Spirit is sent by the Father and the Son in time (John 15:26), reflecting the eternal relationship within the Godhead.
@Roman
Montero claims that "God is love" (1 John 4:8) applies only to God’s relationship with creation. This interpretation narrows the scope of divine love and misrepresents the Biblical text. The passage describes God’s love as revealed through the Incarnation, but it does not limit God’s nature as love to creation. Rather, it shows that creation and redemption are expressions of God’s eternal nature as love. Augustine’s interpretation — that the Father loves the Son, and their love is the Holy Spirit — aligns with both the Biblical witness and the nature of love as relational. This understanding preserves God’s self-sufficiency while explaining His creative and redemptive acts as outflows of His eternal love.
Montero’s argument veers close to Arianism by suggesting that the Son and Spirit are contingent upon creation. If the Son and Spirit are not eternal, they cannot share in the divine essence, making them creatures rather than God. This undermines the Biblical witness to Christ’s full divinity (John 1:1, Colossians 2:9). The Nicene Creed affirms that the Son is "begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father." This underscores that the Son shares the same divine essence as the Father, eternally and fully.
Montero’s use of Hegel, Schelling, and others introduces analogies that are foreign to the Biblical worldview and the Christian tradition. While philosophy can illuminate theological concepts, it cannot replace the divine revelation given in Scripture. The Trinity is not derived from philosophical speculation but from God’s self-revelation in Scripture. Attempts to redefine God’s nature based on human reasoning invariably fall short. The Christian doctrine of the Trinity does not depend on creation. God’s relational nature as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit exists eternally, and creation is an act of grace, not necessity. The claim that "God is love" requires creation undermines the Christian understanding of God's perfection. God’s love is complete and perfect within Himself; creation is an overflow of that love, not its origin.
Karl Barth answers this for you, why would we need to start church history over again two thousand years after the apostles, and recreate and reinvent Christianity from scratch? It would certainly be an interesting social experiment to hand the Bible to a hypothetical "tabula rasa" person who knows nothing about Christian church and dogma history, to see what comes of it, but I don't think it makes any sense.
Or is it like every generation needs a new and its own revolution?
Sorry, the apostle Paul said one God the Father, that's it. 1Cor.8:6
The Encyclopedia Brittanica says no one wrote about the trinity to be believed in or accepted for the first 3 centuries of Christianity.
Paul said not to teach or believe a different Jesus than he taught even if it came from out of heaven. Gal. 1:7,8
He also warned the Corinthians in a similar way to not accept another news about the lord Jesus only what Paul and the apostle taught.
Sorry guy, the Catholic teaching is apostate to what Paul taught.
It doesn't matter how you try to explain it. It opposes what Paul said no new teaching of Jesus. From 101 CE to the future any teaching different than what Paul taught would be considered a new teaching. Sorry Guy, the Trinity fall into that catagory.
We know that Jesus has all the fullness of the divine quality dwelling in him.
But that still doesn't make him almighty and it doesn't make him co-equal or co-eternal to the Father.
And when you say he submits as to his purpose, that's a supposition. There is no need to assume it means anything more than what Paul said. He submits himself to not just the Father but to God.
The faithful who are taken to heaven also share in the divine nature and it's not for just a short period of time it is eternal.
So being a sharer in the divine does not make you equivalent to Almighty God Jehovah.
There is one God the Father, many non-catholic "Christians" try to say that the father manifest himself as the son and the holy ghost which is not the trinity, but they say that because they cannot get around what Paul said "One God the Father."
To get around it Daniel Wallace tried to say that it the Trinity hadn't been revealed to Paul.
This too is still apostate to what Paul said no new teaching of who Jesus is.
I have heard all the pathetic explanations, the early post apostle fathers explained it this way.
The apostasy starts right after the apostles die off. Because no one listened to Pauls words not to bring a new teaching as to who Jesus is.
That means no incarnation, or eternal generating. These are outside of the bible teachings. They are apostate to Pauls teachings.
@Philip Fletcher
Your citation of 1 Corinthians 8:6 highlights that "there is ONE God, the Father," but it also says, "and ONE Lord, Jesus Christ." If your interpretation excludes Jesus from being God because it says the Father is "one God," then by the same logic, the Father cannot be "Lord" because the passage says there is "one Lord, Jesus Christ." Clearly, this passage is not about dividing roles into mutually exclusive categories. Instead, it affirms both the Father and the Son's unique relationship within the Godhead. The term "Lord" (Greek: Kyrios) in this context reflects the divine title used for Yahweh in the LXX.This does not exclude the Son from deity but emphasizes that all things exist through both the Father and the Son, demonstrating their co-operative role in creation and salvation.
The claim that the Trinity doctrine is "apostate" implies a betrayal of Christian truth. However, this misuse of the term "apostate" (which means to abandon the faith) is not appropriate here. Christians who formulated the doctrine of the Trinity sought to explain and preserve biblical teachings, not reject them. A more fitting term for your critique might be "heresy," but even this fails because the Trinity is consistent with Scripture. The assertion that Christianity became corrupted immediately after the apostles contradicts both the Bible and history. In Matthew 16:18, Jesus promises, "the gates of hell shall not prevail against [the Church]," indicating its perseverance. Additionally, early Church Fathers like Ignatius of Antioch (AD 35–107), who knew the apostles personally, upheld beliefs consistent with Trinitarian theology. There is no evidence of an "immediate great apostasy."
The claim about the Encyclopedia Britannica stating the Trinity was unknown in early Christianity is misleading. Your source likely reflects older editions that are outdated or taken out of context. According to detailed research available here (https://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-Britannica.htm ), the Encyclopedia Britannica acknowledges that the term "Trinity" developed later as a theological clarification but that its underlying principles were evident in Scripture and early Christian worship. The development of terminology like "Trinity" does not mean the concept is foreign to the Bible. The Church Fathers clarified what was already present in apostolic teaching, such as the baptismal formula in Matthew 28:19 and the unity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in passages like John 1:1-14 and 2 Corinthians 13:14.
@Philip Fletcher
You referred to Colossians 2:9 as saying that Jesus possesses "divine quality", but the text actually uses the term THEOTΔS, and not THEIAS PHYSIS, which means "deity", "Godhead", or "divine essence." The verse explicitly states that "in Christ all the fullness of deity lives in bodily form." This affirms that Jesus is fully God, not merely someone who reflects a "divine quality." The Greek word THEOTΔS is unambiguous in asserting Christ's deity.
The claim that believers share in the divine nature (theias koinΕnoi physeΕs, 2 Peter 1:4) does not equate to equality with God. Believers participate in God's moral and spiritual attributes (e.g., holiness, immortality) through grace, not by nature. Jesus' divinity is intrinsic, eternal, and unique, as affirmed by John 1:1 and Colossians 2:9.
You argued that Jesus submits not only to the Father but to "God." In Christian theology, the term "God" can refer to:
1. The person of the Father.
2. The Godhead as a whole (one divine essence).
3. A qualitative or derivative sense, cf. quiddity.
(In the first two senses of these, the Logos/Jesus is not "God" according to Christianity either.)
When Jesus submits to the Father, it refers to His role within the economy of salvation (Philippians 2:5-11), not an intrinsic inferiority. Submission does not negate equality of essence. Even in human relationships, submission often reflects roles rather than inferiority (e.g., Ephesians 5:22-23). Moreover, in the Trinity, Jesus is eternally generated by the Father, not created or subordinate in being.
Paul's warnings in Galatians 1:7-8 and 2 Corinthians 11:4 are about rejecting false gospels and distorted teachings of Christ. They do not oppose doctrinal development that faithfully explicates biblical truths. Paul himself referred to Jesus as "our great God and Savior" (Titus 2:13) and affirmed Jesus' pre-existence and role in creation (Colossians 1:16-17). These teachings align with the Trinity, not against it.
The Trinity does not teach three gods. It maintains strict monotheism: one God in three persons. The Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4) declares God's oneness, and the Trinity is a deeper understanding of this mystery. The persons of the Trinity share one essence, not three separate beings.
@Nincsnevem
There are no fundamental elements of the Nicene Trinity found within Justin Martyr and Tertullian, especially those two individuals who believe in subordinationism and Two-stage logos doctrine which is contrary to what 3rd or 4th century determine as divine processions( a.k.a eternal generation). There are plenty of scholars who are also Trinitarian and would concur that their Christological framework is massively different and not one bit close to what you call "Trinitarianism". I can cite them if you'd like, and perhaps you're also willing to do the same but the point is that they are recognized as historical figures who believed in a notion that didn't lack Trinitarian terminology due to their specifications and actual intentions within describing their framework but opposed your worldview massively. Now, you assume blatantly that it's monotheism, not unipersonalism meanwhile both are coherently valid and sound without depending on a presupposition. You said, "The Bible reveals God's oneness and yet also reveals distinctions within the Godhead." this is based upon the Hebrew term, "echad" and can entail a composition unity of things, if you haven't noticed yet, God is not composite, this is against your doctrinal beliefs, and if you want to argue that it is insofar composite via one ousia three subsisting hypostases then please word your arguments better for the sake of your unstable worldview. The example you show fails on how the true meaning of unity works, both man and woman are one in what? not exactly "fleshly form" for they are one in terms of unity and will. Sure, granting that they consist of the same nature, "human", they remain separate "beings"--ergo 2 beings, but not with your position of "one being three persons". Try better and formulate a coherent and concrete example that really expresses its true meaning of "oneness unity".
I reject the idea of its presence in the texts for there is no concrete illustration or evidential clue in the text unless it's presupposed, which is what Edgar has already explained plenty of times! It's unnecessary to employ eisegesis because it's contrary to the author's intention of writing the texts that instead imply a true, "one God, one person/being" that is above all, and there is no such thing as economic trinity and the so-called "roles" that supposedly explain the whole aspects of "rank" and "role" "relational of opposition" this is obtuse and inaccurate.
@JLM
It is true that Justin Martyr and Tertullian articulated their theological frameworks using the philosophical and theological tools available to them in their times, their writings reflect foundational elements of what would later be formally articulated at Nicaea.
Justin uses the term Logos to describe the pre-existent Son, identifying Him as divine, eternal, and the agent of creation. For example, in Dialogue with Trypho (Chapter 56), Justin explicitly affirms the pre-existence and divinity of the Son as distinct from the Father yet sharing in His divine nature. This anticipates the later development of Trinitarian theology.
Tertullian is considered one of the earliest to use the term "Trinity" (Trinitas in Latin), Tertullian in Adversus Praxeas defends the unity of the Godhead while distinguishing between the persons of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. While his language sometimes reflects an economic framework (emphasizing roles and functions), he strongly defends the co-eternality and unity of essence of the three persons. His framework, though not identical to later Nicene terminology, is foundational for its development. Tertullian's formulation of the Trinity was rooted in Scripture, building on the works of earlier Church Fathers like Theophilus of Antioch and Justin Martyr. While the formal terminology (e.g., "Trinitas") and philosophical articulations emerged over time, these were not arbitrary inventions but ways to explain the consistent biblical witness to God's nature. Tertullian already used the “God is one substance in three persons” (una substantia in tribus personis) formula. This reflects an early attempt to synthesize monotheism with the distinctiveness of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as seen in passages like Matthew 28:19 and John 1:1. Critics often cite Tertullian's subordinationist language as evidence against Nicene Trinitarianism. However, while Tertullian spoke of an economic hierarchy (roles in creation and redemption), he affirmed the Son and Spirit's full divinity and consubstantiality with the Father. This theological framework prefigured Nicene orthodoxy, since he introduced the terms substantia (substance) and persona (person), enabling the Church to articulate the full deity of Father, Son, and Spirit while maintaining their distinctiveness
Both thinkers, while operating within their respective historical and theological contexts, affirm the divine unity (monotheism) and the distinct identities (personal distinctions) of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, essential components of Trinitarian theology.
Subordinationism in early Christian writings is often overstated or misunderstood. Many early Fathers used language that appears subordinationist when describing the relational distinctions within the Godhead. This was not a denial of the Son’s divinity or equality with the Father but rather an attempt to articulate the relationship between the Father and the Son in humanly comprehensible terms. While the terminology of "eternal generation" was more fully developed at Nicaea and beyond, the concept is present implicitly in earlier works. For example, Justin’s First Apology (Chapter 21) describes the Son as "begotten" of the Father, yet he affirms the Son’s eternal existence as the Logos. Similarly, Tertullian affirms the Father’s generation of the Son while defending the unity of their shared divine essence. Theology develops in response to heresies and new questions. The articulation of the Trinity at Nicaea clarified what was already present in seed form in the Scriptures and the early Fathers. Subordinationist language in the pre-Nicene era does not imply heresy but reflects the challenge of articulating divine mysteries without the benefit of later theological precision.
@JLM
The Hebrew term “echad” often denotes a composite or unified oneness rather than an absolute singularity. For example, Genesis 2:24 uses “echad” to describe the union of man and woman as "one flesh," illustrating unity within diversity. Similarly, in Ezekiel 37:17, “echad” refers to two sticks being joined into one. Thus, “echad” can accommodate the concept of unity within multiplicity. The doctrine of the Trinity does not assert that God is composite in the sense of being made up of parts. Rather, God is one in essence (ousia) and simultaneously three in persons (hypostases). This unity is not contradictory but reflects the biblical revelation of God’s nature. The New Testament affirms both the oneness of God (e.g., James 2:19) and the personal distinctions of the Father, Son, and Spirit (e.g., Matthew 28:19, 2 Corinthians 13:14).
The Trinity is not based on eisegesis but on the synthesis of the entire biblical witness. The Bible presents a consistent picture of one God (e.g., Deuteronomy 6:4, Isaiah 45:5) while also affirming the deity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Isaiah 48:16, Matthew 28:19, 2 Corinthians 13:13, John 1:1, John 20:28, Colossians 2:9, Hebrews 1:8, Acts 5:3-4, 1 Corinthians 3:16). The doctrine of the Trinity harmonizes these biblical data points, avoiding contradictions and affirming the fullness of God’s revelation.
The distinctions within the Trinity are relational, not ontological. This means that while the Father, Son, and Spirit have different roles or functions in the economy of salvation, they are equal in essence and nature. The Father sends the Son (John 3:16); the Son submits to the Father (John 6:38); the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (John 15:26). These roles reflect relational order, not inequality or subordination in essence.
I do address the confligation in the article, in that the language must have a univocal basis even if it is analogical, in the case of love we not only have the essential aspects of the concept, but also the Christological definition.
Hegel's notion is applicable to any concept of determinate being, if it fails when applied to God then we just cannot denote God, without an other there just IS no determinate being, period.
"If God's love requires creation to be actualized then God is dependent on creation," this requires nuance, you're presupposing Thomistic (Aristotilean/substance) metaphysics here, I don't, in fact I explicitly appeal to Hegelian metaphysics modified by Schelling. God as pure being, the apophatic God, is not dependent on anything, but God as self-determining being is dependent on creation, this does not mean God's existence is dependent, but his self-determination is.
Rahners rule isn't that the immanent trinity is dependent on the economic, it's that the immanent IS the economic, so it's worse than dependency it's identity.
1 John 4:8, like the whole of the epistle, is what "a theology of the cross," and the point is that the self-gift of Jesus and reconciliation of man with God through Christ reveals God. If "God is love" is made manifest in Christ's love, then the kind of "love" we are talking about MUST be the kind of love Christ showed, i.e. it's one of gift and participation with an absolute other.
God is only known through his actions, in fact, in so far as we move beyond the apophatic descriptions, there only ARE his actions.
The use of Hegel and Schelling are foreign to the biblical worldview insofar as they were born centuries later. However, Aristotle and Augustine are also foreign to the biblical worldview. And various studies of the underlying metaphysical assumptions of the Hebrew bible shows that they had much more of a dialectical and dynamic view than the substance metaphysics of Aristotle.
I agree that philosophy cannot replace scripture, the point of the article was to challenge one philosophical understanding of a text with another in a way that is more faithful to the text itself.
My notes regarding the Trinity vs. Islam:
https://justpaste.it/i4aj3
I don't have an intrepretation. There is one God the Father, that is what Paul said and it doesn't need interpeting period, you make the wrong assumption to say I think otherwise.
There is no getting around that Paul says to not preach a different Jesus than he taught, he said it under inspiration. There is no evidence that the trinity is under Gods inspiration. None Period. The trinity is in opposition to what Paul taught about Jesus period. He said not to change the teaching and you like a stubborn mule think it doesn't apply to your belief. Well your wrong it does apply and it fully does so!!!
The Godhead is poor translation you are going backwards now. Jesus is not in the divine the divine is in him because his father Jehovah, put it in him when he created him. He was brought forth as with labor pains. Before he was brought forth he did not exist.- Prov. 8:24
@Philip Fletcher
You assert that Paul’s in 1 Corinthians 8:6 statement excludes Jesus from divinity. However, if the statement in this verse that "there is but one God, the Father" rules out the Son being God, then the second half of the same verse, that "there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ," rules out the Father being Lord by the same logic. Likewise, according to Jude 4, Jesus Christ is "our only Sovereign and Lord," so does "only" here exclude the Father? Perhaps we should realize that these expressions are not meant to be understood so mechanically, and perhaps you should not work with such "one-liner" proofreading. Paul identifies Jesus as the Kyrios (Lord), a title reserved for Yahweh in the Old Testament (e.g., Deuteronomy 6:4 in the Septuagint). This parallelism shows that Jesus shares in the divine work of creation and sustenance, something only God can do. This does not contradict the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4), but reveals the relational nature of God within the Trinity.
You argue that the Trinity represents a "different Jesus" than what Paul taught. However Paul consistently affirms Jesus’ deity (Romans 9:5, Romans 10:13, Philippians 2:6-11, Colossians 1:15-17, Colossians 2:9). Paul also calls Jesus “our great God and Savior” in Titus 2:13. The Greek grammar (Granville Sharp Rule) unequivocally links "God" and "Savior" as descriptors of Jesus. Therefore, Paul’s writings affirm Jesus as fully divine and part of the Godhead. Rejecting this Jesus is what Paul would classify as preaching a "different Jesus." The Trinity is not a later invention but a doctrinal clarification of biblical truths. The term "Trinity" arose to describe what the Bible teaches (Matthew 28:19, John 1:1-3, 2 Corinthians 13:14). The Trinity doctrine arises from Scripture’s witness to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit’s divine attributes and unified work, not from human invention.
You claim that "Jesus is not in the divine; the divine is in him." However, Colossians 2:9 says: "For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity (Greek: theotΔs) dwells in bodily form." The Greek term “theotΔs” unequivocally means "divine essence" or "Godhead." It does not refer to a derived or partial divinity but to the fullness of God’s nature dwelling in Christ. This affirms that Jesus is fully God, not merely someone into whom divinity was placed.
Proverbs 8:24 refers to wisdom personified, a literary device common in Hebrew poetry. While some early Christians used this passage to illustrate Christ’s role as the eternal Wisdom of God, it does not teach that Jesus was "brought forth" in time, or created. Instead John 1:1-3 explicitly states that Jesus (the Word) existed "in the beginning" with God and was God. Hebrews 1:3 declares that Jesus is the "exact representation" of God’s being and "sustains all things by his powerful word," showing eternal existence and divine power. If Jesus were created, He could not be the Creator of all things (Colossians 1:16-17).
@Nincsnevem
You said, “echad often denotes a composite or unified oneness rather than an absolute singularity." It doesn't, any sense of a "compound unity" is taken from the noun, not the adjective. And echad, being an adjective, just means one. So in Genesis when it says "one day", it's not the "one" that contains parts but the word "day", just as we wouldn't do the same for "second day" or "third day". "Two" is not a compound that means numerically more than what it is, and neither is "three", so it's the noun following which is or isn't. One day is still one day, a single day. It's the word "flesh" which is a composite, not the word "one". Furthermore, this is not literal flesh (obviously) but metaphorical, or it can translate to kin/family. If I have "one family", there are not multiple families, just one family. The stick is not a unity of sticks, it is one stick, and both explicitly mention two joining into one. But never anywhere do we read "and the two become one God". It is just, one God. Please stop regurgitating the same nonsensical ideals that I've already negated. I know I said to rewrite it but that didn't add any additional explanation but emphasis to what I already addressed. When Esau was tricked out of his father’s blessing he complained to his father, “Hast thou but one [echad] blessing, my father? bless me, even me also, O my father. And Esau lifted up his voice, and wept” (Genesis 27:38). Here we find that echad literally means “one,” not “two” or more. When Joseph’s brothers came to him for food they said, “We are all one [echad] man’s sons; we are true men, thy servants are no spies” (Genesis 42:11). Surely these brothers were not saying that they were the sons of a group of men, but rather one and only one. They did not have to use the word yachid to clarify that this “one” man was “only one” man. This idea was naturally inherent in their use of the word echad.
After Joseph accused them of being spies he said, “Send one [echad] of you, and let him fetch your brother” (Genesis 42:16). Joseph was not suggesting to send a group of men back for their brother, but only one. Joseph’s brothers said to him, “We be twelve brethren, sons of our father; one [echad] is not, and the youngest is this day with our father in the land of Canaan” (Genesis 42:32). When they said, “one is not” they were talking about Joseph, pretending that he had died. Joseph was the only one of the twelve that was missing, and they used echad to explain this. I also know that Echad is the Hebrew word most commonly used to describe something that is one. Almost every time you find the English word “one” in the Old Testament it was translated from the Hebrew word echad. Echad was used 952 times in the Old Testament. It was translated “one” 687 times. Every language has a word to signify “one” in the sense of counting. In Spanish it is “uno,” in German it is “ein,” in Latin it is “unum,” in Hebrew it is “echad.” When you go to www.translate.google.com and type “one” in the English side and select Hebrew on the translated side it will translate it as echad. The reason for this is that echad simply means “one.” The New American Standard Hebrew Lexicon defines it as, “a primary cardinal number; one.” The Brown-Driver-Brigg’s Hebrew Lexicon says, “one (number).” There are trinitarian commentaries and lexicons that contain definitions of echad suited to fit their preconceived idea that God is a plural God made up of a compound unity, but that does not make these definitions true. There is a saying among Bible students that says, “Context is king.” This means that the context of how a word is used in the Bible is more valuable than any man-made definition of that word. When writers of the Hebrew Bible wanted to distinguish something as “one,” as opposed to “two” or “three,” they used the word echad.
The rest of what you said isn't anything new, just the same old arguments that don't serve concrete purpose as an argument. Let's focus on why you're wrong for Deuteronomy 6:4.
@Roman
"The language must have a univocal basis even if it is analogical." - As John Duns Scotus and Thomas Aquinas emphasize, analogical terms are grounded in human experience yet transcend it when applied to God. When Scripture says "God is love" (1 John 4:8), it reflects God's nature, not as contingent or relationally dependent on creation but as eternally complete within the Godhead. The Father eternally loves the Son, and their love is the Holy Spirit. This relational dynamic does not require creation to actualize divine love; it exists as an eternal act within God's being. The insistence that love must involve contingency (a relational "other") collapses under Biblical testimony. John 17:24 reveals that the Father loved the Son "before the foundation of the world," affirming that divine love existed eternally within the Trinity, independent of creation.
"God as self-determining being is dependent on creation; this does not mean God's existence is dependent, but his self-determination is." - This distinction contradicts the Biblical and classical theistic understanding of God’s aseity (self-existence). God’s being and attributes are not contingent on anything external. In Malachi 3:6, God declares, "I do not change," reaffirming immutability. To suggest that God’s love or identity depends on creation undermines His self-sufficiency and contradicts passages such as Acts 17:25, which states that God is not "served by human hands, as though he needed anything." Instead, God freely creates out of His perfect and complete nature, not from necessity.
You interpret Rahner’s rule as: "the immanent Trinity IS the economic Trinity." While Rahner emphasized the inseparability of God’s actions in history (economic Trinity) and His eternal nature (immanent Trinity), he did not deny the ontological distinctiveness of the immanent Trinity. The article's claim that "God as love" necessitates creation misreads Rahner. The Son and Spirit’s eternal generation and procession within the Godhead already embody the self-giving love that Scripture describes. Creation manifests this love outwardly but does not define or constitute it.
"The kind of 'love' we are talking about MUST be the kind of love Christ showed." - While 1 John 4:9-10 ties God’s love to Christ’s atoning work, it does not limit divine love to temporal, relational categories. The Incarnation reveals God's eternal love within the Trinity, made visible through Christ. Augustine’s interpretation (referenced in the article) aligns with this: God is love because He eternally generates the Son and shares this love through the Spirit. The atonement exemplifies this love, but it does not define or exhaust it.
The reliance on Hegel’s dialectics and Schelling’s ontology imposes philosophical presuppositions incompatible with Biblical revelation. The Bible describes God as transcendent, immutable, and independent of creation. Hegel’s notion that determination requires an "other" applies to finite beings but cannot encompass the infinite, self-existent God. Schelling’s concept of God "becoming" contradicts Scripture’s affirmation of God’s eternal perfection and immutability (Hebrews 13:8, James 1:17).
You imply that 'God as love' cannot refer to the immanent Trinity, but rather to God as creator and God of creation, but this conclusion ignores John 17:5, where Jesus refers to the "glory" He shared with the Father "before the world existed," and John 1:18, which describes the Son as eternally in the "bosom of the Father." These passages demonstrate that divine love is not contingent on creation but eternally actualized within the Godhead. The relational dynamic of the Trinity—Father, Son, and Spirit—constitutes the eternal foundation for God being love.
@Nincsnevem
You said, "It is true that Justin Martyr and Tertullian articulated their theological frameworks using the philosophical and theological tools available to them in their times, their writings reflect foundational elements of what would later be formally articulated at Nicaea."
I know and so they used also what we call, deductive reasoning via philosophical constructs that sounded coherent in order to determine their framework. Justin Martyr was heavily a Proto-Arian and Trinitarian scholars noted this many times. His Christology with Wisdom and logos factors heavily emphasized the temporal existence of Jesus in which contradicts the concept of Nicaea. He believed Jesus was God as many Arians and JWs do insofar, yet he believed he was another deity/God not a person of the Godhead, he was specific in his wording so you must provide evidential resources as to why you think he used "another God" to signify a lack of Misuse language for his kind yet still remain Trinitarian? The Bible does the same but that is because they knew exactly that God is one and that is the Father, who is above all in existence and power. Here is a quote fascinating about the Two-stage logos theology which is exactly this:
In the first place, to make the possibility and truth of the personal divinity of Jesus conceivable, Justin adopted the philosophical division of the Logos into immanent and transitive. He considers the divine in Jesus as originally a pure property, and subsequently a hypostasised power of Reason of God; accordingly he ascribes eternity to the Logos as a property, but not as a person. As long as the Logos rested in God, it was essentially identically with his substance, or rather stood in the relation of a part to the whole : by coming forth from the divine essence it first attained a personal self-subsistence. - K.G. Semisch, Justin Martyr: His Life, Writings, and Opinions, trans. J.E. Ryland, p181
You said, "Justin uses the term Logos to describe the pre-existent Son, identifying Him as divine, eternal, and the agent of creation. For example, in Dialogue with Trypho (Chapter 56), Justin explicitly affirms the pre-existence and divinity of the Son as distinct from the Father yet sharing in His divine nature. This anticipates the later development of Trinitarian theology."
This is also not against our position. Justin Martyr argues for the logos to be eternal in the mind of God and be brought forth into existence as a hypostasis not exactly how Trinitarians interpret the texts do they now? The early Greek Fathers have the concept of the innate logos, and the expressed logos. God the Father has an innate rationality (logos) within himself from eternity past. By a free decision of will, he expresses this Logos by begetting a Son. At times he is said to exist ΟΟΞΏ Ξ±ΞΉΟΞ½ΞΏΟ, "before the ages." This is sometimes translated as "from eternity" or "eternal" but Ξ±ΞΉΟΞ½ in the plural can just signify the cosmos or the universe as in Hebrews 1:2 and 11:3 and secular Greek literature. In the third century, some regard the Son as eternal, but not in the developed Nicene sense.Theophilus, Ad Autolychum, 2.10 explains the difference between God’s immanent Logos (Ξ»ΟΞ³ΞΏΟ αΌΞ½Ξ΄ΞΉΞ¬ΞΈΞ΅ΟΞΏΟ) which exists eternally as a faculty of the mind of God and the expressed Logos (Ξ»ΟΞ³ΞΏΟ ΟΟΞΏΟΞΏΟΞΉΞΊΟΟ) who is the preexistent Son (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/02042.htm)
(1/2)
@Nincsnevem
Early users of "trias" and "trinitas" mean the group of God, his Logos, and his Spirit - as it were, Gold, Silver, and Bronze winners in the greatness Olympics. You misread them if you see "Trinity" and infer that they mean a tripersonal God - that only starts in latter 4th c. Here is a quote I want to show you by George L. Prestige, God in Patristic Thought (London: S.P.C.K, 1952), pp. 93-4:
"Tertullian, who called the several Persons of the godhead “God” in plain terms, also makes free use of the word trinitas. As with the early Greek theologians, trinitas bears a collective sense. It simply means triad, not tri-unity. [...] The word triad, then, did not originally express in any degree the unity of God."
Another one by James Leonard Papandrea (Trinitarian), Novatian of Rome - The Culmination of Pre-Nicene Orthodoxy, p19:
"Following the apologists such as Theophilus of Antioch, Tertullian still saw the generation of the Word as an event that took place at (or just before) creation. Therefore, while he believed that the Logos was eternally pre-existent and coeternal with the Father, he did not describe the Logos as eternally distinct from the Father. Tertullian accepted the assumption of Logos Christology, that at the generation of the Son, the Logos goes from being a thought in the mind of God to the Word emitted from God. In fact, he said that it was not until the generation of the Son that the Son
becomes equal to the Father, since equality requires distinction. "
one more by J. N. D Kelly (Trinitarian), Early Christian Creeds, p112:
"Tertullian followed the Apologists in dating His 'perfect generation' from His extrapolation for the work of creation; prior to that moment God could not strictly be said to have had a Son,
while after it the term 'Father', which for earlier theologians generally connoted God as author of reality, began to acquire the specialized meaning of Father of the Son. As so generated, the Word
or Son is a 'Person' (persona), 'a second in addition to the Father' (secundum a patre 3 ). In the third place, however, there is the Spirit, the 'representative' or 'deputy' (vicaria vis 9 ) of the Son;
He issues from the Father by way of the Son."
Generating the Son "hypostasis" which is the act creating the personhood from the the eternal logos that existed in the mind of God, not that the hypostasis existed forever from past-eternity. This concept was also held by Latin fathers not just ancient Greek fathers.
You said, "Both thinkers, while operating within their respective historical and theological contexts, affirm the divine unity (monotheism) and the distinct identities (personal distinctions) of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, essential components of Trinitarian theology."
This is like a robotic script at this point. You are reading pre-conceived ideas INTO the father's literature and writings, not only the bible but them too. This already seems to be a Trinitarian mechanism that wants to remain consistent throughout history but at some certain point, logic doesn't suit you guys well, same with the clear evidence provided. I have one more quote to show you so maybe it can help you acknowledge the true position of Tertullian, maybe you'll move on to other fathers since I can't even play devil's advocate against this. Byran M. Litfin, Tertullian on the
Trinity, p97:
"Historical theologians need to start admitting that Tertullian was a far cry from being entirely Nicene. The full-fledged set of ideas that we associate with Athanasius, the Cappadocians, and the
creed of 325, much less of 381, awaited another century or two of development. Tertullian was instead a typical second-century theologian. His ideas were essentially those of the Greek Logos
theologians combined with insights from Bishop Irenaeus"
@Ninscnevem
Lastly, you said, "Subordinationism in early Christian writings is often overstated or misunderstood. Many early Fathers used language that appears subordinationist when describing the relational distinctions within the Godhead. This was not a denial of the Son’s divinity or equality with the Father but rather an attempt to articulate the relationship between the Father and the Son in humanly comprehensible terms. While the terminology of "eternal generation" was more fully developed at Nicaea and beyond, the concept is present implicitly in earlier works. For example, Justin’s First Apology (Chapter 21) describes the Son as "begotten" of the Father, yet he affirms the Son’s eternal existence as the Logos. Similarly, Tertullian affirms the Father’s generation of the Son while defending the unity of their shared divine essence. Theology develops in response to heresies and new questions. The articulation of the Trinity at Nicaea clarified what was already present in seed form in the Scriptures and the early Fathers. Subordinationist language in the pre-Nicene era does not imply heresy but reflects the challenge of articulating divine mysteries without the benefit of later theological precision."
I can post more quotes if you'd like, I mean you're beyond wrong, sure, they believed they had the same substance or nature insofar but there was this ontological distinction. You don't understand that yet and it shows. Edgar has so many works on this too. I feel like you only reiterate and posit the same arguments over and over, you don't even read what others say to you.
Sorry Brother Edgar, I didn't want this to turn into a whole debate, but I will stop until this guy zips his mouth and doesn't have anything to add any more.
I mean JLM - Greg Stafford shut down most of Nincs arguments years ago
I notice Ninc hasn’t publicly shot down Stafford or any of Staffords scholarly citations and put them out for academic review..
If Ninc were so confident he was right - he would submit it to an academic website for peer review
@Philip Fletcher
And that the apostle Paul would not have taught the deity of Christ, but would have considered him Michael, like the JWs? Really?
The Apostle Paul attributes divine knowledge to Christ: "in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge" (Col 2:3); divine power, both concerning the natural and the supernatural order of existence: "He is before all things, and in him all things hold together" (Col 1:17; cf. Col 1:13; 1Cor 8:6); he grants justification, the source of graces (Gal 3:26; 1Cor 6:15; 2Cor 13:13); Paul himself was not chosen for apostleship by man or angel, but by Christ (1Cor 1:1; 1Cor 4:2; Gal 1:20). Christ is eternal and unchanging: "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever" (Heb 13:8). He is the condition and content of eternal life (Phil 1:21–3; Gal 2:20; Col 1:15; cf. Rom 10:9; Phil 2:11; 1Cor 8:6): "For to me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain"; hence the fervent cry of anticipation for Christ: maranatha (the Lord is coming)! (1Cor 16:22; cf. Didache 10:6). He is above all men and angels as the true Son of God (this is a central thought of Hebrews), who is therefore worthy of worship: every knee must bow to Him, of those on earth, under the earth, and above the earth (Phil 2:10; 2Tim 1:7; 2Cor 2:8; Rom 4:13; Rom 10:9–13; Rom 14:11; Gal 3:16).
He explicitly calls Him God when he consistently refers to Him as Lord (ΞΊΟΟΞΉΞΏΟ), which in the Septuagint is the standard Greek translation of Yahweh; in a metaphysical sense, he calls Him the Son of God (Rom 1:3; Rom 5:10; Rom 8:33; 1Cor 1:9; 2Cor 1:19; Gal 4:4; cf. 1Thess 3:11). In four places, he explicitly proclaims Him as God: "We live sober, upright, and godly lives in this world, waiting for the blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ (ΟΞΏαΏ¦ ΞΌΞ΅Ξ³Ξ¬Ξ»ΞΏΟ ΞΈΞ΅ΞΏαΏ¦ ΞΊΞ±ΞΉ ΟΟΟαΏΟΞΏΟ)" (Titus 2:13). The shared definite article here makes it clear that this is not a conjunctive enumeration of Father and Son, where the Father is referred to as the great God; rather, it is Christ Himself who is called God, all the more so because Paul never speaks of the appearing (αΌΟΞΉΟάνΡια) of the Father in his letters. "To them belong... the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever" (Rom 9:5). "In him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily" (Col 2:9). "Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus (who did not insist on His rights, though He was entitled to them), who, though he was in the form of God (αΌΞ½ ΞΌΞΏΟΟαΏ: the outward manifestation of divine reality and glory), did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited (αΌΟΟΞ±Ξ³ΞΌΟΞ½: grasped with greed and held), but emptied Himself (αΌΞΊΞΞ½ΟΟΡν), taking the form of a servant, being born in human likeness. And being found in human form, he humbled Himself" (Phil 2:5–7; cf. Heb 12:2; Heb 1:3).
The testimony of the Apostle Paul is so evident that rationalists often regard him as the author of the "pneumatic" or theistic Christology, which the believing community then adopted from him. This view, of course, arbitrarily dismisses the testimony of the Synoptic Gospels. However, it also leads to a contradiction: according to rationalist criticism, the Synoptic Gospels were written later than Romans, 1Corinthians, Galatians, Colossians, and Philippians, the foundational texts of Pauline Christology. And yet, they claim that the Synoptics do not contain the doctrine of Christ's deity.
@JLM
You assert that echad merely means "one" in the numerical sense and cannot convey a composite or unified sense. However, echad does not inherently specify whether the oneness is absolute or composite. Its meaning depends on the context in which it is used. Examples of echad indicating composite unity:
a) Genesis 2:24: "They shall become one (echad) flesh." Here, echad clearly refers to a unity formed by two distinct individuals—husband and wife—becoming "one flesh." This demonstrates that echad can encompass multiplicity within unity.
b) Ezekiel 37:17: "Join them together into one (echad) stick." Two separate sticks become a single entity, a union of two into one. This illustrates that echad can denote a unity comprised of parts.
c) Numbers 13:23: "One (echad) cluster of grapes." A single cluster composed of many grapes, emphasizing unity in multiplicity.
These examples establish that echad indeed *can* denote a composite or unified oneness depending on the noun it modifies. You cite examples such as Genesis 42:11 ("We are all one man's sons") and Genesis 42:16 ("Send one of you"). However, these examples do not disprove the broader semantic range of echad. They merely show that in *these* specific contexts, echad refers to an individual or singularity. The claim that echad “always” (?) means absolute singularity is an overgeneralization and fails to account for instances where it signifies a unity comprising multiple parts (e.g., Genesis 2:24, Ezekiel 37:17).
Deuteronomy 6:4 emphasizes Yahweh's uniqueness and singularity as the true God in contrast to the polytheistic gods of surrounding nations. This is a statement of monotheism, not necessarily a denial of complexity within God's nature. The use of echad here does not preclude the understanding of unity within diversity, as seen in the broader biblical context. While Deuteronomy 6:4 affirms God's singularity, the Bible elsewhere reveals distinctions within the Godhead (Genesis 1:26, Isaiah 48:16, Matthew 28:19), that the one God exists as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Deuteronomy 6:4's affirmation of monotheism is fully compatible with the Trinitarian understanding of God's nature.
You claim that Trinitarians “impose” (?) a compound unity onto echad. However, Trinitarians do not argue that echad *always* means composite unity. Instead, they recognize that echad *can* convey either absolute singularity or composite unity depending on the context. Trinitarians derive the doctrine of the Trinity not solely from Deuteronomy 6:4 but from the entirety of Scripture, which reveals both God's oneness and His relational distinctions. You isolate Deuteronomy 6:4 from the rest of Scripture to argue for unipersonalism. However, biblical theology requires synthesizing all of Scripture, not isolating individual verses. The doctrine of the Trinity arises from the interplay of passages affirming God's oneness (e.g., Deuteronomy 6:4) and those revealing distinctions within the Godhead (e.g., John 1:1, John 10:30, 2 Corinthians 13:14).
You suggest that if echad allows for composite unity, the Bible would use yachid to emphasize God's absolute singularity. However yachid primarily means "only" or "unique," often referring to individuals in specific contexts (e.g., Genesis 22:2, "your only son"). The absence of yachid in Deuteronomy 6:4 does not imply that echad must mean absolute singularity. Instead, echad affirms Yahweh's uniqueness and unity without excluding the relational distinctions revealed elsewhere in Scripture.
Lexicons like Brown-Driver-Briggs and others note the flexibility of echad in meaning both numerical oneness and unified oneness. Your insistence on an "absolute singularity" oversimplifies the lexical data. Theologically, the Shema affirms monotheism but does not define the nature of God's unity in a way that excludes the Trinitarian understanding revealed progressively in Scripture.
@JLM
While the early Fathers did not have the precise terminology of later Trinitarian doctrine, their writings consistently affirm the key elements of the Trinity: one divine essence, three distinct persons, and eternal relationality. Many objections rely on selective or out-of-context quotes. For example, the quote from Papandrea emphasizes that Tertullian saw the Logos as eternal, even if its distinct personhood was revealed progressively. This is not a denial of Trinitarian belief but an acknowledgment of the developing articulation of the mystery. Theology always develops over time as it responds to heresies and questions. The Nicaean articulation of the Trinity clarified what was already present in embryonic form in Scripture and early Christian thought. Early church fathers like Tertullian, Theophilus, and Justin Martyr laid crucial groundwork by emphasizing the unity of divine essence and the distinct identities of Father, Son, and Spirit. They may not have had the fully developed terminology of Nicaea, but their work was indispensable in shaping Trinitarian orthodoxy.
While the explicit doctrine of eternal generation was formalized later, its roots are present in early theology. Justin’s First Apology describes the Logos as eternally preexistent and active in creation, which implies a distinction within the Godhead prior to creation. Subordinationist language in early theology often reflected attempts to describe the relational dynamics within the Godhead, not to deny the Son’s full divinity.
Justin consistently describes the Logos as eternal in the Father’s being, not as a separate created entity. For example, in Dialogue with Trypho 61, Justin asserts that the Logos, as God’s Reason (Logos), existed ALWAYS with God, and was begotten at the appropriate time for creation and redemption. Justin explicitly describes the Logos as pre-existent and divine, not merely a temporary or created entity. In Dialogue with Trypho (Chapter 56), he writes, "This power was begotten from the Father, by His power and will, but not by abscission, as if the essence of the Father were divided." Here, Justin affirms the distinct personhood of the Son while preserving divine unity. This "begetting" does not imply creation out of nothing (a key Arian claim), but an eternal generation consistent with God’s nature. In First Apology 63, Justin describes the Logos as "another God and Lord under the Creator of all things," yet insists on the Logos’ divine status. This reflects relational distinction, not ontological subordination. Justin actually never used the phrase “deuteros theos” in reference to Jesus, he used “theos kai kurios eteros”, which parallels Johannine language (John 1:1), where the Logos is distinct (ΟΟα½ΈΟ Οα½ΈΞ½ ΞΈΞ΅ΟΞ½) yet fully God (ΞΈΞ΅α½ΈΟ αΌ¦Ξ½ α½ Ξ»ΟΞ³ΞΏΟ). Justin does not mean “theos kai kurios eteros”in the sense of proposing two gods. Instead, within the broader context of Dialogue with Trypho, Justin seeks to demonstrate to a Jewish audience that Old Testament theophanies — such as the appearance of God to Abraham involving "three men," with one identified as "the Lord" and the other two as angels (Genesis 18) — can be understood as manifestations of God and possibly hint at a plurality within the divine nature (a proto-Trinitarian concept). Justin's intent is not to propose two independent, separate gods (in henotheistic sense) but to demonstrate, using the Old Testament, that certain figures identified as God and Lord (e.g., the Angel of the Lord) align with his understanding of the pre-incarnate Christ, who is distinct in person yet unified in essence with the Father. So Justin does not imply a separate deity but acknowledges the personal distinctions within the Godhead. His Apology (Chapter 63) affirms, "We worship and adore Him, the Son... and the prophetic Spirit, in reason and truth."
@JLM
The cited passage from Semisch misrepresents Justin’s theology by treating the Logos as merely a property before hypostatization. However, Justin's use of philosophical terms like Ξ»ΟΞ³ΞΏΟ αΌΞ½Ξ΄ΞΉΞ¬ΞΈΞ΅ΟΞΏΟ (immanent reason) and Ξ»ΟΞ³ΞΏΟ ΟΟΞΏΟΞΏΟΞΉΞΊΟΟ (expressed reason) reflects his attempt to explain the unity and distinction within God. His Logos is not temporally created but eternally existent, emanating from the Father in an eternal and divine manner. While Justin’s terminology reflects the limitations of second-century philosophical categories, he affirms the Logos’ full divinity and pre-existence in ways incompatible with Arian theology. Arianism explicitly denies the Son’s eternal existence, something Justin clearly upholds.
You contend that Tertullian’s framework reflects subordinationism akin to Arianism. While Tertullian’s language does reflect a functional subordination (economic roles), this does not undermine the Son’s or Spirit’s co-eternality or consubstantiality. While Tertullian used terms like trinitas in a collective sense, he also stressed unity: “The Father, Son, and Spirit are distinct but not divided... They are three, not in substance but in degree.” (Adversus Praxeas, Chapter 2). Tertullian affirms, “The Father, the Son, and the Spirit are one in substance, not one in person.” This establishes a shared divine essence (una substantia) while preserving personal distinctions (tres personae). This formula anticipates Nicene orthodoxy, where homoousios (same essence) became a defining term. Tertullian’s description of the Logos as “proceeding from the Father” mirrors Justin’s framework but avoids Arian pitfalls. He explicitly rejects any suggestion of temporal creation, affirming the Logos’ eternal generation and divine essence. Tertullian speaks of a hierarchy of roles (e.g., the Father as sender, the Son as sent), but he never suggests an ontological subordination. Economic subordination (roles in creation and redemption) does not imply inequality of essence or nature. While Tertullian’s language of “rank” (gradus) might sound subordinationist, it is better understood as an attempt to articulate the relational dynamics within the Trinity. This is distinct from the Arian claim that the Son is of a different essence (heteroousios).
Tertullian did adopt aspects of Logos theology, which described the Son as eternally existent in God’s mind before being expressed for creation. However, this does not mean the Son was a “created” being. Tertullian viewed this generation as an eternal relationship rather than a temporal event: “The Son proceeds from the Father, as the Word from the mind, and the Spirit from the Son, as the fruit from the tree.” (Adversus Praxeas, Chapter 7). This reflects a unity of essence and distinction of persons, foundational to later Trinitarian doctrine. For Tertullian, the Logos was eternal as part of God’s nature, even if its distinction as "Son" was more explicitly revealed in time. Tertullian’s subordinationist language often pertained to economic roles within the Godhead rather than ontological inferiority. For example, he argued that the Son was sent by the Father, reflecting order and relational distinction, not inequality. J.N.D. Kelly observes that Tertullian saw the generation of the Son as linked to creation, but he also affirmed that the Logos was of the same divine substance as the Father, avoiding the idea of creation in the Arian sense.
@JLM
Both Justin and Tertullian affirm the Son’s eternal relationship with the Father, grounded in His divine essence. They describe this using terms like “begetting,” but this reflects relational and functional distinctions, not temporal creation. The concept of eternal generation is rooted in Scripture. Justin and Tertullian anticipate Nicene language by affirming the Son’s divine nature and role as Creator, consistent with the biblical witness. Arianism explicitly denies the Son’s co-eternality and consubstantiality with the Father, while Justin and Tertullian affirm both. Their frameworks, though not fully developed, are incompatible with Arian theology. Justin and Tertullian articulate a unified divine essence (una substantia) shared by the Father, Son, and Spirit. This preserves monotheism while affirming personal distinctions within the Godhead. Passages like Matthew 28:19, John 1:1, and 2 Corinthians 13:14 affirm the tri-personal nature of God. Justin and Tertullian develop this biblical witness into coherent theological frameworks. The Trinitarian concept of unity in essence and distinction in persons upholds biblical monotheism while accounting for the relational dynamics within the Godhead. This is fundamentally different from the unitarian framework.
Tertullian and the early Fathers were not fully Nicene in their articulation of the Trinity, but they were not Arian or unitarian either. Their writings reveal a commitment to the unity of God, the divinity of the Son and Spirit, and the relational distinctions within the Godhead. While later councils refined and clarified these doctrines, the foundational elements were already present in Scripture and early theology. The attempt to portray Tertullian and others as rejecting Trinitarian theology is based on selective quoting, misunderstanding of early theological development, and anachronistic expectations. The Trinity, as later articulated, was a natural and faithful development of the biblical and early Christian witness.
You invoke Theophilus of Antioch’s distinction between the Ξ»ΟΞ³ΞΏΟ αΌΞ½Ξ΄ΞΉΞ¬ΞΈΞ΅ΟΞΏΟ (internal Logos) and Ξ»ΟΞ³ΞΏΟ ΟΟΞΏΟΞΏΟΞΉΞΊΟΟ (expressed Logos) to support the idea that the Son was temporally created. This distinction does not imply a denial of the Son’s eternal existence. Theophilus viewed the Logos as eternal in God’s mind, later expressed in creation, yet still of the same divine essence. His description of the Logos as "begotten before the ages" (Ad Autolychum 2.10) aligns with the developing doctrine of eternal generation. Theophilus, like Justin, describes the Logos as always existing within God and emanating forth for creation. This emanation does not imply a temporal beginning but an eternal act consistent with God’s nature. Theophilus grounds his theology in John 1:1 and Proverbs 8:22–31, where the Logos/Wisdom is depicted as eternally with God. His language does not denote creation ex nihilo but reflects the eternal relationship within the Godhead. Theophilus’ language of “internal” and “expressed” Logos describes modes of divine operation, not the Son’s ontological status. The Logos is eternally divine and distinct from created beings, countering Arian claims of temporal origination.
You claim that the early Fathers were vague about the Holy Spirit, and the Apologists did not assign Him a clear role within the Godhead. While the early Fathers focused more on the relationship between the Father and the Son, the Holy Spirit was consistently included in triadic formulations. For example, Justin Martyr spoke of Christians worshiping the Father, Son, and Spirit. It is true that pneumatology (the doctrine of the Holy Spirit) was less developed in the second century, but this does not imply that the Spirit was not considered divine, not personal. Tertullian described the Spirit as proceeding from the Father through the Son and sharing the same divine essence.
https://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/articles/in-what-sense-is-echad-one-used-in-the-shema
Dear Nincsnevem, you're free to discuss the Trinity here with others, but I ask for the last time that you not try to post anti-JW website links. Thank you.
Why is Christ being micheal the archangel such a bad thing?
The bible no where says God couldn’t use a highly exalted creation the sole one directly begotten by him to create the rest of the universe..
Any interpretation that ignores this and says this is not possible needs to cite SCRIPTURE to prove this… any single one that says a creature can’t participate in creation
By the way, if I may ask something, it would be the following, the JW position is as follows:
1. Until the death of the apostle John, Christians (except perhaps a few troublemakers) held the same theological views as today's Jehovah's Witnesses, considered the Son to be a created/made/fashioned being, specifically Michael, zealously "used" the name "Jehovah" and calculated the time of the "parousia", professed anthropological monism, had a "governing body" in Jerusalem (to which John either went or not), and so on. Then as soon as John died, some conspirators hiding in suspicious darkness until that came and turned the whole thing upside down, because they had read Plato and Satan was whispering to them.
2. The evil "apostate" church successfully rewrote the text of the New Testament, erasing "Jehovah" without a trace. And assuming that the "apostasy" did not happen from one minute to the next, there must have been also protesters ("hey, last week when you read this out, Jehovah was still in the text!), so at the same time, traces of the protesters as secondary sources had to be destroyed as well. So these peoples are ready and capable of destroying everything with a paper shredder that does not fit into their orthodoxy.
3. At the same time, the writings of the 2nd-3rd century church fathers - at least according to you - are still full of statements that are supposedly compatible with JW orthodoxy. If, based on point 2, the "evil" church is the most successful document eraser in history, why didn't it simply destroy these as well (just like they allegedly did to the “jehovist” NT manuscripts), instead of publishing them to this day?
Hm, interesting…
Dear Mr. Foster,
that is not an "anti-JW website", but a fundamentalist Protestant apologetics website that polemicizes with many theological schools, is not specifically against JWs, and also polemicizes against Catholic theology in a particularly sharp tone. You asked me not to link to an ex-JW website, and I have not done so since.
@Anonymous
The Bible does not describe Jesus as a created being but portrays as the eternal Creator through whom all things were made (John 1:1-3). Jesus is described as preexistent and divine, actively involved in the creation of “all things.” If Jesus were a created being, this verse would contradict itself, as it explicitly states that “nothing came into being apart from Him.” A creature cannot be both the creator of "all things" and part of creation. Colossians 1:16-17 emphasize Jesus' preeminence as the Creator. The phrase “all things” includes every created entity, leaving no room for Jesus to be a created being. Moreover, the statement “He is before all things” signifies His eternal existence. The Father says of the Son, “In the beginning, Lord, you laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands.” (Hebrews 1:10) This confirms Jesus as the Creator, a role that cannot be fulfilled by a created being.
God’s role as Creator is uniquely His own and cannot be delegated to a creature, no matter how exalted: “I am the Lord, who made all things, who *alone* stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth *by myself*.” (Isaiah 44:24) God explicitly states that He “alone” is the Creator. If Jesus were a created being, this verse would be contradicted. Instead, it aligns perfectly with the New Testament's depiction of Jesus as the divine Creator. God challenges Job, asking, “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?” (Job 38:4-7) This passage underscores that creation is an act of divine power and wisdom, unique to God. No created being could share in this work without undermining God’s sovereignty. The idea that a creature could participate in creation diminishes God’s uniqueness and authority as the sole Creator.
The assertion that Jesus could be Michael the Archangel fails to account for biblical passages that elevate Jesus far above all angels, including Michael. Hebrews 1:4-5 explicitly state that Jesus is not an angel. It makes a clear distinction between Jesus as the Son and all angelic beings, including Michael. If Jesus were an angel, it would be inappropriate for angels to worship Him (cf. Hebrews 1:6). Worship is reserved for God alone, and this command demonstrates Jesus’ divine nature. This universal submission (cf. Philippians 2:9-11) to Jesus further distinguishes Him from created beings, including angels. It is an act of worship reserved for God.
The claim that Jesus is Michael the Archangel is not explicitly supported by Scripture. While Michael is described as an archangel and a protector of God’s people (Daniel 10:13, 12:1; Revelation 12:7), there is no biblical passage that directly equates him with Jesus. Michael’s actions are confined to fighting and protecting on behalf of God’s people, whereas Jesus’ role encompasses creation, redemption, and judgment. The phrase “with the voice of an archangel” (1 Thessalonians 4:16) refers to the commanding nature of Christ’s return, not His identity as an archangel. It is an expression of authority, much like a trumpet blast, and does not imply that Jesus is an archangel.
Let me quote you from one of the theology books I use:
Dogma: The creation of the world is an *exclusively* divine activity. According to the teaching of the Fourth Lateran Council, God is "the one principle of the universe, the creator of all things." It is denied by the Gnostics and all kinds of other dualists, who place a world-forming Ξ΄Ξ·ΞΌΞΉΞΏΟ ΟΞ³ΟΟ between the absolutely sovereign and holy God and the entirely evil matter, who, being a creature, then performs creative activity.
Proof. In the Old Testament, God declares: "I am the Lord, the maker of all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who established the earth, and there was no one with me" (Is 44:24; cf. Sir 1:8). The apostle John says about the Word: "All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made" (Jn 1:3; cf. Heb 3:4, Ap 4:11, Act 4:11, Rom 11:36). The Church Fathers first emphasized the Catholic truth against the Gnostics’ demiurge (Iren. II 1–3; IV 21, 1). Above all, however, their constant argument against the Arians was this: The Word (whom they call a creature) created the world, therefore He must be God; a creature cannot create (Athanas. Contra Arian. II 21 24; Nyssen. Eunom. II [M 45, 512c]; Cyril. Al. C. Iulian. II). Augustine vehemently opposed Philo’s interpretation that, at the beginning of Scripture (Gen 1:20–26), God called upon the angels to be His assisting companions in creation (August. Gen. ad litt. IX 15, 26–28; Civ. Dei XII 24; Trin. III 8, 13; cf. also Iren. I 22, 1; II 2, 4; IV 20, 1).
The mind left to itself naturally cannot prove that the creation of the world is the exclusive work of God. For the manner of divine free activity is, in itself, a matter of fact, which only God’s own revelation can resolve, not reasoning. However, beyond the dogma, we indeed argue—against Durandus, Biel, and Frohschammer († 1893: who held that parents create their child’s soul by secondary creation)—that no created being, actual or potential, can possess creative power, not even in a supernatural manner. Creative activity presupposes infinite power. For a) it brings something into being against nothingness, which is separated from nothing by an infinite distance; bridging this infinite distance requires infinite power. b) Creation is directed toward being itself, the most universal reality, without any determination or limitation arising from pre-existing material; therefore, it entails essentially unlimited power: one who can create something can create anything at will. However, infinite capability cannot be received by a finite creature as a determination of being, that is, as an accident: the capacity of the receiving subject sets a limit to the content of being it can receive; one cannot pour an infinite ocean into a finite vessel (Thom I 45, 5; Gent. II 20 21; Pot. 3, 4; Suarez Disp. metaph. 20, 2, 11).
Moreover, theologians, led by Thomas Aquinas, generally go further and assert—against Lombardus and Suarez (Lombard. Sent. IV dist. 5, 3; Suarez Disp. metaph. 20, 5)—that a creature cannot even be made an instrument of creation. For a) the task of an instrument is to prepare the material for receiving the principal cause’s activity. However, creation does not concern existing material; thus, there is no operational field (materia circa quam) for its functioning. More importantly, b) an instrumental cause must receive the motion originating from the principal cause and convey it to the material, shaping it according to the principal cause’s intention. However, a finite creature, as such, is incapable of receiving and carrying the infinite content of creative activity, just as a stone or a log is incapable of being the substantial bearer of spiritual activity, even supernaturally. Naturally, there is no obstacle for a creature to be an occasional cause (causa occasionalis) of a creation-like miracle; this, however, involves only moral cooperation.
@Edgar Foster
"There is no mention of a triune god." - This is a strawman argument, no one said that "echad" proves the Trinity, only that it does not rule it out. The Shema affirms monotheism but does not define the nature of God's unity. The Trinity arises not from a single verse but from the synthesis of the entire biblical witness. Progressive revelation in Scripture unveils the relational distinctions within the one God, harmonizing the Old and New Testaments.
The assertion that echad in the Shema unequivocally refers to an "absolute one" is an overgeneralization that disregards its flexibility and contextual dependence. Echad means "one," but its specific meaning depends on the context in which it is used. There are examples (Genesis 2:24, Ezekiel 37:17, Numbers 13:23) that show that echad can denote either a composite unity or an absolute singularity, depending on the context. The phrase in the Shema, "The LORD our God, the LORD is one (echad)," affirms Yahweh's unique identity and monotheism. However, it does not specify whether this oneness is absolute or allows for composite unity. In the Shema, echad functions as a theological affirmation of monotheism, opposing the polytheism of surrounding nations. It emphasizes that Yahweh is the one and only God for Israel, distinct from other gods. It does not explicitly define the internal nature of God's oneness.
The argument conflates echad with yachid and claims that echad in Deuteronomy 6:4 functions as an absolute singularity synonymous with yachid. Yachid (ΧָΧִΧΧ) typically means "only" or "unique" and often refers to something singular in exclusivity (e.g., Genesis 22:2, "your only son"). If the Shema intended to express absolute singularity in a manner excluding any plurality, yachid would have been a clearer choice. However, echad was used, leaving room for interpretations of composite unity depending on context. Echad’s usage in compound unity contexts (e.g., Genesis 2:24, Ezekiel 37:17) demonstrates its flexibility, making it an appropriate term for describing both God’s oneness and His revealed relational distinctions.
One problem: what surviving NT passage do we have that is original? none - the earliest are at least 50 years removed from the original writing.. plenty of time for the fragments to be destroyed with the divine name - especially in the culture where they burned any "heretical" writings (or what they deemed so) - What original writings of Arius do we have? oh wait... none - Just one example that manuscripts can disappear without a trace.
It is not only The JW's who think the Divine name was in the original either, or does that not suit your rhetoric? David Trobish for one, Shaw and others, ALL have agreed that it was HIGHLY likely it was in the original NT.. Trobish even addresses your argument in a roundabout way.
Why didn't it destroy them? because if they did - they wouldn't be able to use the statements either would they? they destroy them, they cant use them to "prove" a trinity
& side note: as I have demonstrated before if they had used the divine name - It would have broken the trinity doctrine centuries ago.
You have one fatal flaw in your rhetoric.. assuming one party is right, because a "council" decided so.
"that is not an "anti-JW website", but a fundamentalist Protestant apologetics website" - he means ANY site that is ANTI or nasty towards Jehovahs Witnesses....
surely you could work that out... this would include Protestants if it was CARM - that is very anti JW and I beelive run by protestants who arent very christian-like
"there is no biblical passage that directly equates him with Jesus. " - you mean just one passge? I can use trinitarian rhetoric here: Its revealed not just in one passage but in multiple places throughout the NT...
" God explicitly states that He “alone” is the Creator. If Jesus were a created being, this verse would be contradicted. " - except as we have discussed and Tetullian agrees with me on - this is only in reference to false Gods and God - nothing else is in the context...
and even Tetulian interprets God the Father saying this..
"Divine natures" dont talk Ninc - and there is no hint of personification
" but portrays as the eternal Creator through whom all things were made (John 1:1-3)." - this is YOUR reasoning, not what the text says..
justin says"Begotten before all creatures"
Never in this statements context does he say anything about "eternal" or call Christ "Creator"
in one passage Ninc where does it say Christ is "eternal" - before his ressurection? Just one
God the Father is called "creator"
Where is christ explciitly called "creator"
he is NOT because of the preposistion "dia" which is used of Christ and the father, but the Father has "ek" aswell as "dia"
"Hebrews 1:4-5 explicitly state that Jesus is not an angel." - When was this said to him Ninc? When?
you omit alot here to make this work..
is being an ANgel a nature or a functional role?n
"If Jesus were an angel, it would be inappropriate for angels to worship Him (cf. Hebrews 1:6)...This universal submission (cf. Philippians 2:9-11) to Jesus further distinguishes Him from created beings"
Whats the range proskenyo has Ninc? it doesnt always mean full worship in the NT
"to the glory of God the father" btw
"The Father says of the Son, “In the beginning, Lord, you laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands.” (Hebrews 1:10) This confirms Jesus as the Creator, a role that cannot be fulfilled by a created being." - yes the one active verb in the bible that says this, which is a quotation... reapplied..
"The phrase “all things” includes every created entity, leaving no room for Jesus to be a created being." - except panta isnt always absolute is it?
(Where are the Herbs listed in Luke called Herbs in the bible Ninc?)
If someone can fact check me if I am incorrect and provide an actaul credible source as too why: https://pasteboard.co/56m2dHb75L0L.jpg
P46 also has theos written in nomina sacra - used of Satan - quite an early manuscript
( not that I deem your representation of the Jehovah’s witnesses as particularly honest either ( it’s not))
1 thes 4:16 - why is Jesus coming with an authority lower than God himself then?
Biblical citation please for this.
Seems odd for the “God-man” who is the all powerful second person of the trinity to come with the authority of only a mere archangel…
( it is christs voice btw - unless you want to argue with 3 different dictionaries and multiple Greek experts- in which cases I’m sure they would love to see your academic paper with relevant citations and no theological garbage)
See Lesriv Spencer’s papers for actual peer-reviewed papers ( without the theological garbage), someone who is not afraid to stand up to big names like Bowman ( Bowman even acknowledges him in a bibliography)
https://www.google.com/search?q=lesriv+spencer&rlz=1CDGOYI_enNZ896NZ913&oq=lesriv+spencer&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIKCAEQABgKGBYYHjIHCAIQIRigATIHCAMQIRigAdIBCTExNTY5ajBqN6gCGbACAeIDBBgCIF8&hl=en-GB&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8#ip=1
This does not give you the right to go and spam his email btw..
You argue that because no original New Testament manuscripts exist, there’s "plenty of time" for the divine name to have been erased without a trace. However, while the originals are lost, we have an abundance of early manuscripts (over 5,800 Greek manuscripts, and many more in other languages) that show remarkable consistency. Textual criticism reveals no evidence of a systematic erasure of “Jehovah” or the Tetragrammaton. If such an alteration had occurred, we would expect to find inconsistencies between manuscripts in different geographical regions, yet none point to such a revision. Textual critics like Bart Ehrman (no friend of orthodox Christianity) affirm that scribes typically copied what they received rather than altering texts wholesale. If the divine name had been removed, there would be evidence of a transition period with manuscripts showing partial usage of the Tetragrammaton alongside substitutes like "Kyrios" (Lord). No such transitional evidence exists. While some fragments of the Septuagint (e.g., 4Q120) retain the Tetragrammaton, the New Testament exclusively uses "Kyrios" (Lord) or "Theos" (God) in contexts quoting the Old Testament. This suggests that the New Testament authors followed the established Jewish convention of substituting “Adonai” or "Kyrios" for YHWH, respecting their audience’s traditions and avoiding unnecessary controversy.
The claim that heretical writings were burned, including potential manuscripts containing the Tetragrammaton, fails on several grounds. While it is true that the Church condemned and burned certain heretical writings, this practice occurred much later (e.g., after the 4th century) and cannot account for alleged alterations in the 1st century. The process of canonization did not involve rewriting texts but selecting from writings already widely accepted by the Christian community. Despite claims of systematic destruction, we still have many writings of "heretical" groups like the Gnostics (e.g., The Gospel of Thomas, The Gospel of Judas). If the Church were so effective at erasing evidence, why do these writings survive while supposedly erasing every trace of the Tetragrammaton in the New Testament? The writings of figures like Arius are scarce because they were suppressed by his opponents during later doctrinal disputes. However, this situation is entirely different from the 1st-century context. No evidence supports the idea that a vast conspiracy erased "Jehovah" from all New Testament manuscripts, particularly when early Christianity had no centralized authority capable of such an effort.
You cite scholars like David Trobish and George Howard to suggest that non-JWs also believe the divine name was in the original New Testament. While a few scholars have hypothesized that the Tetragrammaton may have appeared in the New Testament, this view remains speculative and unsupported by manuscript evidence. The majority of textual critics, including those who are not Trinitarian, reject this idea. George Howard’s argument (1977) that the Tetragrammaton appeared in the New Testament but was replaced with “Kyrios” relies on assumptions rather than evidence. His theory has not gained widespread acceptance among scholars and is contradicted by the consistent use of “Kyrios” in all extant New Testament manuscripts. Claiming “high likelihood” is not the same as proving the Tetragrammaton’s presence. Scholarly hypotheses are only as strong as the evidence supporting them, and the manuscript tradition does not substantiate these claims.
The argument that the Church preserved “subordinationist” statements in the writings of the Church Fathers while allegedly erasing the Tetragrammaton is contradictory. If the Church were capable of erasing "Jehovah" from the New Testament manuscripts and destroying all evidence, why would it leave writings from Church Fathers that could be interpreted as supporting subordinationism? Such inconsistency undermines the claim of a systematic conspiracy. Many Church Fathers, like Origen and Justin Martyr, made statements reflecting a *functional* subordination of the Son to the Father, but not an ontological inequality. Their writings reflect attempts to articulate the relationship between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit prior to the formalization of Trinitarian doctrine.
The argument that using the Tetragrammaton would have "broken the Trinity doctrine" centuries ago misunderstands both the Trinity and the nature of God’s name. The doctrine of the Trinity is based on the revealed relationship between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, not on the use of the term "Kyrios." Early Christians identified Jesus as divine (e.g., John 1:1, Philippians 2:6-11) long before the term "Trinity" was formalized. Even if the Tetragrammaton appeared in the New Testament, it would not contradict the Trinity. The divine name applies to the one God, whose unity includes the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The use of “Jehovah” or “YHWH” would simply affirm this shared divine identity.
You dismiss councils as a basis for truth, implying that orthodoxy is merely the result of a human decision. However early ecumenical councils (e.g., Nicaea, Chalcedon) articulated beliefs already widely held by the majority of Christians. These councils did not “invent” doctrines but clarified them in response to heresies. The Trinitarian understanding of God is not based solely on councils but on the consistent witness of Scripture, the apostles’ teachings, and the early Christian community. The absence of “Jehovah” in the New Testament aligns with this broader tradition.
Your critique of my statement misrepresents my argument. My claim is that there is no explicit biblical passage that equates Jesus with Michael the Archangel. The "Trinitarian rhetoric" you mention refers to the cumulative testimony of Scripture regarding the Trinity, not a single isolated passage. This is different from the claim that Jesus is Michael, which lacks explicit or cumulative biblical support. The New Testament consistently distinguishes Jesus from angels. "For to which of the angels did God ever say, 'You are my Son; today I have begotten you'?” "and Let all God’s angels worship Him." (Hebrews 1:5-6) According to Philippians 2:9-11 Jesus is exalted above all creation, including angels, and receives universal worship. The Bible never attributes to Michael the unique roles of Creator (John 1:3), Redeemer (Hebrews 9:12), and Judge (John 5:22) that are attributed to Jesus. These roles belong solely to Jesus, further disqualifying Michael from being equated with Him. You question the timing of this declaration. Hebrews 1:4-5 emphasizes that Jesus’ superiority to angels is inherent to His identity as the Son of God, not a status He acquired after the resurrection. The argument that being an angel is a "functional role" contradicts the text. The Son is worshiped by angels (Hebrews 1:6), something no angel, regardless of role, could receive.
"God explicitly states that He 'alone' is the Creator." - You argue that this applies only to false gods and not to Christ. However, Isaiah 44:24 explicitly states: "I am the Lord, who made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself." This statement is universal, with no contextual limitation to false gods. The exclusivity of God as Creator leaves no room for another entity to share in this act unless they are also God. Jesus is described as the Creator in John 1:3, Colossians 1:16, and Hebrews 1:10. Your appeal to Tertullian does not support your argument. Tertullian explicitly affirmed that Jesus is begotten of the Father and participated in creation:
"Divine natures don't talk." - This is a strawman. When Scripture attributes actions or speech to God, it does so to communicate divine truths to human understanding. The Father, Son, and Spirit interact within the Godhead, as revealed in passages like John 17:1-5, where Jesus speaks to the Father.
Justin Martyr’s statement, "Begotten before all creatures," refers to the eternal generation of the Son, a concept rooted in Scripture (Micah 5:2, John 1:1, Hebrews 13:8). Eternal generation does not imply that Jesus is created. Instead, it expresses His unique relationship to the Father. The Nicene Creed clarified this by affirming that the Son is "begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father."
"Christ is not explicitly called 'Creator.'" - This claim is incorrect. Jesus is explicitly called the Creator:
• John 1:3: "All things were made through Him."
• Colossians 1:16: "For by Him all things were created."
• Hebrews 1:10: "You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth."
The preposition "dia" (through) in John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16 does not diminish Christ’s role as Creator. Instead, it highlights His instrumental agency in creation, consistent with the unity of the Father and Son in divine works. The Father's role as the ultimate source ("ek") does not exclude the Son as the Creator.
"Reapplied quotations and 'panta' not being absolute." - The quotation in Hebrews 1:10 applies Psalm 102 to Christ, affirming His role as Creator. Far from being arbitrary, the inspired writer reinterprets the Psalm to reveal Christ's divine identity. Psalm 102:25-27 unequivocally refers to Yahweh as the eternal Creator who laid the foundations of the earth and the heavens. By applying this passage to Jesus, Hebrews 1:10-12 directly attributes to Him the same divine role and nature. This is not a mere “reapplication” but a declaration that Jesus shares in Yahweh's divine identity. The inspired author of Hebrews applies Psalm 102 directly to Jesus, indicating that the early Church understood Jesus to fully share Yahweh's identity. The Father Himself addresses the Son as “Lord” (ΞΊΟΟΞΉΞΏΟ), a term used in the Septuagint (LXX) as a substitute for Yahweh. If the Son is not Yahweh, then the Psalm cannot be legitimately applied to Him without distorting its meaning. Hebrews 1:10 explicitly states that the Son is the Creator of the heavens and the earth, roles uniquely attributed to Yahweh throughout the Old Testament:
• Isaiah 44:24: Yahweh declares, "I am the LORD who made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself."
• Job 9:8: "He alone stretches out the heavens."
If Jesus is not Yahweh, how can Hebrews 1:10 attribute the creation of the heavens and the earth to Him? The text affirms Jesus as the Creator in the fullest sense, which means He cannot be a created being. Only Yahweh is the uncreated Creator. The claim that Hebrews 1:10-12 merely “reapplies” Psalm 102 is untenable. The New Testament does not "reapply Old Testament texts in ways that contradict their original meaning. Psalm 102 celebrates Yahweh’s role as Creator, which Hebrews attributes to Jesus. This is not a reinterpretation but a recognition of Jesus’ divine identity. The author of Hebrews explicitly uses Psalm 102 to emphasize the Son’s superiority to angels and His divine nature. Any interpretation that diminishes Jesus' deity undermines the author’s theological argument.
As for "panta" ("all things"), while its meaning can vary based on context, in passages like John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16, it is comprehensive. The inclusion of "things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible" eliminates any limitation on its scope. “Panta” is always literally “all things”, and only if the context is already clear, the word "other" can sometimes be omitted from "all things" in Greek. For example, everyone else also gave to the treasury, and so did the poor widow. Those who were crushed by the tower in Siloam were also Galileans, as were those to whom Jesus compared them. Peter was an apostle, and so were the other apostles.
"Worship and 'proskenyo' don’t always mean full worship." - While it is true that "proskenyo" *can* mean varying degrees of reverence, the context in Hebrews 1:6 and Philippians 2:9-11 demands divine worship. Angels are commanded to worship the Son, and every knee bows to Jesus "to the glory of God the Father," indicating divine honor.
The assertion that 1 Thessalonians 4:16 implies Jesus’ authority is "lower" than God’s because He comes with the voice of an archangel misunderstands the nature of the text and the context of Jesus’ divine authority. The phrase “with the voice of the archangel” does not imply that Jesus possesses the status of an archangel or acts with authority lower than God. Rather, it reflects the commanding, authoritative nature of His call at His second coming. In biblical language, the "voice" signifies the manner or quality of the command, not the identity or rank of the speaker. Jesus Himself says, "The hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear His voice and come out." (John 5:28-29) It is clearly Jesus’ voice that raises the dead, and this is an act of divine power. If Jesus were merely an archangel, He would lack the divine authority to command the dead to rise. The imagery of trumpets and commanding voices (cf. Revelation 1:10 and 4:1) frequently indicates divine authority or eschatological action, not the identity of the speaker. The "voice of the archangel" here signifies the majesty and authority with which Jesus will return, akin to a royal herald announcing the coming of the King. The comparison is illustrative, not ontological.
While some argue that the phrase "with the voice of the archangel" indicates that Jesus is an archangel, this interpretation fails to consider the grammar. The text does not say "the Lord Himself, the archangel," but rather describes the manner of His return. It is the Lord’s voice that carries the authority and grandeur associated with an archangel’s commanding voice, not a statement of Jesus’ identity as an archangel.
Far from implying a lower status, the surrounding biblical texts emphasize Jesus’ supreme authority as divine. "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me." (Matthew 28:18) Hence Jesus’ authority encompasses all realms, making Him superior to all created beings, including angels. His use of a commanding voice with the qualities of an archangel reflects His dominion over angelic beings, not equality with them. According to Philippians 2:9-11: Jesus is "exalted to the highest place" and "every knee will bow" to Him. Jesus is worshipped universally, a status reserved only for God. Archangels, being created beings, do not receive worship. Hebrews 1:6 directly contradicts the idea that Jesus is an archangel, as angels, including archangels, worship Jesus. The notion that Jesus would return with a voice "lower than God Himself" misrepresents the text. The voice of the archangel in 1 Thessalonians 4:16 highlights the manner of His return (majestic and commanding), not a demotion of His divine status.
Your objection presumes that if Jesus is truly the "second person of the Trinity," He would act independently of the Father’s will or authority. However, the Bible consistently teaches that Jesus works in perfect unity with the Father. “The Son can do nothing by Himself; He can only do what He sees His Father doing.”(John 5:19) This is not a denial of Jesus’ divinity but a reflection of the harmonious relationship within the Trinity, because the Son derives His power from the Father, of Whom He receives His nature. Hence, Hilary says, "The unity of the divine nature implies that the Son so acts of Himself [per se], that He does not act by Himself [a se]." Jesus’ mission always aligns with the Father’s will, demonstrating their shared authority (cf. John 14:9-11)
So 1 Thessalonians 4:16 does not imply that Jesus has an authority lower than God’s or that He is merely an archangel. The phrase "with the voice of an archangel" reflects the commanding and majestic nature of His return, not a limitation of His divine authority. Scripture consistently portrays Jesus as the eternal, divine Son of God, the Creator, and the One who is worshipped by angels, affirming His superiority over all created beings, including archangels like Michael. Any interpretation that reduces Jesus to a created being or an archangel fails to align with the full biblical testimony.
(1) Functional subjection does not necessitate ontological inferiority (Luke 2:51; Ephesians 5:24).
Credo quia absurdum? Is the Trinity unreasonable?
https://justpaste.it/hkt5q
FR - your citations prove absolutely nothing..
Indeed, functional subjection, as described in passages like Luke 2:51 and Ephesians 5:24, does not imply ontological inferiority because subjection pertains to roles and relationships rather than to the intrinsic nature or essence of a person. In Luke 2:51 Jesus is described as being "subject" to His earthly parents, Mary and Joseph, even though He is divine (John 1:1-3; Colossians 2:9). His voluntary submission to them reflects His humility and the role He undertook in the incarnation, not an indication of His inferiority in being or essence. In Ephesians 5:24 Paul instructs wives to submit to their husbands "as the Church submits to Christ." This submission is rooted in functional roles within the marital relationship, mirroring Christ's relationship with the Church, without implying that wives are ontologically inferior to their husbands. Both are created equally in the image of God (Genesis 1:27) and share the same dignity and worth.
This distinction is also essential in Trinitarian theology. The Son's subjection to the Father, as seen in passages like 1 Corinthians 15:28, pertains to His role within the economy of salvation, not to His divine nature. The Nicene Creed affirms that the Son is "God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God," emphasizing ontological equality despite the functional distinction within the Trinity.
Functional subjection highlights the harmony of order and unity in relationships, whether within the family, Church, or the Godhead. It reinforces that submission can coexist with equality, emphasizing mutual respect and the fulfillment of specific roles without compromising intrinsic worth. Thus, functional subjection is a relational and situational dynamic that does not diminish ontological equality or inherent dignity.
“You cite scholars like :.., George Howard”
Please quote where I cited George Howard… please
Didn’t even spring to mind but thanks I’ll add another to my list…
Your posts get longer as you get more desperate iv noticed however if I don’t engage with you, your very quick to disappear from the comments… almost like you can only spout garbage and not actually do scholarship.
“Jesus is explicitly called the Creator:” - that is the action the father didn’t through Christ
I don’t see the Greek word for “creator” ever applied to Christ
By this I can say Christ is the archangel because both raise the dead..
“The "Trinitarian rhetoric" you mention refers to the cumulative testimony of Scripture regarding the Trinity, not a single isolated passage” - yep I agree - I’m using the same method to reach my conclusion
Jesus is Micheal - 2 different names for the same person
Shall we look at ancient texts that associate them as the same person?
There is more than Thess
And you didn’t answer my question
“This statement is universal, with no contextual limitation to false gods.” - nope nothing at all…. Except the entire context of the statement and last 3 chapters of Isaiah… and a church father …
The natures don’t talk argument is not a straw man - it comes down to who made this statement? The entire head? So tetullian is wrong when he says the father made the statement?
I think it’s more likely you are wrong… else I would love to see you spear on academia to be peer reviewed ( I say this because I know you wouldn’t get far in the scholarly community)
I am a Trinitarian. The passages I cited demonstrate that just because Jesus submits to the Father does not necessitate Jesus is ontologically inferior to the Father.
Then why submit to the father?
And the 2 examples cited do not even use the word in question.
@Anonymous
You claim, “Please quote where I cited George Howard,” suggesting you didn’t refer to him. My mention of Howard was an illustrative example of scholars who hypothesize about the Tetragrammaton’s presence in the New Testament. It wasn’t a direct claim that you literally cited him but a response to the broader argument often made by proponents of the view that the Tetragrammaton was systematically removed from early Christian texts. If you did not explicitly cite Howard, my point still stands against the general claim, which remains unsupported by manuscript evidence.
You argue that Jesus is not explicitly called "Creator" because the Greek term for "creator" (ktistΔs) is not applied to Him. The absence of a specific term does not negate the concept when the function and role are repeatedly affirmed in Scripture. John 1:3 unequivocally identifies Jesus as the agent of creation, in Colossians 1:16 the verb ektisthΔ (created) directly attributes creation to Christ, and in Hebrews 1:10 the Father addresses the Son: "You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of Your hands," quoting Psalm 102, which attributes creation to Yahweh. The absence of the noun ktistΔs does not diminish the repeated assertion that Christ created all things. Denying this would require ignoring or reinterpreting these passages, which explicitly affirm Christ’s creative role.
You equate Christ with Michael the Archangel, asserting that both raise the dead and therefore must be the same. This is a category error. While both Christ and Michael participate in eschatological events, their roles are distinct. Michael is never described as Creator, Redeemer, or Judge. These roles are uniquely attributed to Christ in Scripture: Creator (John 1:3, Colossians 1:16, Hebrews 1:109, Redeemer: Hebrews 9:12, 1 Peter 1:18-19), and Judge (John 5:22, Acts 17:31). Hebrews 1:4-6 explicitly distinguishes Christ from all the angels, angels worship Christ, and worship is reserved for God alone (Revelation 22:8-9). Your argument fails to address these clear distinctions. Associating Christ with Michael conflates roles and attributes that Scripture keeps separate.
You suggest using cumulative testimony to conclude that Jesus is Michael. However, no such cumulative testimony exists in Scripture. The association between Jesus and Michael arises from speculative interpretations rather than clear biblical teaching. In contrast, the cumulative testimony for Christ’s deity is robust (John 1:1, 18; Colossians 1:16-17, Philippians 2:6-11, Hebrews 1:10). These passages collectively affirm Christ’s deity, far surpassing the scant and speculative connections between Jesus and Michael.
@Anonymous
You argue that Isaiah’s declarations of God as Creator apply only to false gods. However, Isaiah 44:24 explicitly states: "I am the LORD, who made all things, who *alone* stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth *by myself*." This statement leaves no room for another Creator, or semi-creator demiurge, unless they are also God. John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16 affirm that Christ created "all things," making Him one with Yahweh, the Creator. Denying this would contradict Isaiah’s assertion of Yahweh’s exclusive role as Creator.
You claim the statement about the Father speaking in Psalm 102 contradicts Trinitarian theology. However Trinitarian theology distinguishes between the persons of the Godhead, not the natures. The Father, Son, and Spirit are distinct persons who share one divine essence. In Hebrews 1:10-12, the Father addresses the Son as the Creator, affirming the Son’s divine identity. This dialogue does not undermine the unity of the Godhead but demonstrates the relational distinctions within it. Tertullian’s writings support this distinction, emphasizing the unity of substance between the Father and Son while affirming their personal distinctions. Your argument misrepresents both Tertullian and the biblical text.
You challenge the validity of Trinitarian arguments, suggesting they would not be accepted in the scholarly community. On the contrary, the Trinity has been rigorously defended by theologians and biblical scholars for centuries. Works like Richard Bauckham’s Jesus and the God of Israel and Larry Hurtado’s Lord Jesus Christ provide robust exegetical and historical support for the deity of Christ. The consensus among biblical scholars, both Trinitarian and otherwise, is that the New Testament authors affirm Christ’s divine status. Your appeal to hypothetical academic rejection lacks substance and fails to address the extensive scholarship supporting Trinitarian theology.
Because He came as a servant, and a servant must submit.
Interestingly in scripture (since that is the heading)
Jesus is given great honorific titles including son of God Lord or lords and King of kings, but never God of gods.
At Deut. 10:17 we read of Jehovah, thats right the tetragrammaton is here in this verse, he is Called God of gods.
So as Paul says at 1 Cor. 8:5, there are those so-called gods Jehovah is called God, Jesus is called God.
Paul clearify the statement even though Jesus the son is called God, verse 6 says to us one God the Father out of whom all things (including Jesus) are.
Yes Jesus is called God and rightly so, he is like Moses of old called God. Exodus 7:1. And it is the God of gods (Jehovah) who says so.
Jesus is never called God of gods in scripture, only Jehovah is. Jesus is Lord of lords and King of kings, but never referred to as God of gods, anywhere in scripture.
@Philip Fletcher
You argue that Jesus is called "Lord of lords" and "King of kings" but never "God of gods," implying that this limits His divinity compared to Jehovah. The title "God of gods" in Deuteronomy 10:17 emphasizes Jehovah's supremacy over false gods and idols worshiped by pagan nations. It reflects the monotheistic declaration that Jehovah is the true God above all others, whether real or imagined. The titles "Lord of lords" and "King of kings" given to Jesus in Revelation 19:16 and elsewhere have similar implications, showing His supreme authority over all rulers and powers. These titles directly echo Old Testament language used for Jehovah (e.g., Psalm 136:3, where Jehovah is called "Lord of lords"). If "Lord of lords" and "King of kings" indicate Jesus' supreme authority, there’s no biblical reason to assert that being called "God of gods" would add anything more to His divine identity. The lack of this specific phrase does not negate His full deity.
You cite 1 Corinthians 8:5-6 to argue that Paul distinguishes between "one God, the Father" and Jesus as merely "Lord," thus excluding Jesus from deity. Paul is not denying Jesus' deity but emphasizing unity within the Godhead. He identifies the Father as the "source" (Greek: ex hou) and the Son as the "agent" (Greek: di' hou) of all creation. This distinction reflects roles within the Trinity, not inequality in nature. The term "Lord" (Kyrios) used for Jesus in this context is the Greek equivalent of Yahweh (Jehovah) in the Septuagint (LXX), the Greek translation of the Old Testament widely used in Paul's time. By calling Jesus "Kyrios," Paul ascribes to Him the divine title reserved for Yahweh. The parallel structure of 1 Corinthians 8:6 ("one God, the Father" and "one Lord, Jesus Christ") affirms the divine unity and cooperation between the Father and the Son. This does not exclude Jesus from being God but shows the relational roles within the Godhead.
You argue that Jesus is "called God" like Moses was in Exodus 7:1, but this analogy is flawed for several reasons. In Exodus 7:1 the phrase "like God" clearly denotes a representative role, not ontological divinity. Moses was not God by nature; he acted as God’s agent before Pharaoh. By contrast, when Jesus is actually called "God" (e.g., John 1:1, John 20:28, Hebrews 1:8), the context and language affirm His intrinsic divinity, not a mere representative role. The Greek construction of John 1:1 (using theos without an article) indicates the Word's essence is fully divine. In Hebrews 1:8 the Father addresses the Son as "God" using Old Testament language for Yahweh (Psalm 45:6-7). In John 20:28 Thomas directly calls Jesus "My Lord and my God" (Greek: ho theos mou), using the definite article to affirm Jesus as the one true God. Nowhere does the Bible say Jesus is only "like God" as Moses was. Instead, it repeatedly affirms His eternal deity.
@Philip Fletcher
You claim that Jesus' absence from the title "God of gods" implies He is inferior to the Father. Titles like "God of gods," "Lord of lords," and "King of kings" emphasize supreme authority. Jesus being called "Lord of lords" (Revelation 19:16) and "the exact representation of God's being" (Hebrews 1:3) demonstrates that He shares the Father's divine essence and authority. The Bible emphasizes Jesus' unique role within the Godhead as the eternal Son, co-equal with the Father, but manifesting in different ways for the purpose of salvation. Titles used for the Father and the Son often reflect their relational roles, not differences in divine essence.
The doctrine of the Trinity does not teach three gods but one God in three persons. The relational distinctions between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not divisions of essence but expressions of their unified work in creation, redemption, and sanctification. Deuteronomy 6:4 ("The Lord our God, the Lord is one") affirms monotheism, which the Trinity does not contradict. Instead, the Trinity explains the complexity of God’s unity. Jesus explicitly claims unity with the Father: "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30). The Greek word hen (one) here refers to unity of essence, not merely agreement.
Your argument implies that Jesus is a created being ("out of whom all things [including Jesus] are"). This is refuted by multiple biblical passages (John 1:3, Colossians 1:16-17). The phrase "firstborn" (e.g., Colossians 1:15) does not mean Jesus was created. In biblical usage, "firstborn" often denotes preeminence or rank (e.g., Psalm 89:27). The Son does indeed originate from the Father, but not through creation, but through generation (“born”, “begotten”).
Funnily enough we have “one” lord in a certain sense that Ninc should be able to work out..
Lord “ is synonyms with messiah
The Father is our “lord” in the sense of our lawgiver and creator
Christ is our “lord” in the sense all authority was given to him ( judging etc) and he is the lamb of God.
It emphasizes over all including Jesus, your arguement is not based on scripture therefore it is wrong and not accepted scripture only not your theological bias from the 4th century.
Yes he has the divine put in him. The Father does not have it put in him, he is the source out of whom all things are all things includes Jesus he came out of the father, before that he did not exist. He was first after that everything else went thru Jesus. No matter how you argue you have to change the meaning/phrasing of words to fit what you believe, I do not have to change any meaning/phrasing to fit what I believe. Paul knew nothing about what you say. The Jews believe Jehovah is the God of gods. And thats real gods or imagine gods. The truth is there are 2 accepted Gods because Jehovah says so.
As Jesus said the one true God Jehovah and the second God Jesus. There were 2 Gods in Moses day and there are 2 Gods today. Only because Jehovah says so. The bible never calls Jesus the eternal son. The words eternal son come from the apostate catholic faith. I and the father are one, they are united true. A Husband and his wife are to be one as well. Jesus is the exact representation of the father. Just as an image of me in the mirror is the exact representation of me. Without me the image is nothing but I continue without being in the mirror. Born as with labor pains but no scripture says he existed before he was born. Yes the son has an origin, the father does not. The son worship the father when he calls him my God. The father calls no one my God. Because he is the God Yes Jehovah is the God of gods, Jesus is never called the God nor the God of gods because he is not. He is not in the essence, the attributes of God are put in him. That is another way it has been twisted by saying he is in it. He is not.
@Anonymous
The argument suggests that “Lord” merely denotes Jesus’ messianic role or delegated authority, distinct from God’s unique identity. This interpretation, however, fails to account for the theological and linguistic context of Paul’s statement. In 1 Corinthians 8:6 Paul intentionally echoes the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4): “Hear, O Israel: The LORD (YHWH) our God, the LORD (YHWH) is one.” In doing so, Paul identifies Jesus as the “Lord” (Kyrios), the divine title for Yahweh in the Septuagint (LXX). This is not a mere title of messianic honor but a declaration of Christ’s divine identity and unity with the Father.
The phrase "one God, the Father" and "one Lord, Jesus Christ" are not mutually exclusive but complementary. As Thomas Aquinas explains in Summa Theologiae (I, q. 31, a. 3 - https://t.ly/wop98 ), such exclusive statements must be read SYNCATEGOREMATICALLY—not excluding other persons of the Trinity, but rather excluding other natures or deities outside the Godhead. Yahweh is both "the only God" and "the only Lord." Paul’s attribution of “God” to the Father and “Lord” to Jesus reflects a division of roles, not essence, within the Trinity, while maintaining monotheism. It does not exclude the Son from deity.
The claim that “Lord” simply means “messiah” or “judge” disregards the biblical usage of Kyrios in contexts affirming divine authority. In Philippians 2:10-11 Paul directly references Isaiah 45:23, where Yahweh proclaims, "To me every knee shall bow." Paul applies this divine prerogative to Jesus, identifying him as YHWH. This goes beyond mere messianic authority—it attributes divine worship and status to Jesus. In Romans 10:9-13 Paul again quotes the Old Testament (Joel 2:32), where the name invoked for salvation is YHWH. Here, Paul explicitly applies this to Jesus, affirming his deity.
The assertion that Jesus’ lordship stems solely from delegated authority (e.g., "all authority has been given to him") misrepresents the nature of his divine identity. In Matthew 28:18-20 when Jesus says, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me,” this does not imply he lacks inherent authority. In the incarnation, the Son voluntarily submitted to the Father’s will (Philippians 2:6-8), but his authority is rooted in his eternal divine nature (John 17:5). Hebrews 1:3 shows that Christ’s authority is not merely conferred but intrinsic, as he shares in the Father’s divine essence.
@Philip Fletcher
My argument is entirely rooted in Scripture, as shown in references such as John 1:1-3, Colossians 1:15-17, and Hebrews 1:3. These passages affirm Christ's pre-existence, role in creation, and divine nature. The development of Trinitarian terminology in the 4th century did not invent new doctrines but clarified the consistent witness of Scripture against heresies like Arianism. The Trinity reflects what is already taught in the Bible, not a later "bias." The doctrine of the Trinity is derived from Scripture, not merely from later theological developments. The early Church Fathers articulated what they saw clearly in the Bible: that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit share one divine essence (John 1:1, Colossians 2:9, Matthew 28:19). Far from being an invention of the 4th century, the Trinity reflects these scriptural truths. The Nicene Creed formalized this understanding but did not create it.
The Bible does not teach that Jesus was "put into divinity" or that He came into existence at some point. In John 1:1-3 the Word (Jesus) is described as existing "in the beginning" with God and as God. The text uses the Greek verb "Δn" ("was") to indicate continuous, eternal existence, not a temporal beginning. If Jesus "did not exist" before being "put" in existence, He could not be the Creator of "all things," as affirmed in Colossians 1:16-17, which explicitly states, "all things were created through Him and for Him." The Creator of all things cannot Himself be a created being. The notion of Jesus "coming out of the Father" in a temporal sense is a misunderstanding of the term monogenΔs ("only-begotten"), which refers to the unique and eternal relationship between the Son and the Father, not temporal origin. The Son's generation is eternal and reflects the Father-Son relationship within the Trinity, not creation. So the Scripture affirms Jesus' eternal pre-existence and divine nature (John 1:1-3, Micah 5:2, Hebrews 1:2).
Paul's writings explicitly affirm Jesus' deity and pre-existence (Philippians 2:6-7, Colossians 1:16-17). The Bible repeatedly emphasizes monotheism (Deuteronomy 6:4, Isaiah 45:5), to claim "two accepted Gods" contradicts Scripture's consistent affirmation of one God. The Bible affirms monotheism, and while terms like "god" may be applied metaphorically to others (e.g., angels, judges), this does not mean they share God's divine essence. Only Yahweh is truly God (Isaiah 43:10). Yet, Jesus is identified as sharing the divine name and attributes of Yahweh. The concept of a "second God" is not biblical; Scripture consistently affirms monotheism while revealing the relational distinctions within the Godhead, so the Trinity teaches one God in three persons, not multiple gods.
While the exact phrase "eternal Son" is not explicitly in the Bible, the concept is present (John 1:18, Hebrews 13:8). The term "eternal Son" summarizes these biblical truths; it is not an unbiblical invention. Hebrews 1:3 does not reduce Jesus to "a mere reflection”. Instead, it affirms His shared divine essence with the Father. The Greek word "character" used here refers to a stamp or impression, indicating that Jesus fully shares the Father's nature. The Bible explicitly teaches that Jesus existed before His earthly birth (John 8:58, John 17:5). Jesus' earthly prayers and submission to the Father reflect His role in the incarnation, not a denial of His deity. Philippians 2:6-8 explains that Jesus, "being in very nature God," humbled Himself to take on human nature. This submission is functional, not ontological. Within the Trinity, the Son and the Father are equal in essence but distinct in their roles. Jesus is explicitly called God in multiple passages (John 20:28, Titus 2:13, Hebrews 1:8).
most of your response is made up, I will respond to the bits that have actaul backing in one way or another.
" In 1 Corinthians 8:6 Paul intentionally echoes the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4)" - evidence Paul echoed the Shema? scholarly citation - as I have said before I do not care for your opinions, I care for actual scholarship
" In Philippians 2:10-11 Paul directly references Isaiah 45:23, where Yahweh proclaims, "To me every knee shall bow." " - "in Phil 2 it adds "to the glory of God the Father" showing that kneeling to Christ is too the glory of someone else - But kneeling to the Father in Isa 45 (Who church fathers interpret this to be in reference) is to the glory of no one else..
"In Romans 10:9-13 Paul again quotes the Old Testament (Joel 2:32), where the name invoked for salvation is YHWH." - as usual you mislead and don't mention this is inconclusive... and could be reapplied in a different sense - since the messiah didn't yet exist when the original statement was made.
"Hebrews 1:3 shows that Christ’s authority is not merely conferred but intrinsic, as he shares in the Father’s divine essence" - that scripture says nothing of the sort... this is twisting scripture to suit your theological agenda.
again you say it isn't relevant but someone, But Lesriv spencer, a nobody in the scholarly community wrote articles for peer review because he believed the Witnesses were correct... I request you write an academic paper and submit it for peer review..
I guarantee you will be laughed out of the academic world, because you do what the witnesses do in some cases what you call the ""dung beetle" method - which I am going to reapply to you..
"whatever happened in the process of deification
later on. at the time of the early church, when these notions were coming
to the surface, there also existed similar ideas about Moses as '"half-God,
half-man." (Deuteronomy Rahbah 11 :4). Philo (Moses I: 6. 27) already
earlier informs us that people could not determine whether Moses was
really human or divine or a mixture of both.7 It would only be gratuitous
to attempt to explain away the midrash by delimiting it to metaphor or
hyperbole while taking Christian expressions literally. There is no reason
not to take this as literally intended the rabbi's remark, .. even in heaven he
[Moses] was a god for he had no physical needs" (ibid.). "
Those scriptures in no way prove the trinity. You are so silly where is the holy spirit in any of those scriptures, no where to be found. Come on man you have to do better than that. You are so naive, you assume simply because it is the early church teaching everyone is going to accept it as correct. But after the apostle died the apostasy started and an all out effort was made to mix christian truth with Greek philosophy. Thus the apostasy and later the trinity was born.
Your request for evidence that Paul intentionally echoed the Shema in 1 Cor. 8:6 is supported by several scholarly sources. Notably, Bauckham explains:
"Paul has reproduced all the words of the statement about YHWH in the Shema...but has rearranged the words in such a way as to produce an affirmation of both one God, the Father, and one Lord, Jesus Christ. It should be quite clear that Paul is including the Lord Jesus Christ in the unique divine identity" (God Crucified).
Bauckham explains that Paul redefines Jewish monotheism in light of Christ’s divine role. In the Shema, the Hebrew YHWH is translated as Kyrios in the Septuagint, the version Paul likely used. When Paul refers to "one God, the Father" and "one Lord, Jesus Christ," he is attributing the divine identity of YHWH to both the Father and the Son, distinguishing their relational roles but affirming their shared divine essence. By aligning Jesus with "Lord" in the Shema, Paul includes Him within the framework of monotheism rather than creating a separate deity. Here Paul mirrors the Shema’s structure:
Shema: "The LORD [YHWH] our God, the LORD is one."
Paul: "One God, the Father… and one Lord, Jesus Christ."
By referring to Jesus as “Kyrios,” the term used for YHWH in the Septuagint, Paul identifies Jesus with the God of Israel. Scholars like N.T. Wright, Hurtado, and F.F. Bruce also affirm this interpretation, showing how Paul’s language integrates Jesus into Jewish monotheistic worship. This linguistic and theological alignment demonstrates that Paul viewed Jesus as fully divine, not a secondary being.
Your claim that "kneeling to Christ is to the glory of someone else" misrepresents the theological significance of Phil. 2:10-11. Paul quotes Isaiah 45:23, where YHWH declares, "To me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear allegiance." In Philippians, Paul applies this to Jesus, affirming His divine status. This is a direct identification of Jesus with YHWH. The phrase "to the glory of God the Father" does not diminish Jesus' divinity but highlights the harmony within the Godhead. Jesus' exaltation and worship bring glory to the Father because the Father and the Son share the same divine essence (John 10:30). The Father glorifies the Son (John 17:5), and the Son glorifies the Father, reflecting their unity. The glorification of Jesus inherently glorifies the Father because of their unity). Glorifying the Son is not a transfer of glory but a reflection of the Father’s nature. This mutual glorification is a hallmark of Trinitarian theology and does not imply subordination of essence but rather distinction of roles.
The assertion that Paul’s quotation of Joel 2:32 in Romans 10:13 is "inconclusive" is unfounded. Joel declares that salvation comes by calling on the name of YHWH, yet Paul explicitly applies this to Jesus. In this context, the "Lord" is clearly Jesus, as evidenced by the preceding verses (10:9-10). Paul unambiguously identifies Jesus with YHWH by attributing to Him the divine prerogative of salvation, central to monotheistic worship. The reinterpretation of Joel’s prophecy in light of Christ is not a "reapplication" but a fulfillment, affirming that Jesus shares the divine name and authority of YHWH. It reflects the Jewish understanding of YHWH as the one true God.
You claim that Hebrews 1:3 does not indicate that Christ’s authority is intrinsic, but this misreads the text. The verse explicitly describes Jesus as "the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of His being" (charaktΔr tΔs hypostaseΕs autou). The term “character” conveys the idea of an exact imprint or representation, denoting that Jesus fully reveals and embodies the Father’s divine nature. Far from being a creature or a lesser being, Jesus is presented as the perfect manifestation of God’s essence, sustaining all things by His powerful word. This aligns with John 1:1-3 and Col. 1:15-17, which affirm that Jesus is the eternal Logos through whom all things were created.
You compare Jesus to Moses, claiming that Jesus, like Moses, is merely a representative of God. In Exodus 7:1 Moses was made “like God” only to Pharaoh, acting as God’s representative in a specific situation for pagan oppressive ruler. Moses’ authority was entirely derivative and limited to his mission. Moses was never worshipped or called God by nature. Unlike Moses, Jesus is explicitly called “God” (theos): John 1:1, John 20:28, Hebrews 1:8. Jesus accepts worship (Matthew 14:33, John 9:38) and forgives sins (Mark 2:5-7), acts reserved for God alone.The Bible makes a clear distinction between Moses as a servant (Hebrews 3:5) and Jesus as the Son who is over all (Hebrews 3:6).
The analogy between Jesus and Moses, citing midrashic sources that describe Moses as "half-God, half-man," fails to account for the biblical distinction between representative roles and intrinsic nature. In Hebrews 3:3-6, the author explicitly contrasts Jesus with Moses: "Jesus has been found worthy of greater honor than Moses, just as the builder of a house has greater honor than the house itself." Jesus is not merely a mediator like Moses but the divine Son who is over God's house. The midrashic speculation about Moses does not equate to biblical revelation and cannot diminish the unique and eternal deity of Christ.
But let me give you some homework, who wrote this, when, and in what context:
"Affirmabant autem hanc fuisse summam vel culpae suae vel erroris, quod essent soliti stato die ante lucem convenire, carmenque Christo quasi deo dicere..."
In conclusion we have 2 points of view.
1. The early Christians who did not believe or teach the Trinity and the 4th century teaching of the Trinity. The 4th century teaching has to explain why the words whose definitions are set in place need a different definition. The 1st Century belief that it doesn't need any different definition of the words as printed say otherwise.
When Paul says there is only one God the Father, the definition of the words God the father do not take on a different meaning simply because that is what the 4th century church says.
Jehovah is the God of gods he is the true God and Jesus who said my God is saying I worship the Father, Jehovah.
Nincsnevem, this thread is still open and I have not blocked your posts.
@Philip Fletcher
"Early Christians didn’t believe in the Trinity." - This claim ignores the evidence. While the term "Trinity" wasn’t formalized until the 2nd-4th centuries, the concept is present in the New Testament and early Christian writings. The writings of Ignatius of Antioch or Irenaeus of Lyons demonstrate that early Christians recognized the deity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, consistent with Trinitarian theology. Resource for you: https://t.ly/B9zHO
"The Trinity was born out of apostasy and Greek philosophy." - This is a common argument but historically inaccurate. The Trinity is rooted in Scripture, not Greek philosophy. The doctrine of the Trinity arises from the Bible’s depiction of God, not external sources. Early Christians grappled with how to faithfully articulate the Bible’s teachings about the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. They relied on passages like Matthew 28:19, John 1:1, 2 Corinthians 13:14, Acts 5:3-4, Philippians 2:6.These texts demonstrate that the early Church Fathers didn’t “invent” the Trinity but sought to systematize what was already revealed in Scripture.
The claim of a “great apostasy” contradicts Scripture. The notion that true Christianity was corrupted immediately after the apostles died is contradicted by Jesus’ promise in Matthew 16:18: "I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Jesus guaranteed the Church’s perseverance, and the New Testament writers consistently encouraged believers to guard the faith (e.g., 1 Timothy 6:20), not because it would fail, but because God would sustain it. Additionally, early Church Fathers like Ignatius of Antioch (c. AD 35–107) and Justin Martyr (c. AD 100–165), who lived shortly after the apostles, affirmed beliefs consistent with Trinitarian theology. The claim that the Trinity was a late invention ignores the continuity of Christian teaching from the apostles onward. Some resources for you:
* https://t.ly/czf5D
* https://t.ly/2PZUD
"Paul says there is only one God, the Father." - Yes, 1 Corinthians 8:6 affirms that there is "one God, the Father." However, the same verse also states that there is "one Lord, Jesus Christ," through whom all things were created. The use of "Lord" (Kyrios) for Jesus directly parallels the Septuagint’s use of "Lord" for Yahweh in Deuteronomy 6:4 (the Shema). Paul’s language assigns Jesus divine attributes and roles, such as Creator and Sustainer, which are exclusive to God. To argue that "one God" excludes Jesus from divinity is to misread the text. Instead, Paul affirms a functional distinction within the Godhead: the Father is the source ("from whom all things came"), and the Son is the agent ("through whom all things came"). This distinction does not imply inequality. Both the Father and the Son are essential in creation, demonstrating their shared divine essence.
"Jehovah is the God of gods, and Jesus said 'My God'." - Jesus referring to the Father as "My God" reflects His incarnational role. When Jesus calls the Father "My God" (e.g., John 20:17), it reflects His humanity and submission within the incarnation (Philippians 2:5-8). As the eternal Son, Jesus took on human nature to fulfill the role of the perfect mediator (1 Timothy 2:5). This submission is relational, not ontological. It does not negate His deity. In John 20:28 Thomas calls Jesus "My Lord and my God," using the Greek "ho theos," the definite article reserved for Yahweh. According to Colossians 2:9 "in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form. In Hebrews 1:8 the Father addresses the Son as "God." The Father and the Son have distinct roles within the Godhead, but this does not diminish their shared essence.
(1/2)
(2/2)
"Where is the Holy Spirit in those Scriptures?" - While the specific passages I cited primarily focus on the relationship between the Father and the Son, this does not negate the presence and role of the Holy Spirit in the doctrine of the Trinity. The Trinity is derived from the ENTIRETY of Scripture, not isolated texts. For example, Jehovah's Witnesses often refer to the account in Acts 7:55-56, where Stephen the martyr has a vision of heaven and sees Jesus at God's right hand, but does not mention the Holy Spirit. From this, they conclude that the Holy Spirit is not a person. However, this reasoning is flawed. The fact that Stephen does not specifically mention the Holy Spirit does not mean that the Holy Spirit was not present or that He is not a person. The absence of a mention of a person in a specific text does not prove their nonexistence. For instance, in Stephen's vision, only Jesus and the Father are mentioned, but this does not mean the Holy Spirit was not there. The New Testament frequently mentions the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit together, such as in 2 Corinthians 13:14 and 1 Peter 1:2. In other passages, like Matthew 4:1 and Acts 2:38, the Holy Spirit is mentioned alongside Jesus without mentioning the Father, yet everyone understands that the Father is also present. Furthermore, in the Old Testament, there are passages where God and the Holy Spirit are mentioned together without explicitly naming Jesus, such as in 2 Chronicles 24:20.
This shows that the three divine persons—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—do not need to be named together EVERY TIME for their existence and personhood to be affirmed. The fact that for example Stephen does not mention the Holy Spirit in his vision does not prove that the Holy Spirit is not a person; it simply means there was no need to specifically mention Him in that context. This does not imply that the Holy Spirit is an impersonal force but merely demonstrates that it is not necessary for EVERY biblical passage to list ALL three divine persons by name.
The point is the Holy Spirit’s deity and personhood are clearly taught in the Bible. For example in Acts 5:3-4 equates lying to the Holy Spirit with lying to God, demonstrating the Spirit’s deity. He teaches (John 14:26), guides (John 16:13), intercedes (Romans 8:26), and can be grieved (Ephesians 4:30)—none of which would apply to an impersonal force. In Genesis 1:2, He is involved in creation. In John 3:5-8, He is essential for spiritual regeneration. In Matthew 28:19, Jesus commands baptism in the singular NAME (not names) of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, indicating a shared divine identity. The fact that the Holy Spirit is not explicitly mentioned in some of the Scriptures I cited does not undermine the Trinity. The doctrine arises from the full biblical witness, where the Spirit’s divine nature and personhood are clear.
“ In Matthew 28:19, Jesus commands baptism in the singular NAME (not names) of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit,” - false
@Anonymous
While Matthew 28:19 does not use the specific language "one essence" or "one God," the singular "name" (Greek: onoma) into which disciples are baptized strongly implies the unity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. If Jesus had intended to communicate separate, unrelated beings or powers, the plural "names" would have been used. Instead, the singular indicates a shared authority, essence, and purpose, consistent with Trinitarian theology. Moreover, in the biblical context, being baptized into a "name" signifies consecration and allegiance to the authority of that name. For example in 1 Corinthians 10:2 Israelites were "baptized into Moses," indicating identification with his leadership and covenant. In Matthew 28:19, baptism into the "name" of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit signifies allegiance to the divine unity of these three Persons. The objection fails to account for the significance of “onoma” as a term of shared divine authority and unity.
JWs argue that "listing three names (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) does not mean they are one, any more than listing Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob makes them one”, but this analogy is a false equivalence. The text of Matthew 28:19 is not a mere enumeration but presents the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in the context of a single divine "name." Unlike the patriarchs, who are distinct human individuals, the triadic formula refers to Persons sharing a single divine essence and authority. This is underscored by the consistent biblical portrayal of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as working in perfect unity in creation (Genesis 1:1-3), redemption (Ephesians 1:3-14), and sanctification (2 Corinthians 13:14).
It is true that Matthew 28:19 does not, in isolation, contain the full doctrinal explanation of the Trinity. However, it is a key piece of the broader biblical evidence. The Trinity is a synthesis of scriptural data, drawing from texts like John 10:30, John 14:26, or 2 Corinthians 13:14. The Trinity is a revealed doctrine, not confined to a single verse. Matthew 28:19 is one of many affirming the divine relationship among the three Persons.
The formula in Matthew 28:19 does not treat the three Persons as merely distinct entities but places them on equal footing. This equality is apparent because:
A) The Father’s name implies ultimate authority and deity.
B) The Son’s inclusion would be blasphemous if He were merely a creature (Isaiah 42:8).
C) The Holy Spirit’s inclusion indicates personhood and divinity, as seen in His roles of teaching (John 14:26), interceding (Romans 8:26), and empowering (Acts 1:8).
No mere creature or impersonal force could be co-equally invoked with the Father in a sacrament signifying dedication to God. So Matthew 28:19 affirms the equality and unity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in a single divine "name." While it does not provide a full systematic theology of the Trinity, it clearly supports Trinitarian doctrine when read in the context of the entire biblical narrative.
“If Jesus had intended to communicate separate, unrelated beings or powers, the plural "names" would have been used.” - not true at all - I have looked at al most all instances of “onoma” used in a similar context and even when the subjects are not related the singular is used
Can you cite a single instance where multiple subjects are listed after onoma and it signifies authority?
I can’t find a single instance- so once again your motivation is revealed.
And this passage doesn’t appear in a Hebrew manuscript which according to Origen Matthew was written first in Hebrew
( Origen is more credible than you)
Isa 42:8 also is not by any means absolute - The golden calf was done under “good” intentions, but God didn’t order it, so was deemed idolatry
A perfect man would not be blasphemous if God commands it..
The creature bit is YOUR opinion, not fact - learn the difference
Infact Stafford does my job for me - so instead of being disrespectful you just just go and watch this: https://youtu.be/aOw7oLXZxfw?si=syOe3uFFd2g5EeDz
Just a reminder that I'm closing this thread around 12:00 am EST.
@Anonymous
The consistent emphasis in Isaiah 44:24, alongside other passages such as Isaiah 40:28 and 45:18, is that YHWH alone (Hebrew: bad, translated as "by Myself") is the Creator. This exclusivity is reinforced by the surrounding verses that repeatedly denounce idolatry, affirming that no other entity—false gods, demiurges, angels, or agents—participated in creation. The language in Isaiah does not allow for a secondary agent like Jesus acting merely as an instrument. Jehovah's claim of "stretching out the heavens alone" and "spreading out the earth by Myself" excludes the possibility of any other being other than sharing in the creative act, whether as an instrument or co-creator.
The claim that "Alone" (Hebrew: ΧΧ - bad) in Isaiah 44:24 is contextually limited to exclude only false gods (not all actual or possible created beings) is not substantiated. While “bad” can sometimes be used in relational comparisons, its usage here (emphasized by "by Myself") signifies absolute exclusivity. This is clear in passages such as Isaiah 45:12: “It is I who made the earth and created man upon it. I stretched out the heavens with My hands.” The redundancy of the possessive pronoun (My) in Isaiah reinforces Jehovah’s solitary role in creation.
JWs often refer to Job 38:4-7 to suggest that angels witnessed creation is irrelevant to the claim that YHWH created alone. Witnessing an event does not equate to participating in it. Furthermore, Isaiah 44:24 explicitly excludes any collaborative role in creation, emphasizing YHWH solitary action.
The suggestion that Jesus was an instrumental cause in creation fails on theological grounds. According to Thomistic theology, creative activity is inherently DIVINE and requires infinite power. As noted in the theological reference you provided, a finite being cannot possess or act with the infinite power necessary for creation. Creation is ex nihilo (out of nothing), a task that presupposes absolute divinity.
Isaiah consistently applies divine titles to the Messiah. For instance, Isaiah 9:6 calls the Messiah "Mighty God" (El Gibbor), a title Isaiah uses elsewhere for Jehovah (Isaiah 10:21). John 12:41 confirms that Isaiah saw Christ’s glory in Isaiah 6:1-5, where Jehovah is described as "holy, holy, holy." This aligns with New Testament applications of Jehovah’s identity to Christ, such as Philippians 2:10-11, which applies Isaiah 45:23 to Jesus.
JW theology often claims that Jesus is a created being used as an agent in creation. This contradicts the biblical teaching that creation is a uniquely divine act. The Trinitarian understanding resolves the tension by recognizing Jesus as fully God, co-equal with the Father, and therefore the Creator in unity with the Father and the Spirit.
The argument that Isaiah 44:24 does not exclude the Michael-Jesus of the JWs as an agent in creation is untenable. Isaiah’s consistent emphasis on Jehovah’s solitary role as Creator, combined with the New Testament’s identification of Jesus as Creator, affirms the Trinitarian doctrine: Jesus is Jehovah. Your attempt to limit Isaiah 44:24 to a rejection of false gods fails to account for the broader scriptural context, which excludes all beings—whether false gods, angels, demiurges, or creatures—from sharing in the act of creation.
@Anonymous
The singular "name" (onoma) in Matthew 28:19 is significant. It indicates a shared authority and unity among the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This usage is unique when compared to any references in Scripture where unrelated subjects are listed together. Here, the singular "name" unites three Persons under one divine identity, which strongly suggests their equality and oneness in essence. You stated that the singular "onoma" is used even when unrelated subjects are listed together. However, the Bible does not provide examples where the singular "onoma" is used to signify unrelated or independent entities in a comparable way. In biblical Greek, “onoma” is not merely a label but often signifies authority, essence, or identity. For instance:
• Acts 4:12: "There is no other *name* given among men by which we must be saved."
• John 17:11-12: Jesus prays, "Keep them in your *name*, which you have given me," showing shared divine authority between the Father and Son.
The baptismal formula in Matthew 28:19 is not just a listing but a declaration of the divine unity and shared authority of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Matthew 28:19, by invoking the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit together, presents a triadic formula that cannot be dismissed as mere functional language. Baptism "in the name of" these three is a clear sign of allegiance and consecration to them as divine persons. This is consistent with the broader New Testament witness to their shared divinity (2 Corinthians 13:14, Ephesians 4:4-6) To claim that this does not imply a shared divine essence is to ignore the weight of these passages and the broader theological context.
You reference Origen’s claim that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew to suggest that the Trinitarian baptismal formula might be a later addition. However, this is speculative and not supported by evidence. The Greek text of Matthew 28:19 is found in every extant manuscript, including the earliest and most reliable ones, such as Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. There is no evidence that a Hebrew version of Matthew contained a different baptismal formula. Origen himself affirmed the Trinitarian understanding of God in his writings (e.g., De Principiis, Book I, Chapter 3). Origen made reference to Matthew 28:19: https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf09.xvi.ii.iii.xviii.html Furthermore, even if Matthew had an earlier Hebrew version, this does not undermine the Greek text's inspiration and authenticity, which the early Church universally recognized.
The claim that the verse merely describes the act of baptism without theological implications. This interpretation fails to address the unique phrasing: Baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit signifies allegiance to all three. If Jesus were merely a creature or the Holy Spirit merely a force, this would be idolatrous (cf. Isaiah 42:8, "I will not give my glory to another"). The equality of the three Persons in this formula reflects their shared divinity and unity, which aligns with the Trinitarian doctrine.
@Anonymous
The claim that the singular “onoma” disqualifies the interpretation of three distinct persons as one God misunderstands both the theological context and the Greek usage. In Greek, “onoma” can be used singularly to refer to a collective entity or unity, particularly when it represents authority, identity, or shared purpose. For example in Matthew 28:19, the singular “onoma” is followed by three distinct subjects (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), implying a unity of divine authority and essence rather than a simple pluralistic list of separate beings. A parallel example from Genesis 48:16 in the Septuagint is invoked in the argument ("the name of my fathers, Abraham and Isaac"). However, this verse does not undermine the Trinitarian claim; rather, it supports the idea that the singular “onoma” can represent multiple subjects when they are understood as a unity of purpose, lineage, or covenant. The singular "name" highlights the unity of essence in the Trinity while distinguishing the three persons. Baptism "into the name" of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit indicates entering into a covenantal relationship with one God revealed in three persons.
The cited Old Testament examples where “onoma” (name) is used for multiple individuals do not contradict the Trinitarian interpretation of Matthew 28:19. Deuteronomy 18:20 and Exodus 23:13 use the singular “onoma” in reference to "other gods," but the context here speaks of idolatry. It does not suggest that those "gods" share unity in essence or authority as the Trinity does. These verses merely show that onoma can be singular even when referring to multiple entities, especially in contexts where shared characteristics (such as being false gods) are emphasized. Exodus 17:7 (Massah and Meribah) refers to the "name of the place," indicating that two names were given to a single location, further illustrating that “onoma” can encompass a unity despite multiple descriptors. This has no bearing on the theological claim of Matthew 28:19, where the unity of divine essence is explicitly affirmed in the baptismal formula.
The verse explicitly unites the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit in the act of baptism, showing their co-equal role in the divine plan of salvation. This supports, rather than undermines, the doctrine of the Trinity. The repeated use of the definite article (tou) before each person—“tou Patros kai tou Huiou kai tou Hagiou Pneumatos”—clearly distinguishes the three persons while maintaining their unity in "the name." If Jesus intended to refer to three entirely separate beings or functions, the Greek syntax would likely have repeated onoma or used the plural onomata. Instead, the singular onoma indicates the shared authority and divine essence of the three persons. Early Church Fathers consistently interpreted Matthew 28:19 as Trinitarian, recognizing the unity of the Godhead. For instance, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Athanasius used this verse to affirm the distinct persons of the Trinity while emphasizing their unity in substance.
Matthew 28:19 is a profound affirmation of the Trinity, as it links the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in a single divine name. The singular “onoma” signifies their unity of essence and purpose, while the distinct mention of each person highlights their unique roles within the Godhead. The arguments attempting to refute the Trinitarian interpretation misunderstand both the linguistic and theological context, as well as the historical witness of the early Church. Far from disproving the Trinity, Matthew 28:19 is a cornerstone of this foundational Christian doctrine.
Since Nincsnevem has gotten to post plenty in this thread, I will only allow rebuttals before closing this thread.
Nincsnevem said that no reputable scholars deny the Trinity is in or based on the NT. I guess Cyril Richardson or Martin Werner were not reputable scholars.
Another fact is that Jesus is never called Creator and contrary to Trinitarian claims, the NT does not say he created anything. He is the one through whom the universe comes into existence as John 1:3 teaches.
Talk about reading the Bible in context. Try that with Isaiah 44:24 and check out how Tertullian read the passage.
To reiterate, only rebuttals will be permitted now. I've been more than patient with the Trinitarian rhetoric.
While the specific Greek noun “ktistΔs” ("creator") is indeed not mentioned for Jesus, this absence does not negate the numerous texts that explicitly describe Jesus' active role in creation, nor does it undermine His divine nature.
John 1:3 explicitly affirms that all creation was made through Christ. The Greek verb “egeneto” conveys the idea of bringing into existence, and the text states that nothing came into being apart from Him. This places Christ not as an instrument but as the direct agent of creation. The preposition “dia” emphasizes Jesus’ active agency in creation, not as a secondary or subordinate cause, but as one who operates in perfect unity with the Father. The assertion that John 1:3 reduces Jesus to “an intermediary” through whom creation occurred misunderstands “dia”.
In Col. 1:16-17 Paul directly attributes creation to Jesus: The verb “ektisthΔ” indicates Christ’s active role in bringing all things into existence. The phrase "in Him" signifies Christ as the locus of creative power. The phrase "for Him" indicates His supremacy as the ultimate goal of creation, a role that only God can hold.
Hebrews 1:10, quoting Ps. 102:25-27, attributes Yahweh’s creative work to the Son. Hebrews does not reinterpret the Psalm arbitrarily but identifies Jesus as Yahweh, the Creator, emphasizing His eternal and unchanging divine nature.
This exclusivity of creation ascribed to Yahweh directly aligns with the NT's affirmation of Christ’s active role in creation. If Christ were not fully divine, this would contradict Isaiah’s assertion that Yahweh alone created all things.
Against Marcion, Book II, Chapter XIX: Tertullian writes, "All things were made by God through the Word, without whom nothing was made. By the Word of the Lord were the heavens made, and all the hosts of them by His Spirit." Here, Tertullian identifies Christ (the Word) as the Creator in unity with the Father, consistent with John 1:3 and Psalm 33:6.
Against Praxeas, Chapter XIX: Tertullian states, "He [the Father] stretched out the heavens alone... meaning alone with His Son, even as He is one with His Son." This demonstrates Tertullian’s belief that the Father and Son are united in creation, preserving the oneness of God.
Tertullian sees Christ as the divine Logos, and refutes the idea that the Son is a mere agent or subordinate being, asserting instead that the Son shares fully in the divine work of creation, and affirms the Son’s role in creation not as a separate, subordinate being, but as the divine Logos of God, eternally begotten, and “one” with the Father. Tertullian’s view does not imply that Christ is a mere agent or intermediary creature; rather, Christ is God Himself in His creative Word and Wisdom, fully participating in the singular divine action of creation.
To suggest that Isaiah 44:24 excludes only false gods but allows for the involvement of a created being such as an archangel is an exegetical error for several reasons. The passage explicitly states that God created "alone" and "by myself," which rules out any assistance, including from a created intermediary. The redundancy in language ("alone" and "by myself") emphasizes the sole agency of God in creation. Isaiah 44 is part of a larger polemic against idolatry and false gods. The chapter repeatedly contrasts the true God with false gods, emphasizing Yahweh’s absolute uniqueness and sovereign power as Creator. Allowing for a creature’s involvement in creation would undermine the theological point being made.
In the NT, the Logos is consistently portrayed as an active agent in creation. This agency is not that of a separate or subordinate being but of God Himself acting through His eternal Word. The Logos is not a creature but fully divine and co-eternal with the Father.
Tertullian’s writings affirm the divinity of the Son and the unity of the Godhead in creation. He would not interpret Isaiah 44:24 as allowing for the involvement of a creature. Instead, he saw it as affirming the unique role of God—and by extension, the divine Logos—in creation.
Post a Comment