The Trinity Doctrine

[WhatIsTrue]

Nick wrote:

Quote

Hi WIT, Do you understand the nature of divine beings that you can reveal the heavenly nature of the Word? We know little except that he was the image of God who is spirit and we too are made in the image of God so there are some undoubted similarities. Since it was possible for him to empty himself and partake of flesh we can know that as soul he must have born some similarities to our nature as soul. The line between soul and spirit exists sometimes seems not easy to define and that is why Hebrews 4.12 shows us that we need the alive and active Word to define that line. When the disciples saw Jesus walking on the water they thought he was a spirit. What do you make of this?

Nick, I am just trying to understand what you believe.  Are you saying that you don't know if Y'shua was a spirit or a soul prior to his earthly field trip?

Also, why would he need to “empty himself” to take on flesh, since flesh is just a “tent” in your view?  What would he need to empty himself of to take on flesh?

But to answer your questions.  As you know, I don't believe that the Word was a heavenly being.  However, I do believe that all heavenly beings are spirit beings.

As to what make of the disciples reaction to the Messiah walking on water, I imagine that they hadn't seen anything like that before and didn't know what to make of it.

Nick wrote:

Quote

I showed you my scriptural foundation for these beliefs so can you discuss these matters from there so we can all learn from the truth as my own opinion is irrelevant.

You have showed me scripture, and you have told me your beliefs.  But, I am not sure that your beliefs are scripturally founded, as they are quite confusing.  For example, you still haven't been able to answer the following question consistently:

Are souls “confined to Hades” or are spirits?

You have provided conflicting answers to the question already.  Can you clarify your “scripturally founded” answer now?

[NickHassan]

Hi WIT,
Your words
“Also, why would he need to “empty himself” to take on flesh, since flesh is just a “tent” in your view? What would he need to empty himself of to take on flesh?”

Perhaps we should search for that answer but we do know he had divine nature and emptied himself to partake of flesh.
Phil 2.5-7
” 5(A)Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in (B)Christ Jesus,

6who, although He Âexisted in the (D)form of God, (E)did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,

7but [a](F)emptied Himself, taking the form of a (G)bond-servant, and (H)being made in the likeness of men.”

[NickHassan]

Hi WIT,
It is not my view that our body is a tent but that is, as you will know, how Paul described it in 2 Cor 5.1-4.
Do you agree with him?
Was he not a vessel for the Spirit, that treasure?
He said so in 2 Cor 4.7-10 and I believe he was, Christ was and we too can be unto eternity.

[NickHassan]

Hi WIT,
If you have doubts about me that is fine but perhaps you could address the scriptures in Rom 8 1-, 1Peter 1.11 and 1 Cor 10.4 I offered as we know and agree that is where truth is to be found
You said
“You have showed me scripture, and you have told me your beliefs. But, I am not sure that your beliefs are scripturally founded, as they are quite confusing. For example, you still haven't been able to answer the following question consistently:”

[Jill]

The Trinity might be a confusing subject for some people. Try remember that the Son of God is the word of the Father and Bby him and through him all things were made. Basically what that is saying is that Son is in the Father and the Father is in the Son by the unity and power of the Holy Spirit. God the Father, his Son Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are one thus forming the Holy Trinity.

[NickHassan]

Hi and welcome Jill,
As you know salvation for men is through the mediator between God and men, the Son of God.

“The Life is in the Son” 1Jn 5.11

But according to your doctrine is Jesus really the Son of God?
Or is he God Himself?
Or is he still part of God?

How can we come to God through the mediator if the mediator is actually also the God?

[Jill]

God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are one. Jesus was God in human form. Only God could of committed those miracles.

[NickHassan]

Hi Jill,
I agree only God could perform the miracles.
And God did.
Jesus Christ, and not God Himself , came in the flesh according to 1Jn 4.2.  
Jesus emptied himself to partake of flesh we are told in Phil 2.5f so it seems unlikely he was using his own divine powers does it?
2Cor 5 .19 tell us God was “in Christ” reconciling the world to himself so that is where the power came from.

Indeed Coll 2.9 tell us the fullness of deity was IN him.

And he always ascribed the power and the glory for his work to God but men seem reluctant to agree with him surprisingly.

Acts 10 38 says God was with him and anointed him with the Holy Spirit and power again confirming the works done through him were done in the power of God.

So he did not need to BE God Himself for this to happen did he?

[kenrch]

Quote (Jill @ Aug. 02 2006,00:32)

God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are one.  Jesus was God in human form.  Only God could of committed those miracles.

The Father and Son are one in Spirit. Jesus prayed that we would be one as He and the Father are one. And the first century church was in fact one in Spirit but not one being. Was the first church being one above the Son?

Are you equal with your father? Not if you honor him. Jesus has the fulness of the father but is not equal with the Father.

Jesus is subject to the Father. We are subject to the Son.

1Co 15:28 And when all things have been subjected unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subjected to him that did subject all things unto him, that God may be all in all.

[Jill]

So who is Jesus Christ? God or Son of God. Are we not sons and daughters of God? If Jesus is not God…who is Jesus Christ?

[Elidad]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Aug. 01 2006,23:21)

Hi WIT, Your words “Also, why would he need to “empty himself” to take on flesh, since flesh is just a “tent” in your view? What would he need to empty himself of to take on flesh?” Perhaps we should search for that answer but we do know he had divine nature and emptied himself to partake of flesh. Phil 2.5-7 ” 5(A)Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in (B)Christ Jesus, 6who, although He ©existed in the (D)form of God, (E)did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7but [a](F)emptied Himself, taking the form of a (G)bond-servant, and (H)being made in the likeness of men.”

Hi Nick, Gathering from this post, and others of yours that I have caught my attention, you seem to present a view that your understanding of what we read in Philippians 2:5-8 is the one, and only way of understanding it. These particular verses, like John 1:1 have been the subject of much dedate. A particularly thorough analysis of the various arguments that have been advanced for Philippians 2:6-8, can be found here: http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=127

Have you honestly taken into consideration all the issues that this examination of the matter draws to attention? I trust that it is OK to point to another source of information, to question a point of view?

If your point of view does permit checking of what others have said about the matter, what basic weaknesses do you see in the arguments presented by the referred WEB site?

Peace be with you

Elidad

[NickHassan]

Quote (Jill @ Aug. 02 2006,01:20)

So who is Jesus Christ?  God or Son of God.  Are we not sons and daughters of God?  If Jesus is not God…who is Jesus Christ?

Hi Jill,
Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God.

That is why we are his brothers and sisters.[Heb 2.11]

[NickHassan]

Hi Eli,
There is a thread for this I will find.

[Elidad]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Aug. 02 2006,01:45)

Hi Eli, There is a thread for this I will find.

Thanks Nick, When you provide the thread you have in mind, I will printout the details and compare it section by section, with the line of reasoning advanced by the WEB site that I referred you to.

I trust that you do the same?

Shall await with interest

Elidad

[kenrch]

Quote (Jill @ Aug. 02 2006,01:20)

So who is Jesus Christ?  God or Son of God.  Are we not sons and daughters of God?  If Jesus is not God…who is Jesus Christ?

Hi Jill,

Scripture says that Jesus is Jehovah's Son.
Mar 1:1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;

When Jesus is finished Jesus will be subject to the father once again.
1Co 15:28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

Jesus is God?
Heb 1:9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

Therefore God (Jesus) even thy God (Jehovah). Jesus is God of this world.

Scripture says Jesus is God and Jesus' God is His and our Father Jehovah. Now remember when the last enemy death has been defeated then Jesus will submit and turn everything over to Jehovah that God will be in all.

Jill has her father in her. But she is not her father. Jesus has the fulness of God but Jesus is not His Father.

Hope this helps,

Kenrch

[seminarian]

Quote (Jill @ Aug. 02 2006,00:32)

God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are one.  Jesus was God in human form.  Only God could of committed those miracles.

Jill, Welcome!

Be forewarned, to hang around here you'll need to read your WHOLE Bible!  Very little gets by the folks here.

If you are basing proof of Jesus' “diety” on his miracles, I'm afraid you are going to come up short.

Did you know that in the Old Testament both the Elijah and Elisha, multiplied bread to feed a hungry crowd, increased oil, purified a poisonous pot of stew, caused an axehead to float and even raised the dead?  Read your Bible.  Now are THEY part of some Godhead for doing so?  Absolutely not!

Likewise Peter clearly taught that it was GOD the Father doing His miracles through His Son Jesus.  So you are right, God DID do those miracles, through first His prophets and then His Holy Servant Yah'shua.  Our Lord confessed that he could do nothing on his own:  

“I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself…” [John 5:19]

If he were God or equal to God, he would not make such a statement.  He was and still is subject to the Father.

“When he has done this then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him so that GOD may be all in all.” (1 Cor 15:28)

The main point to remember is that both the Bible and Jesus himself says in scripture that he has a God and Father. (John:17, Colossians 1:2-3)  This was not just true when he was on earth as a man but is also true now that he has returned to heaven.  See here:

“Him who overcomes I will make a pillar in the temple of my God.  Never again will he leave it.  I will write on him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem.” (Revelation 3:12)

The Bible does not contradict itself.  If is says, “God is not a man..” [Hosea 11:9] and the scriptures clearly refers to Jesus as “A MAN” accredited by God in Acts 2:22 which was written after he had returned to heaven, then Jesus could not have been God in human flesh.  

This was a common belief of the surrounding pagan cultures such as the Greeks and the Laodiceans who Paul & Barnabas preached to.  They believed Paul and Barnabas were the gods Zeus and Mercury come down in “human flesh”.  Sound familiar?    

We really need to let go of parroting what others have to say about Christ and let HIM speak for himself through the pages of God's Holy Word.

Christ's love to you,

Semmy

[kenrch]

Quote (seminarian @ Aug. 02 2006,03:27)

Quote (Jill @ Aug. 02 2006,00:32) God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are one.  Jesus was God in human form.  Only God could of committed those miracles. Jill, Welcome! Be forewarned, to hang around here you'll need to read your WHOLE Bible!  Very little gets by the folks here. If you are basing proof of Jesus' “diety” on his miracles, I'm afraid you are going to come up short. Did you know that in the Old Testament both the Elijah and Elisha, multiplied bread to feed a hungry crowd, increased oil, purified a poisonous pot of stew, caused an axehead to float and even raised the dead?  Read your Bible.  Now are THEY part of some Godhead for doing so?  Absolutely not! Likewise Peter clearly taught that it was GOD the Father doing His miracles through His Son Jesus.  So you are right, God DID do those miracles, through first His prophets and then His Holy Servant Yah'shua.  Our Lord confessed that he could do nothing on his own:   “I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself…” [John 5:19] If he were God or equal to God, he would not make such a statement.  He was and still is subject to the Father. “When he has done this then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him so that GOD may be all in all.” (1 Cor 15:28) The main point to remember is that both the Bible and Jesus himself says in scripture that he has a God and Father. (John:17, Colossians 1:2-3)  This was not just true when he was on earth as a man but is also true now that he has returned to heaven.  See here: “Him who overcomes I will make a pillar in the temple of my God.  Never again will he leave it.  I will write on him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem.” (Revelation 3:12) The Bible does not contradict itself.  If is says, “God is not a man..” [Hosea 11:9] and the scriptures clearly refers to Jesus as “A MAN” accredited by God in Acts 2:22 which was written after he had returned to heaven, then Jesus could not have been God in human flesh.   This was a common belief of the surrounding pagan cultures such as the Greeks and the Laodiceans who Paul & Barnabas preached to.  They believed Paul and Barnabas were the gods Zeus and Mercury come down in “human flesh”.  Sound familiar?     We really need to let go of parroting what others have to say about Christ and let HIM speak for himself through the pages of God's Holy Word. Christ's love to you, Semmy

Thanks Semmy!

[Elidad]

Quote (seminarian @ Aug. 02 2006,03:27)

Quote (Jill @ Aug. 02 2006,00:32) God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are one. Jesus was God in human form. Only God could of committed those miracles. Jill, Welcome! Be forewarned, to hang around here you'll need to read your WHOLE Bible! Very little gets by the folks here. If you are basing proof of Jesus' “diety” on his miracles, I'm afraid you are going to come up short. Did you know that in the Old Testament both the Elijah and Elisha, multiplied bread to feed a hungry crowd, increased oil, purified a poisonous pot of stew, caused an axehead to float and even raised the dead? Read your Bible. Now are THEY part of some Godhead for doing so? Absolutely not! Likewise Peter clearly taught that it was GOD the Father doing His miracles through His Son Jesus. So you are right, God DID do those miracles, through first His prophets and then His Holy Servant Yah'shua. Our Lord confessed that he could do nothing on his own: “I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself…” [John 5:19] If he were God or equal to God, he would not make such a statement. He was and still is subject to the Father. “When he has done this then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him so that GOD may be all in all.” (1 Cor 15:28) The main point to remember is that both the Bible and Jesus himself says in scripture that he has a God and Father. (John:17, Colossians 1:2-3) This was not just true when he was on earth as a man but is also true now that he has returned to heaven. See here: “Him who overcomes I will make a pillar in the temple of my God. Never again will he leave it. I will write on him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem.” (Revelation 3:12) The Bible does not contradict itself. If is says, “God is not a man..” [Hosea 11:9] and the scriptures clearly refers to Jesus as “A MAN” accredited by God in Acts 2:22 which was written after he had returned to heaven, then Jesus could not have been God in human flesh. This was a common belief of the surrounding pagan cultures such as the Greeks and the Laodiceans who Paul & Barnabas preached to. They believed Paul and Barnabas were the gods Zeus and Mercury come down in “human flesh”. Sound familiar? We really need to let go of parroting what others have to say about Christ and let HIM speak for himself through the pages of God's Holy Word. Christ's love to you, Semmy

Hi Semmy, I found your above post particularly good. It sits well with understandings that I have reached. However, it has left me puzzled a bit. In an earlier post (page 349) you raised negative comment about Anthony Buzzard, yet if I understand what I have have read of his writings correctly, he to would probably say AMEN to what you have said above.

Hence, would you please explain to me the difference in his views to those that you hold.

Cheers and peace to you.

Elidad

[NickHassan]

Quote (Elidad @ Aug. 02 2006,03:20)

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Aug. 02 2006,01:45) Hi Eli, There is a thread for this I will find. Thanks Nick,  When you provide the thread you have in mind, I will printout the details and compare it section by section, with the line of reasoning advanced by the WEB site that I referred you to. I trust that you do the same? Shall await with interest Elidad

Hi Eli,
Your link did not work but googling came up with the BU theory below
“We assert the actual evidence is clear: the word morphe refers to an outward appearance or manifestation. Jesus Christ was in the outward appearance of God, so much so that he said, “He who has seen me has seen the Father.” Christ always did the Father’s will, and perfectly represented his Father in every way.

Schema, as Kittel points out, can be synonymous with morphe, but it has more of an emphasis on outward trappings rather than outward appearance, and often points to that which is more transitory in nature, like the clothing we wear or an appearance we have for just a short time. As human beings, we always have the outward form (morphe) of human beings. Yet there is a sense in which our schema, our appearance, is always changing. We start as babies, and grow and develop, then we mature and age. This is so much the case that a person’s outward appearance is one of the most common topics of conversation between people when they meet.

Like the rest of us, Christ was fully human and had the outward form (morphe), of a human. However, because he always did the Father’s will and demonstrated godly behavior and obedience, he therefore had the outward “appearance” (morphe) of God also. Also, like the rest of us, his appearance (schema) regularly changed. Thus, in Philippians, 2:8 schema can be synonymous with morphe, or it can place an emphasis on the fact that the appearance Christ had as a human being was transitory in nature. The wording of Philippians 2:6-8 does not present us with a God-man, with whom none of us can identify. Rather, it presents us with a man just like we are, who grew and aged, yet who was so focused on God in every thought and deed that he perfectly represented the Father.

2. After saying that Christ was in the form of God, Philippians 2:6 goes on to say that Christ “did not consider equality with God something to be grasped” (NIV). This phrase is a powerful argument against the Trinity. If Jesus were God, then it would make no sense at all to say that he did not “grasp” at equality with God because no one grasps at equality with himself. It only makes sense to compliment someone for not seeking equality when he is not equal. Some Trinitarians say, “Well, he was not grasping for equality with the Father.” That is not what the verse says. It says Christ did not grasp at equality with God, which makes the verse nonsense if he were God.

3. The opening of verse 7 contains a phrase that has caused serious division among Trinitarians. It says, “But made himself of no reputation” (KJV), “but made himself nothing” (NIV), “but emptied himself” (NASB, RSV, NRSV, New American Bible). The Greek word that is in question is kenos, which literally means, “to empty.” For more than a thousand years, from the church councils in the fourth century until the nineteenth century, the orthodox position of the Church was that Christ was fully God and fully man at the same time in one body. This doctrine is known as the “dual nature of Christ,” and has to be supported with non-biblical words like communicatio idiomatum, literally, “the communication of the idiom.” This refers to the way that the “God” nature of Christ is united to the “man” nature of Christ in such a way that the actions and conditions of the man can be God and the actions and conditions of God can be man. Dr. Justo Gonzalez, an authority on the history of the Christian Church, notes, “The divine and human natures exist in a single being, although how that can be is the greatest mystery of the faith.” [31] Biblical truth is not an “incomprehensible mystery.” In fact, God longs for us to know Him and His truth (see the notes on Luke 1:35).

The doctrine of the dual nature of Christ has been the standard explanation for the miracles of Christ, such as multiplying food, knowing the thoughts of others, raising the dead, etc. This explanation is maintained in spite of the fact that the prophets in the Old Testament were also able to do these things. The doctrine of Christ’s dual nature has caused a serious problem that is stated well by John Wren-Lewis:

Certainly up to the Second World War, the commonest vision of Jesus was not as a man at all. He was a God in human form, full of supernatural knowledge and miraculous power, very much like the Olympian gods were supposed to be when they visited the earth in disguise.” [32]

Our experience in speaking to Christians all over the world confirms what Wren-Lewis stated: the average Christian does not feel that Christ “was made like his brothers in every way” (Heb. 2:17), but instead feels that Christ was able to do what he did because he was fundamentally different. We believe that the teaching of the dual nature is non-biblical and robs power from people who might otherwise seek to think and act like Christ. This artificially separates people from the Lord Jesus.

In Germany in the mid-1800’s, a Lutheran theologian named Gottfried Thomasius began what has now developed into “Kenotic Theology.” This thinking arose out of some very real concerns that some Trinitarians had about dual nature theology. First, dual nature theology did not allow Christ’s full humanity to be expressed. Second, it seemed to turn Christ into an aberration: very God and very man at the same time. Third, “if Jesus were both omniscient God and limited man, then he had two centers, and thus was fundamentally not one of us.” Kenotic Theology (which has since splintered into a number of variants) provided a “solution” to these problems. Since Philippians 2:7 says Christ “emptied himself,” what he must have “emptied” was his God-nature, i.e., sometime before his incarnation, Christ agreed to “self-limitation” and came down to earth as a man only.

Trinitarian theologians have vehemently disagreed among themselves about Kenotic Theology, and some orthodox theologians have even called its adherents “heretics.” The central criticisms of Kenotic Theology are: First, being only a little more than a hundred years old, it is simply not the historic position of the Church. Second, orthodox theologians say that it is not biblical, and that Philippians 2:7 does not mean what Kenotic theologians say it means. And third, Kenotic Theology forces God to change—God becomes a man—which causes two problems for orthodox Trinitarians: God cannot change, and God is not a man.

We agree with the Kenotic theologians who say that dual nature theology does not allow Christ’s humanity to be expressed, and that it creates a “being” who is really an aberration and “fundamentally not one of us.” [33] However, we also agree with the orthodox Trinitarians who take the biblical stance that God is not a man, and that God cannot change. We assert that it is Trinitarian doctrine that has caused these problems, and that there simply is no solution to th
em as long as one holds a Trinitarian position. We assert that the real solution is to realize that there is only one True God, the Father, and that Jesus Christ is the “man accredited by God” who has now been made “both Lord and Christ” (Acts 2:22 and 36). Then Christ is fully man and is “one of us,” and God is God and has never changed or been a man.

4. While Trinitarians have argued among themselves about the meaning of Philippians 2:6-8, an unfortunate thing has occurred—the loss of the actual meaning of the verse. The verse is not speaking either of Christ’s giving up his “Godhood” at his incarnation or of his God-nature being willing to “hide” so that his man-nature can show itself clearly. Rather, it is saying something else. Scripture says Christ was the “image of God” (2 Cor. 4:4), and Jesus himself testified that if one had seen him, he had seen the Father. Saying that Christ was in the “form” (outward appearance) of God is simply stating that truth in another way. Unlike Adam, who grasped at being like God (Gen. 3:5), Christ, the Last Adam, “emptied himself” of all his reputation and the things due him as the true child of the King. He lived in the same fashion as other men. He humbled himself to the Word and will of God. He lived by “It is written” and the commands of his Father. He did not “toot his own horn,” but instead called himself “the son of man,” which, in the Aramaic language he spoke, meant “a man.” He trusted God and became obedient, even to a horrible and shameful death on a cross.

The Philippian Church was doing well and was supportive of Paul, but they had problems as well. There was “selfish ambition” (1:15; 2:3) and “vain conceit” (2:3), arguing and lack of consideration for others (2:4 and 14) and a need for humility, purity and blamelessness (2:3 and 15). So, Paul wrote an exhortation to the believers that, “Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus” (2:5). He then went on to show how Christ did not grasp at equality with God, but was completely humble, and as a result God “highly exalted him.” The example of Jesus Christ is a powerful one. We do not need to make sure people notice us or know who we are. We should simply serve in obedience and humility, assured that God will one day reward us for our deeds. “

Naah
God is spirit
Jesus is the Word.
Jesus isthe only begotten Son of God sent into the world.
God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself.

He was never the God who spoke him into existence
Obeying God or representing God did not give him the outward appraeance of God-nonsense.

[Elidad]

Hi Nick, Disappointed that you haven't come up with the link you had in mind.

Although the link didn't work, it was good that Google was able to find the related BU location, to which I was referring

It seems that the link won't work by clicking on it, from within a Heaven Net post. It works it you copy and paste it into your Browser though.

Evidently, you have copied almost the entire article from the BU link and included it in your post. Perhaps you have done a dis-service to treatment of the subject by not bringing across the full picture? In doing so, the only comment you appear to have added is:

Quote

Naah God is spirit Jesus is the Word. Jesus isthe only begotten Son of God sent into the world. God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself. He was never the God who spoke him into existence Obeying God or representing God did not give him the outward apprearance of God-nonsense.

In concluding with the remark “Naah” as if in disagreement, you have really confused me, given your following summary points that I have put my comment beside below:

'God is spirit', Fully agree – a 100% Scriptual statement.
'Jesus is the Word', Fully agree – a 100% Scriptual statement.
'Jesus is the only begotten son of God sent into the world', Fully agree – a 100% Scriptual statement.
'He was never the God who spoke Him into existence', Fully agree, but this is not a statement that is explicitly Scriptual

How does the article in question, differ significantly from this?

Now your next statement has completely lost me, in light of the thoughts from the BU site that your are commenting upon.

You state “Obeying God or representing God did not give him the outward appearance of God-nonsense.”

What are you saying here? What is the God-nonsense you are referring to in particular?

Could you please clarify your understandings, so that I can catch on. At times you seem to be saying one thing and in the next breath something quite different. You are going completely over my head. Could you please allow for dummies like myself?

I have not yet clearly caught onto what you are contending for. At times I think you a speaking against both Unitarian and Trinitarian viewpoints, yet at times offering thoughts that would fit into either one of these categories. Thus, is there some sort of middle position between that of Trinitarian and Unitarian that you are trying to convey. Could you kindly spell it out in point form to help me grasp it. Point form, supported by Scriptural references? Is that asking too much? Perhaps you could present it in the form of a matrix. i.e 1. Trinitarian view. 2. Unitarian View. 3. What you see as the more Scriptual view. Does that make sense?

Over to you. Hope you can help clear the air on this matter for me. At the moment, you are doing a good job of tying me up in knots .

Peace to you.

Elidad

[Author]

Posts