A SCRIPTURE based discussion of the Trinity

I generally supposed this to be a Christian forum and not an antichrist forum. To me it seems clear that the few writers here have at a reasonable grasp of Scripture and ideas Christian. To arrive at conclusions above based on the Scriptures supporting those conclusions takes far more than lack of understanding or misunderstanding--to arrive so far off the map would require a dedicated and deliberate effort. I am beginning to realize the nature of this forum and its denizens.

Fascinating for "not strong" assessment is the spirit inside the man Jesus knowing God's Glory and Love BEFORE physical realm existed: had not been created by plural אלהים God => "Let US make humankind in OUR image and according to OUR likeness" (Genesis 1:26 LEB)

Noted no comment about my next paragraph on September 23: (silence infers concurrence)

We agree the man Jesus had a male human physical body (flesh) while we disagree about spiritual nature dwelling inside that body. My learning from John 1:1-18 is The Word (quality was being אלהים God, which was in beginning with אלהים God) dwelling inside human body that is consistent with Matthew 1:18-25 description of Jesus being אלהים God with us (Emmanuel), who will save His people from sin. Jesus knew He was unique => So he said to them again, “I am going away, and you will seek me and will die in your sin. Where I am going you cannot come!” Then the Jews began to say, “Perhaps he will kill himself, because he is saying, ‘Where I am going you cannot come.’ ” And he said to them, “You are from below; I AM from above. You are from this world; I AM not from this world. Thus I said to you that you will die in your sins. For if you do not believe that I AM he, you will die in your sins.” (John 8:21-24 LEB with "I AM" for ἐγώ εἰμι and he - translation addition)

Our faith belief ideas about New Testament witness of Jesus Christ currently disagree, which affects how Biblical Truth is personally intepreted.

If The Father & Jesus are truly One Lord יהוה, then Scripture command to Satan: "You shall worship the Lord your God and serve only him." is commanding Satan to worship The Father & Jesus as יהוה Lord אלהים God. If Jesus is NOT Lord יהוה, why did Satan obey command to leave ? (as did every demon when Jesus commanded them to get out of humans, which demonstrated being יהוה Lord אלהים God over Satan, demons, ...)

Acts 19:11-20 describes what happens to humans trying to cast out demons in the name of Jesus while not believing Jesus is יהוה Lord (the seven sons of a Jewish chief priest knew about Jesus while not knowing Jesus in an intimate loving relationship so were humiliated by demons in a man).

How many voice(s) can One God have ? If believe God has only one voice, please provide scripture showing plural אלהים God only has one voice.

While being יהוה Lord, Jesus can truly worship Father as יהוה Lord (two voices in One plural אלהים God Spiritual Being sharing One Holy Name)

FWIW: my personalization of Matthew 6:9-13 prayer begins with: Our יהוה Lord who art in heaven (as The Father & Jesus are One יהוה Lord in heaven now). Thankful for immense Holiness of יהוה ❤️

If The Father & Jesus are truly One Lord יהוה, then Jesus truly knows the One True אלהים God (eternally beyond human knowledge & wisdom), which includes Jesus being one voice in the unique plural אלהים God. Faulty human wisdom that the one sent cannot be the one sending is showing again. In John 17:5 & John 17:24 Jesus experienced God's Glory & Love in a spiritual way since physical realm had not yet been created by God. How can Jesus not be a voice in One God's commUnity of Love ? (Jesus existed when the only being in existence was One plural אלהים God)

FWIW: physical aspect of παρά para (alongside, beside, to the side) in John 17:5 is challenging to describe in a spiritual only setting.

I give thanks to the one who strengthens me, Christ Jesus our יהוה Lord, because he considered me faithful, placing me into ministry, although I was formerly a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent man, but I was shown mercy because I acted ignorantly in unbelief, and the grace of our יהוה Lord abounded with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. The saying is trustworthy and worthy of all acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost. But because of this I was shown mercy, in order that in me foremost, Christ Jesus might demonstrate his total patience, for an example for those who are going to believe in him for eternal life. Now to the King of the ages, immortal, invisible, to the only אלהים God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen. (1 Timothy 1:12-17 LEB)

Jewish writer of 1 Timothy believed Jesus Christ is יהוה Lord. The Messiah (Christ) is the human descendent of King David, who eternally rules on God's throne, per יהוה covenant with King David in 1 Samuel 7. Septuagint translation of Hebrew into Greek shows יהוה translated as Lord (so Jewish tradition of saying Adonai "Lord" for יהוה appears in Septuagint, which predates Jesus humanly walking on earth by over a century).

And a certain ruler asked him, saying, “Good Teacher, by doing what will I inherit eternal life?” And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone. You know the commandments: ‘Do not commit adultery, do not murder, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother.’ ” And he said, “All these I have observed from my youth.” And when he heard this, Jesus said to him, “You still lack one thing: Sell all that you have, and distribute the proceeds to the poor—and you will have treasure in heaven—and come, follow me.” But when he heard these things he became very sad, because he was extremely wealthy. (Luke 18:18-23 LEB)

Humanly not know if wealthy ruler was a religious leader. Thankful for wealthy ruler and Jesus discussion, which showed wealthy ruler loved personal riches on earth more than obeying God's Words spoken through Jesus for treasure in heaven. Every person chooses what to love most. Thus, question to wealthy ruler shows God knew inside heart motivation of wealthy ruler so correctly questioned: "Why do you call me good? ..."

Intriguing dialog between The Will (Father) and The Word (Son) about searching for any other way than Jesus (Son) dying as Holy Sacrifice for Sin (so Jesus went below to experience awfulness of Hell torment away from God's Love ❤️ as substitute for sin, which is Holy way to heaven for those who choose to repent from sin and believe Jesus is יהוה Lord, physically raised from the dead). Parallel account in Luke 22:39-46 includes: And being in anguish, he began praying more fervently and his sweat became like drops of blood falling down to the ground. (Thankful for reading "Climbing into Eternity: My Descent in Hell and Flight to Heaven" by Michele Pulford, described torments in Hell so now appreciate anguish more)

THE POINT reads to me as a variation of John 10:33 reason for Jewish Religious Leaders wanting to kill Jesus (while remembering "God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of humankind, that he should change his mind." in Numbers 23:19 LEB). Your "overemphasized" basis for doubting Jesus being a voice in One God Spiritual Being is the phrase "the MAN Jesus" (we agree Jesus had a male human body). Jesus is unique in being the Son of God (Holy), but Jesus is NOT the spiritual descendent of Adam so did NOT inherit a sin-stained spirit housed in a human body.

Missing from your Acts 2 description is Jewish context. Leviticus 23 includes three annual feasts in Jerusalem. In 2021 (Hebrew year 5781), Pesach (Passover) was Sunset 26 March to Sunset 27 March (14 Nissan). Shavout (Pentecost) started at Sunset 16 May (6 Sivan). Anticipate most, if not all, of the Acts 2 Jewish audience had been in Jerusalem & part of the Jewish crowd demanding crucifixion of the man Jesus almost two months earlier => “Israelite men, listen to these words! Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with deeds of power and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, just as you yourselves know—this man, delivered up by the determined plan and foreknowledge of God, you executed by nailing to a cross through the hand of lawless men. God raised him up, having brought to an end the pains of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it. (Acts 2:22-24 is two Greek sentences, whose purpose is convicting Jewish audience about executing Jesus)

Thankful for plural אלהים God resurrecting Jesus. Humanly not know if Jesus alone could have resurrected self from Hell (substitute for our sins) without the rest of plural אלהים God. The intense pain & agony of The Word portion in plural אלהים God being separated at the crucifixion was followed by Incredibly Immense JOY of Resurrection. Personally believe the Shroud of Turin shows demonic (dark) forces pushing against entire human body of Jesus in instense attempt to keep Jesus from being resurrected. Wonder about three dimensional negative image of entire body in the Shroud of Turin being proof of spiritual singeing as demonic (dark) forces were unable to keep Holy Light of Jesus from bursting forth all over.

Thankful for Alpha Film Series: How Can I Resist Evil ? including "The devil wants us to doubt our beliefs & believe our doubts" at 7:53 in video (like context of important things in life require faith, trusting). Thankful for God's immense faithful ❤️Love for every human.

Thankful God's Love ❤️ requires free will choice (cannot be forced). Every human individually chooses what to ❤️ Love most: One God OR something else: e.g. self, deceiving spirit(s), drugs, idols, other human(s), personal study results, political loyalty, religious appearance, ... while remembering that our spiritual adversary always wants to steal/destroy ❤️Love relationship between every human and God. Thankful God's Love ❤️ is stronger than the evil one. Thankful for humans that chose narrow path to Holy living in God who kept choosing to stay in God's Holiness. Thankful (& sad) for my own life journey including being disobedient to God after several years of spiritual growth (allowed cares of this world to become thorns choking out my awareness & dependence in God). Thankful God's Love ❤️is always faithful so every human alive can choose to repent from their sins to Holy Right Love ❤️ in One God => If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, so that he will forgive us our sins and will cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. (1 John 1:9-10 LEB)

Keep Smiling 😊

Actually, if you'd adhere to any Jewish context in Scripture, you would have put your "Jesus is God" belief into the theological trash bin long time ago ... as such binitarian and/or trinitarian "YHWH God" ideas are completely foreign to all Jewish thought and context.

Jews are not fooled nor fool themselves by labeling three entities into "one trinity" ... they do NOT think of anyone other than YHWH (whom the man Jesus claimed to be his father) as their God.

I believe Acts 2 is a pivotal NT text in our efforts to understand who Jesus was, but I don't find anything in the chapter to support your claim that the Jews could, and in some cases did, understand Jesus to God living among us in human form. Specifically:

• Peter describes Jesus to the crowd as a "man" to whom God had "attested" "with deeds of power and wonders and signs that God did through him," a man "delivered up by the determined plan and foreknowledge of God," crucified, and then raised by God (Acts 2.22-24, 32).
• Peter tells the crowd that the resurrected Jesus had been "exalted to the right hand of God," and had "received the promise of the Holy Spirit from the Father" (Acts 2.33).
• And Peter declares that God had "made" Jesus both "Lord and Christ" (Acts 2.38).

A man to whom God attested and through whom God did miracles, a man raised to new life, exalted to God's right hand, and who received the Holy Spirit from God in no way sounds to me like God who lived among us in human form. Peter's message to his Jerusalem audience on multiple occasions refers to Jesus as the recipient of God's actions, and at no time identifies him as (or even raises the possibility that he was) God in human form.

But that's my reading of the text! Please identify where in Acts 2 you find support for your claim.

In your previous post, you contended that "[t]he Acts 2 description reveals that the Jews could (and some did) understand who Jesus was--one God, who came to live among us in the form of a man. to become the perfect sacrifice to redeem us from our sins." You made no reference to any other passage or "parts of the Bible" as the sources of your claim.

Since you based your contention on what you called "the Acts 2 description," and in your latest post report that "Acts 2 clearly speaks to [you] of the deity of Christ," I rephrase my question: Where in "the Acts 2 description" do you find support for your claim that the Jews "could (and some did) understand who Jesus was--one God who came to live among us in the form of a man"?

Or by your latest post are you acknowledging that there is nothing in Acts 2 itself to support your claim, and that your claim about Acts 2 is actually informed by conclusions you draw from passages in other parts of the Bible? If your answer to each of those questions is no, then please cite for me the specific verses of Acts 2 which speak clearly to you of the deity of Christ and "the notion many call trinity."

Here you offer a headline, but no story, a charge, but no evidence.

In my view, all I did in my previous post was to quote from verses and give what seemed to me to be reasonable and common sense interpretations of them. So that I understand how my interpretations did not "indicate accepted hermeneutics," please take one - just the first one, Acts 2.22-24 - and show how the cited verses don't say what I said they say:

22 “Israelite men, listen to these words! Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with deeds of power and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, just as you yourselves know—23 this man, delivered up by the determined plan and foreknowledge of God, you executed by nailing to a cross through the hand of lawless men. 24 God raised ⌊him⌋ up, having brought to an end the pains of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it.

I summarized those verses this way: "Peter describes Jesus to the crowd as a "man" to whom God had "attested" "with deeds of power and wonders and signs that God did through him," a man "delivered up by the determined plan and foreknowledge of God," crucified, and then raised by God."

To convey my interpretation of those specific verses I wrote, "A man to whom God attested and through whom God did miracles, a man raised to new life... in no way sounds to me like God who lived among us in human form. Peter's message to his Jerusalem audience on multiple occasions refers to Jesus as the recipient of God's actions, and at no time identifies him as (or even raises the possibility that he was) God in human form."

Please demonstrate how either my summary or my interpretation of those verses is a) incorrect, and b) does not "indicate accepted hermeneutics."

The point of discourse forums such as these is to engage each other on the content, logic, truth, and consistency of our respective observations, so it's actually not "enough" for you to make claims that you're not willing to back up. It is what it is! But it's not "enough."

Thank you for these comments, which offer substance to our exchange.

• Neither the word "Father" nor the word "Son" appears in Acts 2.22-32. In all of Peter's Act 2 sermon, the word "Father" appears only in Acts 2.33, and the word "Son" doesn't appear at all. On that basis, I contend there is no textual basis for your claim of trinitarian references in Acts 2.
• In the Acts 2 text - not simply in my claims about the text - Peter says Jesus was a "man" to whom "God" -- NOT the "Father" component of the Godhead -- attested by doing "deeds of power and wonders and signs" "through him." That is: God attested to Jesus by doing awesome things through him. That's what the text says. It says nothing about the Father's "validating" or otherwise affirming that Jesus is God. I welcome you to that claim, but it's not supported by the text.
• The quotation from Psalm 16 must be read carefully and first, in its original context. 1) In Psalm 16.1, the psalmist asks God for protection; 2) In Psalm 16.2, the psalmist declares Jahweh to be his Lord, apart from whom he - the psalmist - has "no good"; 3) In Psalm 16.4, the psalmist critiques those who "hurry after" other gods, something he says he won't do because Yahweh is his God (Psalm 16.5); 4) In that context the psalmist declares his confidence that God will not abandon his soul to Sheol or give him to the grave (Psalm 16.10). So in Psalm 16, the one who has hope that he will not be abandoned is a human being who seeks protection from the one he calls God, and who rejects the pursuit of other gods. THAT'S the Psalm from which Peter quotes.
• In Acts 2.25-28, Peter quotes from Psalm 16 immediately after declaring that "God" had raised Jesus from the dead (Acts 2.24) - that is, had not abandoned his soul to the grave. Peter therefore employs a Psalm about a man who is confident that God will not abandon him to the grave to describe Jesus, whom Peter has just described as a man whom God did not abandon to the grave. AND Peter does so without referencing God and Jesus as components of a godhead.
• In Acts 2.33, the Holy Spirit is a power/presence the risen and exalted Jesus has received from the "Father," which in context is clearly Peter's designation for the one in his sermon he otherwise refers to as "God." Reference to Jesus, the "Father," and the "Holy Spirit" in the same verse (Acts 2.33) does not itself convey a trinitarian connection between them. In fact, neither the verse nor any part of Peter's Acts 2 sermon conveys such a connection.

On this basis, I contend there is no textual basis for your claims about Peter's Act 2 presentation. In fact, I claim Acts 2 directly contradicts trinitarian theology. In my view, one whom "God" raised and through whom "God" did miracles et al - and that's what the text says - cannot be God. Or at least, that's what the text says Peter said about Jesus.

A serious question: What message about Jesus and God do you believe Peter's Acts 2 audience received from his description of Jesus as a man whom God had raised and through whom God had done mighty deeds? Do you contend the audience received a trinitarian message from that description?

Your interpretations are based on isolating passages, even phrases within a passage. That is not acceptable hermeneutics and not a valid conclusion. That leaves little to discuss.

A brief survey across recent forum posts indicates that you often experience the need to threaten disengagement with others (which does not appear to be sustained for long), or you accuse others of not engaging you according to some esoteric rules you make for yourself and others.

I am happy to engage you in reasonable, respectful, discourse used in standard communication. When you cite texts and insist on responses to those texts outside of their well-established contexts, then, in my judgment, we don't have enough logical substance to begin meaningful discourse.

I encourage you to conduct something more substantive than a "brief" survey of my posts so as to identify the specific reasons I disengaged from certain posters in certain threads or on certain topics. If you do so, I think you'll discover that...

• For a lengthy period of time I engaged CD posters on their conspiracy theories (i.e. baseless assertions of fact), but then decided such posts were a poor investment of my time because those posters consistently chose not to respond to the posts in which I debunked their claims, and in fact, chose not even to acknowledge the existence of my posts. Hence, I decided no longer to respond to every conspiracy theory. In Wolfgang's case, as I have made clear in my responses to his conspiracy theories, every several weeks or months I engage him for a week or so, but only to remind him and the CD community of his practice of posting falsehoods.
• In another case, a CD poster on several occasions challenged me by name to reply to his conspiracy theory-based posts. But when I did - when I debunked the claims of that CD poster or in some other way satisfied the challenge - he chose time and again not to respond, not even to acknowledge the existence of my responses. I decided no longer to engage that poster's challenges should he call me out by name, again because I consider it a poor investment of my time to prepare replies to posters who won't even acknowledge my posts.
• Bottom line: I answer directly the questions put to me by other posters, and expect similar responsiveness from those to whom I respond. I have decided not to engage posters who dodge questions or refuse to acknowledge my posts, and do so as their SOP. But my practice is subject-specific. I regularly engage Wolfgang on Bible study matters because he responds to my posts as I do to his. His conspiracy theory posts produce a very different reaction from him... and as a result, from me.

If those are "esoteric rules," then I'm all for esoterism.

I read this as a dodge. In my view, you don't want engage the texts I cite because they don't fit into what you call "their well-established contexts." Acts 2 does NOT support your Christology, and I think you know that; otherwise, you'd show me how it does. But rather than acknowledging the challenge Acts 2 presents to your Christology - rather than engaging the content of the chapter - you refuse to discuss it, apparently due to the "context" created, in your view, by what you called "other parts of the Bible." As a result, you appear willing to engage Scripture, but only those texts that concur with your view of their "well-established contexts."

At some level, I hope you will acknowledge the pattern of our Bible-related discussions. In support of my Christology, I've quoted and commented on multiple passages. You've refused to engage on those passages, choosing instead to claim the existence of unspecified "other parts of the Bible" as support for yours. So you criticize my views without a moment's engagement with their specifics. You claim I'm mistaken, but you're not willing/able to show how any my exegesis of the texts is flawed. Instead, you cling to "other parts of the Bible," the parts that you think agree with you and disagree with Acts 2 or any of the other passages I cite.

In my view, that's not "reasonable, respectful discourse" either.

Then show us the "accepted meaning" of Acts 2.22-36, in which Peter calls Jesus a "man" whom God raised and through whom God did awesome things! If the meaning of that passage is so widely accepted and well-established, it ought to be a simple task. What is the "accepted" meaning of Peter's declaration that "God" did "deeds of power and wonders and signs" "through" the "man" Jesus? (Acts 2.22)

Instead of labeling our arguments as "insistent," why don't you engage them and demonstrate that they indeed have no "traction at all" and are as "simply dead wrong" as you claim? Why are you so willing to criticize, but unwilling to back up your critiques?

The "traction" of my and Wolfgang's argument about the "man" Jesus, in my view, is shown by your unwillingness to engage it. If it actually had no "traction," you'd show it. But you can't show it has no "traction," so you choose to criticize it without proof.

Let the record show that I/we invited you to engage in genuine dialogue on Scripture's message about the deity of Christ, and that you chose not to accept the invitation.

Thanks for this response, which opens us to genuine engagement on our respective views. To wit:

• "God came as man in the form of Jesus." - Peter doesn't make this claim in any of his sermons in the book of Acts. Instead, he says God "made" Jesus both Lord and Christ (Acts 2.36). One who was God needed to be made "Lord"? And "God" made "Lord" one who was already God?
• "Jesus, did awesome things, showing that He was more than a man, but was, in fact, God. That is how God did these things through the man." - Peter doesn't make this claim in any of his sermons in the book of Acts. Instead, Peter specifically credits God, not Jesus, for the awesome things done through Jesus, not BY Jesus. According to Peter, God's actions through Jesus show God's attestation to Jesus (Acts 2.22) - God's endorsement of Jesus in their midst - but there is no indication in Peter's words that he believes Jesus was God. In the structure of Peter's imagery, Jesus is a conduit for God's actions (e.g. God acted "through" Jesus); he is not God. In subsequent references, for example, Peter calls Jesus God's "servant" (Acts 3.13,26) and God's anointed "holy servant" (Acts 4.27,30).
• "The man had limits of being a man, but God was not limited by incarnating Himself. God did as He chose through the man." - Again, Peter doesn't make this claim in any of his sermons in the book of Acts. As I read the Gospels, God didn't do as God *chose* through Jesus. Rather, God did as Jesus *permitted* God to do (e.g. the temptation scene in which Jesus chooses loyalty to God and Scriptural truth over the rewards of Satan, and the Gethsemane scene in which three times Jesus concludes a poignant struggle of the soul with his surrender to God's will over his own. *How could one who was God ever have had a will that was in any way different from God's will?*)

My larger point is that at no time in his sermons did Peter declare Jesus to be God. Such a designation would have been FAR more earth-shaking to his audiences than his references to Jesus as God's "servant" or messiah. It would have attached to Jesus the most profound and astounding identity possible, and yet Peter didn't call him God. Not once. In my view, that's telling.

And about your "other parts of the Bible" argument (and I hope you will address this one directly since I've had trouble getting direct answers from other Trinity advocates): Peter's audiences in Acts didn't have access to other parts of the Bible, at least not to other parts of the New Testament. They knew about Jesus what Peter told them about Jesus in his sermons plus whatever other information they had gleaned over the years of his life. THAT'S why the question I asked but you have yet to address matters: What message did Peter's audience take from Peter's sermons when he called Jesus God's "servant" and a man to whom God had attested and through whom God had done great things?

Where in Peter's sermons is there ANY declaration that Jesus was God? And given his role in declaring the Gospel to those crowds - who again, knew nothing about other parts of the New Testament - why didn't he say it if he believed it? I contend he didn't say it because he didn't believe it. If EVER he was going to tell people that Jesus was God, the Acts 2 crowd was the audience. They had experienced the Holy Spirit. Now, Peter could have said, let me complete the triad for you! But he didn't. That HAS to be important, or so I believe.

I too have no difficulty understanding Peter's sermons in the book of Acts. I hope you will quote the verse(s) in Peter's Acts 2 sermon which in your view support your claim that Jesus as God "seems to largely be [its] purpose." I see no such verses, as I noted above.

Why did Peter preach the sermon? I think the text makes clear that he preached to interpret for the crowd what they had witnessed in the arrival of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2.14-21), to witness to the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus (Acts 2.29-32), and to connect their experience of the Spirit with the exaltation of Jesus to the right hand of God (Acts 2.33-36.).

Your turn.

People say things. --Pelosi

This seems to me a common malady in our world today.

Thank you for your admonition.

As I noted in my previous post, I welcome you to your points of view on these and all other matters, and both respect and applaud your faith that undergirds them.