NewStats: 3,261,109 , 8,173,052 topics. Date: Wednesday, 28 May 2025 at 08:53 AM g446u

Janosky:


Thanks for your comments.

When you examine Isaiah 6:8, Yahweh said "whom shall I send?
Who will go for Us?"
("Us" @Isaiah 6:8 proves that "Us " @ Genesis 1:26 is not 3 persons. )

If you compare Isaiah 6:8 with Psalm 103:20,you would understand this truth that Yahweh the Most High God, (the term "Most High" meaning Only One Being is Supreme ) Himself does not go to perform any assignment.
Rather, Yahweh sends lesser beings in heaven to do the job.
@ John 3:16, John 14:24,28, John 5:37 Jesus Christ provided the proof in agreement with Psalm 103:20& & Isaiah 6:8.
The scriptural evidence is God Himself did not come to the earth but His son was sent. Romans 8:3.
Revelation 1:1 & 19:6,10, Yahweh gave the message to Jesus in heaven to give the angel sent to John .
The message from heaven is "
Worship the God Almighty "

Worship was not meant for Jesus.
Revelation 1:1 and Revelation 19:5-10 is the evidence.
Thanks.
Shalom .

Thanks 4 your response.
Maybe you missed the crux of the question. Here it is again:
Don’t you think it is only God that could have restored a Person from all that (He was literally DEAD!) to a position of being worshipped as God, and that it would never have been possible if God had not approved of it, and definitely would not have lasted these thousands of years?

See, if this were 50 AD, we could be saying let's wait and see. And , nothing provokes the wrath of YHWH like trying to worship another alongside Him. Don't you think that for Him to resurrect a dead Person and allow His being worshipped as God for thousands of years says something about where He stands on the issue?

Janosky:


Your footnotes reads @ Exodus 3:14
"I will be what I will be". the correct rendition of Hebrew Exodus 3:14
"I AM" is desperate attempt by Trinitarians to deceive themselves about John 8;58.

The screenshots evidence speaking the truth.

I'm not going to waste my time on Hebrew grammatical argument with U because none of us speak ancient Hebrew.

The word ehye is pronounced as YHWH. AND THAT WAS EXACTLY WHAT JESUS SAID- I AM.
THE Septuagint Translates 'ehye to ego eimi'.
The original John manuscript wrote I am as ego eimi'.

Janosky:


Your Trinitarian mentors at Nicene in 381 AD made their holy spirit they installed as deity.

Jesus said holy spirit is God's finger often referred to as hand of God in your Bible.Luke 12:20 Matthew 12:28.
Egyptians agreed at Exodus 8:13 that Jesus is correct.

God has eyes , Psalm 11:4 ,ears,Nehemiah 1:6 & finger, Exodus 8:19 and mouth, Matthew 4:4.
Is God's mouth a person? No.
Is God's eyes a person? No.
Is God's ears a person? No
Is God's finger a person? Definitely not!

So are U saying the word of God and holy spirit are not depicted as persons in the bible.
Is that what U saying because I need U to be clear.

Janosky:

Constantine assembled men at Nicene to make it a deity in 381AD and instal l it as a being.

Holy spirit is not a being. No Christian ever said holy spirit is a being.
Pls understand the difference btw being and person b4 embarrassing yourself in public.
GOD IS ONE BEING NOT 3 BEINGS.

Janosky:

[b]Origen and other church fathers never believed nor agree with that Nicene invention.
John 16:13 , holy spirit is referenced as "he" but "he" is not in the Greek manuscripts.
English translators of your Bible put "he" there because Greek Paraclete in John 16:7 is masculine gender in Greek language.
Holy spirit is personified as "he".
KJV Romans 8:16,26 accurately referenced holy spirit as itself because in Greek language holy spirit neuter,no gender.

Ok if U say holy spirit is not a person. Explain this verses
Luke 2
25 Now there was a man in Jerusalem called Simeon, who was righteous and devout. He was waiting for the consolation of Israel, and the Holy Spirit was on him. 26 It had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he would not die before he had seen the Lord’s Messiah.

So how can holy spirit communicates and give revelation If it's not a person?

Janosky:

"Christianity before emperor Constantine" go and study this subject very well and cure your delusion.
[/b]

Why are U talking about Nicene creed again. U already said said U don't believe in church fathers and I said fine.
Let's stick to scripture and leave church fathers doctrine out of our discussion.
Stick to the scripture.

Now if U say the word of God is not a person, explain this verses.
Genesis 15
After this, the word of the Lord came to Abram in a vision:
“Do not be afraid, Abram.
I am your shield,[a]
your very great reward.[b]”

Explain how the word can be expressed as an action force if it's not a person.
How can the word of the LORD be speaking of it's not a person.

DaddyCoool:


My question is, WHY is the Father sacrificing at all when it's only Him involved - it would make sense if there were another person involved that needed to be appeased

I'm not sure I fully understand your question.

But the work of atonement by God is a self sacrifice from him to safe humanity. It doesn't involve another being.

Self sacrifice is different from human sacrifice.

Jesus who is God in flesh sacrificed himself for us.

It's not like the Father created a fully separate human being and send him to the world to die for our sins.
That would depicts the pagan practice of sacrificing humans to appease their deity.

Jesus is human with fullness of father's divinity in him. He's not a separate being from the Father.

Janosky:


Jesus Christ the word has a separate existence from the Father his God.

John 14:24 & Hebrew 1:1-2 is the answer in your Bible.

"the one not loving Me does not keep My words. And the word that you hear is not Mine, but that of the Father having sent Me"
Yahweh can not send Himself Isaiah 6:8.
Yahweh sent Jesus his son to speak Yahweh's word, John 14:24
Jesus is the word because he & Paul agreed that Jesus is the Spokesman sent to speak the words given to him by God his Father.

Do you SirTee15 agree with Jesus Christ and Paul, both apostles of God?

If U think the word of God has a separate existence from the Father, U need your head checked.

So when God said ' Let their be light'. That statement that was spoken by the Father is a separate existence from the Father?

Janosky:

Your fellow Trinitarians devotees have debunked your false claims.

Your ghost deity taught them that Jesus is archangel Michael.

Go and argue with them.
Nah the same ghost deity dey teach una.

Ok are U saying angel of the LORD is Jesus?
Is that what U saying?
because the angel of the LORD is called YHWH and God almighty multiple times in the bible.

Are U sure U want to stick to Jesus being angel of the Lord.

SIRTee15:


I'm not sure I fully understand your question.

But the work of atonement by God is a self sacrifice from him to safe humanity. It doesn't involve another being.

Self sacrifice is different from human sacrifice.

Jesus who is God in flesh sacrificed himself for us.

It's not like the Father created a fully separate human being and send him to the world to die for our sins.
That would depicts the pagan practice of sacrificing humans to appease their deity.

Jesus is human with fullness of father's divinity in him. He's not a separate being from the Father.

Oh, my question is quite clear. Here it is again:
WHY is the Father sacrificing at all when He could simply forgive without any self-sacrifice? It would make sense if there were another entity involved that required sacrifice to be appeased

.

SIRTee15:


First U know trinity isn't written in the bible. What we see in the scripture is the concept of trinity.

Now let me ask U a simple question

Is the word of God a separate existence from the Father?
Is the spirit of God a separate existence from the Father?

1, No, the Word of God (Jesus Christ, the Son) is not a separate existence from the Father, but a distinct person within the Godhead.

2, No, the Spirit of God (Holy Spirit) is not a separate existence from the Father, but a distinct person within the Godhead.


They are of the same essence but distinct.

Nachmonides:


1, No, the Word of God (Jesus Christ, the Son) is not a separate existence from the Father, but a distinct person within the Godhead.

2, No, the Spirit of God (Holy Spirit) is not a separate existence from the Father, but a distinct person within the Godhead.


They are of the same essence but distinct.

why are you confusing yourself like this, which one is not separate but it is distinct.

Why are you being cunny?

Janosky:


John 10:30= John 17:21-22, Jesus, the disciples and God are One.

Jesus said so ,It is written there in your Bible.

The damage was done by men @ Nicene 381 AD..

Don't be unwise. Either your statements show deliberate dishonesty, or willful ignorance.

In John 10:30, the Lord Jesus was stating his oneness (essence) with the Father. "I and the father are one"


In John 17: 21 -22, the Lord Jesus was praying (not making a satisfied/fulfilled/definitive statement; rather he was desirous of them) to the Father that his disciples be one (united) just as he (Jesus) and the Father are one (in essence).

How?

In V.14, he tells us 14 I have given them your word, and the world has hated them, because they are not of the world just as I am not of the world.

14 - He has given them the Father's word


In V.15, he tells us 15 I do not ask that you take them out of the world, but that you protect them from the evil one.


15 - The protection from the evil one is tied to the word he says he has given them as mentioned in V.14

In VV.16-19

16 They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. 17 Sanctify them in the truth—your word is truth. 18 Just as you sent me into the world, I also have sent them into the world. 19 [/b]And for them I sanctify myself, so that they themselves also may be sanctified in the truth.

16 - How are they not of the world? Don't forget V.14

17 - To Sanctify means to make Holy; to separate, set apart. He asks the Father to Sanctify them in the truth and he says the Father's word (the one he says he gave them in V.14) is truth.

18 - He gives them his word and sends them to the word.

19 - He Sanctifies, or sets himself apart, separate, with the word of the Father, so his disciples may be Sanctified as well.


Then VV.20-22

[b]20 “And I do not ask on behalf of these only, but also on behalf of those who believe in me through their word, 21 that they all may be one, just as you, Father, are in me and I am in you, that they also may be in us, in order that the world may believe that you sent me. 22 And the glory that you have given to me, I have given to them, in order that they may be one, just as we are one

20 - He doesn't pray (ask) for only the disciples but also for all those who will believe through their word (which is the Father's word he says he gave them in V.14 and the one he says is truth in V.17)

21 - With the previous texts in mind, how would they be one? - Obviously it will have to do with the word he has been talking about.

22 - This now hits the nail in the coffin, he switches from the Father's word to the Father's glory. He says he has given them the glory, is he talking of a different thing? — No, he had already said he gave them the Father's word in V.14.

So we see Word in V.14, Glory in V.22.
And he says, that's how they will be one.

What exactly did some men at Nicaea in 325, or 381 AD do?

gohf:
why are you confusing yourself like this, which one is not separate but it is distinct.

Why are you being cunny?

Essence refers to the fundamental nature or substance of something—what it is at its core.

Separate means existing independently or apart from something else, with no intrinsic connection.

Distinct means being uniquely identifiable and having individual characteristics or roles while remaining connected.

SIRTee15:


I'm not sure I fully understand your question.

But the work of atonement by God is a self sacrifice from him to safe humanity. It doesn't involve another being.

Self sacrifice is different from human sacrifice.

Jesus who is God in flesh sacrificed himself for us.

It's not like the Father created a fully separate human being and send him to the world to die for our sins.
That would depicts the pagan practice of sacrificing humans to appease their deity.

Jesus is human with fullness of father's divinity in him. He's not a separate being from the Father.

this your teaching is from your own imagination.

The work of atonement is not a self sacrifice from God. What is God atoning for, do you even understand what atonement means?


If Jesus is God it automatically disqualifies him from being or even performing an atonement.

Is it because your understanding of the the basic scripture especially the Torah is poor that you say such things, even if you didn't understand, didn't you read the book of Hebrews and other books in the new testament, if what you have said it not from your imagination then it is probably from a false teacher or false being.

Nachmonides:


Essence refers to the fundamental nature or substance of something—what it is at its core.

Separate means existing independently or apart from something else, with no intrinsic connection.

Distinct means being uniquely identifiable and having individual characteristics or roles while remaining connected.

I didn't ask for a lecture in English, I do have a dictionary but it's funny to see how you cunningly added to your definition of separation- no intrinsic connection

It's pathetic that you do not understand that though we are in separate worlds we are still connected. Connection would not be needed if things were not separated.

It is because a thing is separate that it is distinct having it's own characteristics has you put it. Now because you things or being have or share the same nature it doesn't mean they are the same.

It's like one being myopic and see all Chinese people or blacks as the same in their eyes, even though each person is different only connected by race but God is not a race, if you say Spirit that may be manageable but God is just one person, one being YHVH. You can't make him two becomes you want to.


If there was another god besides God it means God lied and if God lied, then... do you now see the agenda of the devil to make you believe that there are three or more gods

gohf:
I didn't ask for a lecture in English, I do have a dictionary but it's funny to see how you cunningly added to your definition of separation- no intrinsic connection

It's pathetic that you do not understand that though we are in separate worlds we are still connected. Connection would not be needed if things were not separated.

It is because a thing is separate that it is distinct having it's own characteristics has you put it. Now because you things or being have or share the same nature it doesn't mean they are the same.

It's like one being myopic and see all Chinese people or blacks as the same in their eyes, even though each person is different only connected by race but God is not a race, if you say Spirit that may be manageable but God is just one person, one being YHVH. You can't make him two becomes you want to.


If there was another god besides God it means God lied and if God lied, then... do you now see the agenda of the devil to make you believe that there are three or more gods

The phrase “no intrinsic connection” is a standard way of describing what it means for two things to be separate in a relational sense. It’s not a manipulation of the term but a precise way to explain that separate entities are distinct and do not share an inherent, essential bond. My explanation was valid, and there’s no "cunning" involved in offering clarity.

gohf:
I didn't ask for a lecture in English, I do have a dictionary but it's funny to see how you cunningly added to your definition of separation- no intrinsic connection

It's pathetic that you do not understand that though we are in separate worlds we are still connected. Connection would not be needed if things were not separated.

It is because a thing is separate that it is distinct having it's own characteristics has you put it. Now because you things or being have or share the same nature it doesn't mean they are the same.

It's like one being myopic and see all Chinese people or blacks as the same in their eyes, even though each person is different only connected by race but God is not a race, if you say Spirit that may be manageable but God is just one person, one being YHVH. You can't make him two becomes you want to.


If there was another god besides God it means God lied and if God lied, then... do you now see the agenda of the devil to make you believe that there are three or more gods

You’re right that things can be separate but still connected in certain ways. The Trinity is a good example of this idea: the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct persons (separate), but they are connected in essence (the same divine nature). However, this is different from saying that things are not separate in the first place. The connection doesn’t negate the separation of the persons in of their roles.


Let me further explain:

In the context of the Trinity:

1. Separate but Connected:

The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct persons—they have unique roles and identities.

For example, the Father is the Creator, the Son is the Redeemer, and the Holy Spirit is the Comforter. These roles are distinct, meaning they are separate in function and personhood.

However, they are connected in essence—all three share the same divine nature or essence. In other words, each of them is fully God, and they are not separate gods; they are united in their divinity.



2. Distinction vs. Separation:

Saying they are separate means that the persons are not the same person (e.g., the Father is not the Son or the Holy Spirit).

But saying they are connected means that while each person is distinct, they all share the same core essence of being God. They are not independent from one another in nature, even though they are distinct in personhood.

The distinction between them (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) does not mean they are independent or separate in nature. They remain one in essence, but three in persons.

Nachmonides:


You’re right that things can be separate but still connected in certain ways. The Trinity is a good example of this idea: the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct persons (separate), but they are connected in essence (the same divine nature). However, this is different from saying that things are not separate in the first place. The connection doesn’t negate the separation of the persons in of their roles.


Let me further explain:

In the context of the Trinity:

1. Separate but Connected:

The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct persons—they have unique roles and identities.

For example, the Father is the Creator, the Son is the Redeemer, and the Holy Spirit is the Comforter. These roles are distinct, meaning they are separate in function and personhood.

However, they are connected in essence—all three share the same divine nature or essence. In other words, each of them is fully God, and they are not separate gods; they are united in their divinity.



2. Distinction vs. Separation:

Saying they are separate means that the persons are not the same person (e.g., the Father is not the Son or the Holy Spirit).

But saying they are connected means that while each person is distinct, they all share the same core essence of being God. They are not independent from one another in nature, even though they are distinct in personhood.

The distinction between them (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) does not mean they are independent or separate in nature. They remain one in essence, but three in persons.

The concept of Trinity teaches that there is separation (in of personhood) but no separation in essence (they are all fully and equally God).

Nachmonides:


In John 10:30, the Lord Jesus was stating his oneness (essence) with the Father. "I and the father are one"


In John 17: 21 -22, the Lord Jesus was praying (not making a satisfied/fulfilled/definitive statement; rather he was desirous of them) to the Father that his disciples be one (united) just as he (Jesus) and the Father are one (in essence).

How?

In V.14, he tells us 14 I have given them your word, and the world has hated them, because they are not of the world just as I am not of the world.

14 - He has given them the Father's word


In V.15, he tells us 15 I do not ask that you take them out of the world, but that you protect them from the evil one.


15 - The protection from the evil one is tied to the word he says he has given them as mentioned in V.14

In VV.16-19

16 They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. 17 Sanctify them in the truth—your word is truth. 18 Just as you sent me into the world, I also have sent them into the world. 19 [/b]And for them I sanctify myself, so that they themselves also may be sanctified in the truth.

16 - How are they not of the world? Don't forget V.14

17 - To Sanctify means to make Holy; to separate, set apart. He asks the Father to Sanctify them in the truth and he says the Father's word (the one he says he gave them in V.14) is truth.

18 - He gives them his word and sends them to the word.

19 - He Sanctifies, or sets himself apart, separate, with the word of the Father, so his disciples may be Sanctified as well.


Then VV.20-22

[b]20 “And I do not ask on behalf of these only, but also on behalf of those who believe in me through their word, 21 that they all may be one, just as you, Father, are in me and I am in you, that they also may be in us, in order that the world may believe that you sent me. 22 And the glory that you have given to me, I have given to them, in order that they may be one, just as we are one

20 - He doesn't pray (ask) for only the disciples but also for all those who will believe through their word (which is the Father's word he says he gave them in V.14 and the one he says is truth in V.17)

21 - With the previous texts in mind, how would they be one? - Obviously it will have to do with the word he has been talking about.

22 - This now hits the nail in the coffin, he switches from the Father's word to the Father's glory. He says he has given them the glory, is he talking of a different thing? — No, he had already said he gave them the Father's word in V.14.

So we see Word in V.14, Glory in V.22.
And he says, that's how they will be one.

What exactly did some men at Nicaea in 325, or 381 AD do?

Having the same nature or essence as you put it with his Father doesn't make him his father, it makes him the son of God and not God. Now when Jesus says he and his father are one, it means they are united

Just as he said in John.17.21 that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me.


John quoted this and used it to explain the oneness, the unity of the Father and son. Expect you wish to say that then receiving the word of God and the nature of God makes them god as well or makes them all become the same but distinct as you put it. Yet we know they didn't become the same, Paul was different from Peter as was John different from the rest.

The only nail is the one you are hitting

Here is in your words
"To Sanctify means to make Holy; to separate, set apart.


So the HOLY Spirit is not separate yet holiness is separation? Yes holiness is separation into God because though there is separation there is also connection.


You know many words but poor usage and understanding of them.

Nachmonides:

The concept of Trinity teaches that there is separation (in of personhood) but no separation in essence (they are all fully and equally God).

God doesn't care about our nonsense concept that goes against his word. Or no He does care because He will judge such nonsense.


You outrightly reject God's word for the traditions of men

Nachmonides:


You’re right that things can be separate but still connected in certain ways. The Trinity is a good example of this idea: the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct persons (separate), but they are connected in essence (the same divine nature). However, this is different from saying that things are not separate in the first place. The connection doesn’t negate the separation of the persons in of their roles.


Let me further explain:

In the context of the Trinity:

1. Separate but Connected:

The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct persons—they have unique roles and identities.

For example, the Father is the Creator, the Son is the Redeemer, and the Holy Spirit is the Comforter. These roles are distinct, meaning they are separate in function and personhood.

However, they are connected in essence—all three share the same divine nature or essence. In other words, each of them is fully God, and they are not separate gods; they are united in their divinity.



2. Distinction vs. Separation:

Saying they are separate means that the persons are not the same person (e.g., the Father is not the Son or the Holy Spirit).

But saying they are connected means that while each person is distinct, they all share the same core essence of being God. They are not independent from one another in nature, even though they are distinct in personhood.

The distinction between them (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) does not mean they are independent or separate in nature. They remain one in essence, but three in persons.

Adding poison to the truth would still not make it acceptable, saying their roles like they are in a drama yet mixing up their identity by saying they are God.

God is not a nature, God is not an essence, God is YHVH a being who created the heavens and the earth and life.


Saying because a person or being has God's nature makes them God is an error, it's like saying because I have God's nature in me I am God, I don't even care to be considered partly God when the truth is I am a child of God.


Saying they are one in essence and believing essence is God, is where you are wrong.

God is Father and no one else is. This is who Jesus revealed and taught about.

Nachmonides:


The phrase “no intrinsic connection” is a standard way of describing what it means for two things to be separate in a relational sense. It’s not a manipulation of the term but a precise way to explain that separate entities are distinct and do not share an inherent, essential bond. My explanation was valid, and there’s no "cunning" involved in offering clarity.

by who's standard?

You offered clarity by reversing priority, what and who should be your priority in making your explanation, your wisdom of God's?

It is cunny because your logic seems sound but your conclusion deviates from God's own word

gohf:


God doesn't care about our nonsense concept that goes against his word. Or no He does care because He will judge such nonsense.


You outrightly reject God's word for the traditions of men

I understand that you may feel strongly about the doctrine of the Trinity, but I believe the doctrine is firmly rooted in scripture and is an attempt to describe God as He has revealed Himself. The Bible teaches that God is one (Deuteronomy 6:4), and yet we see that Jesus is fully God (John 1:1) and the Holy Spirit is fully God (Acts 5:3-4). The doctrine of the Trinity is not a human tradition, but rather a way to understand how the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct persons while remaining one essence. It is for our own good that we approach these deep theological matters with an open heart, seeking to understand God’s word and how He has revealed Himself to us.

DaddyCoool:


Thanks 4 your response.
Maybe you missed the crux of the question. Here it is again:
Don’t you think it is only God that could have restored a Person from all that (He was literally DEAD!) to a position of being worshipped as God, and that it would never have been possible if God had not approved of it, and definitely would not have lasted these thousands of years?

See, if this were 50 AD, we could be saying let's wait and see. And , nothing provokes the wrath of YHWH like trying to worship another alongside Him. Don't you think that for Him to resurrect a dead Person and allow His being worshipped as God for thousands of years says something about where He stands on the issue?

You speak of allowance as if it was not God that commanded, do you even know the scripture or the gospel? Have you not read that he commanded his angels to worship him. Have you not read revelations where the lamb of God was worshipped.

You sound like as if God was allowing money or Satan to be worshipped, so does that mean because it can be worshipped it is god, should we also say well God left people to worship false gods so they are probably other gods as well.

Jesus was never worshipped and is never worshipped as God, he is our Lord and husband crowned with eternal glory and majesty by God YHVh his and our Father.

gohf:



Having the same nature or essence as you put it with his Father doesn't make him his father, it makes him the son of God and not God. Now when Jesus says he and his father are one, it means they are united

Yes, the same nature or essence means he is not the Father.

The same nature or essence means he is God, not the Father.


Please read your statement and see for yourself.

gohf:


Jesus was never worshipped and is never worshipped as God, he is our Lord and husband crowned with eternal glory and majesty by God YHVh his and our Father.

I'd like to tackle this statement.

There are many ages in the New Testament that show Jesus being worshipped or being referred to as God. For example:

Matthew 14:33 – After Jesus calms the storm, the disciples worship Him: "And those who were in the boat worshiped Him, saying, ‘Truly, You are the Son of God.’"

John 20:28 – Thomas addresses Jesus as "My Lord and my God!" after seeing His resurrection. Jesus does not rebuke Thomas, which implies acceptance of this worship.

Hebrews 1:6 – God commands that the angels worship Jesus: "Let all God’s angels worship Him." This is significant because only God is to be worshiped.

John 1:1 – "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

John 8:58 – Jesus says, "Before Abraham was, I am," which is a reference to God’s self-identification in the Old Testament (Exodus 3:14), indicating His eternal existence and divinity.




Even in Genesis 1:1, we see the concept of the Trinity, the very first verse of the Bible


Please explain these without being sensual.

gohf:
by who's standard?

You offered clarity by reversing priority, what and who should be your priority in making your explanation, your wisdom of God's?

It is cunny because your logic seems sound but your conclusion deviates from God's own word

My goal is to align with God's revelation in scripture, not impose human philosophy on it.



Please, instead of being emotional, dismissing it immediately, provide evidences against the argument.
I am willing to review ideas and consider them former if/when I see the truth.

Nachmonides:


I understand that you may feel strongly about the doctrine of the Trinity, but I believe the doctrine is firmly rooted in scripture and is an attempt to describe God as He has revealed Himself. The Bible teaches that God is one (Deuteronomy 6:4), and yet we see that Jesus is fully God (John 1:1) and the Holy Spirit is fully God (Acts 5:3-4). The doctrine of the Trinity is not a human tradition, but rather a way to understand how the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct persons while remaining one essence. It is for our own good that we approach these deep theological matters with an open heart, seeking to understand God’s word and how He has revealed Himself to us.

Because you do not understand what is written doesn't make it the fault of the writer.
But I do blame those who in their academic but spiritual ignorance interpreted the Greek in their own error or possible motive.

Now there's a difference between a normative noun, theos, and an accusative noun, theon. Normative is used to show derivative or what something is related to.


So it is more correct to say John 1:1 and the word was God's... that is the word was from God.

And for Acts 5:3-4 lying to the Holy Spirit or even as Jesus said blasphemy against the Holy Spirit in Luke 12:10 doesn't make the Holy Spirit God.

If open heart is what you define as like a woman with open legs, then no. What we need is a pure heart to see God, a renewed mind to understand His word and will.

Saying that, "the doctrine of the Trinity is not a human tradition, but rather a way to understand how the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct persons while remaining one essence." Is deceptive because there is only one way, Jesus Christ and Jesus never called nor revealed that the Holy Spirit is God. When Jesus listed the assignment of the Holy Spirit he did not list worship, to be worshipped, so neither in name nor in assignment did Jesus refer to the Holy Spirit as God.

You call it an understanding but from where did this understanding come from. There's nothing true about that teaching, if it is deep it is hell deep.

When the three are mentioned they are NEVER mentioned as gods nor did any of the apostles teach anyone to accept or call them God.

Nachmonides:


My goal is to align with God's revelation in scripture, not impose human philosophy on it.



Please, instead of being emotional, dismissing it immediately, provide evidences against the argument.
I am willing to review ideas and consider them former if/when I see the truth.

If that is so then let us start only with what is written in the Bible

Are you ready

gohf:


Because you do not understand what is written doesn't make it the fault of the writer.
But I do blame those who in their academic but spiritual ignorance interpreted the Greek in their own error or possible motive.

Now there's a difference between a normative noun, theos, and an accusative noun, theon. Normative is used to show derivative or what something is related to.


So it is more correct to say John 1:1 and the word was God's... that is the word was from God.

And for Acts 5:3-4 lying to the Holy Spirit or even as Jesus said blasphemy against the Holy Spirit in Luke 12:10 doesn't make the Holy Spirit God.

If open heart is what you define as like a woman with open legs, then no. What we need is a pure heart to see God, a renewed mind to understand His word and will.

Saying that, "the doctrine of the Trinity is not a human tradition, but rather a way to understand how the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct persons while remaining one essence." Is deceptive because there is only one way, Jesus Christ and Jesus never called nor revealed that the Holy Spirit is God. When Jesus listed the assignment of the Holy Spirit he did not list worship, to be worshipped, so neither in name nor in assignment did Jesus refer to the Holy Spirit as God.

You call it an understanding but from where did this understanding come from. There's nothing true about that teaching, if it is deep it is hell deep.

When the three are mentioned they are NEVER mentioned as gods nor did any of the apostles teach anyone to accept or call them God.

Later in John 1:14, the Word becomes flesh, pointing to the incarnation of God in Jesus Christ.


What do you have to say about it?

gohf:


And for Acts 5:3-4 lying to the Holy Spirit or even as Jesus said blasphemy against the Holy Spirit in Luke 12:10 doesn't make the Holy Spirit God.

If open heart is what you define as like a woman with open legs, then no. What we need is a pure heart to see God, a renewed mind to understand His word and will.

Saying that, "the doctrine of the Trinity is not a human tradition, but rather a way to understand how the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct persons while remaining one essence." Is deceptive because there is only one way, Jesus Christ and Jesus never called nor revealed that the Holy Spirit is God. When Jesus listed the assignment of the Holy Spirit he did not list worship, to be worshipped, so neither in name nor in assignment did Jesus refer to the Holy Spirit as God.

You call it an understanding but from where did this understanding come from. There's nothing true about that teaching, if it is deep it is hell deep.

When the three are mentioned they are NEVER mentioned as gods nor did any of the apostles teach anyone to accept or call them God.

Acts 5:3-4 (Lying to the Holy Spirit)

In Acts 5:3-4, Peter says that Ananias and Sapphira lied to the Holy Spirit and then equates that with lying to God:
“You have not lied to men but to God.”

This statement directly connects the Holy Spirit to God. The refusal to recognize the Holy Spirit as God here contradicts the clear scriptural teaching that the Holy Spirit is fully divine, as seen in ages like Acts 5:3-4, and also in 1 Corinthians 3:16 where Paul says that believers are the temple of the Holy Spirit. If the Holy Spirit were not divine, such a declaration would be misleading.



Blasphemy Against the Holy Spirit (Luke 12:10)

Jesus speaks about blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, which is described as an unforgivable sin. The fact that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is unpardonable signifies that the Holy Spirit is of divine importance and has the same authority as God. This would be nonsensical if the Holy Spirit were not considered God, as blasphemy against a mere created being wouldn't hold such weight.


The Holy Spirit's Role (Not Listed for Worship)

The argument that the Holy Spirit is not listed for worship in the same way Jesus is is understandable but misses the point. In biblical theology, the Holy Spirit is understood as part of the Godhead. While Jesus, as the Son, receives direct worship (Matthew 28:17, John 20:28), the Holy Spirit is worshiped through the worship of God as a whole. The Bible does not suggest that the Holy Spirit is less divine or not to be honored, but rather that the Spirit’s role in the world is often to glorify the Father and the Son (John 16:14). This does not exclude worship, as the Spirit is integral to the divine action in the world and salvation.


Jesus Never Revealed the Holy Spirit as God

The argument that Jesus never explicitly referred to the Holy Spirit as God is based on a misunderstanding of biblical revelation. While Jesus did not always explicitly say, "The Holy Spirit is God," He did reveal the Holy Spirit's divine role in many ways:

Matthew 28:19: The Great Commission, where Jesus instructs His disciples to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, places the Holy Spirit in the same position as the Father and the Son, implying full equality.

John 14:16-17: Jesus speaks of sending another Advocate, the Spirit of truth, who will dwell with believers forever. Jesus’ words in this context imply that the Holy Spirit is the continuation of God's presence in the world after His departure.



Jesus and the Apostles Never Called the Three Persons 'Gods'

The word “God” is used in scripture, especially in the Old Testament, to emphasize the unity of God (Deuteronomy 6:4). However, in the New Testament, the distinction between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is clear, and all are ascribed divine attributes.

John 1:1 refers to Jesus as God (the Word was God).

Acts 5:3-4 equates lying to the Holy Spirit with lying to God.

Matthew 28:19 places the Holy Spirit alongside the Father and Son in the context of baptism, signifying the shared divinity of all three persons.

If your argument is that they didn't explicitly mention it, that's a fallacy.

Nachmonides:


I'd like to tackle this statement.

There are many ages in the New Testament that show Jesus being worshipped or being referred to as God. For example:

Matthew 14:33 – After Jesus calms the storm, the disciples worship Him: "And those who were in the boat worshiped Him, saying, ‘Truly, You are the Son of God.’"

how you see the phrase "the Son of God" and conclude that they said God is indeed a mystery that relates with demonic blindness because how else can one say or state that here is Jesus being worshipped as God when he is declared to be the Son of God

John 20:28 – Thomas addresses Jesus as "My Lord and my God!" after seeing His resurrection. Jesus does not rebuke Thomas, which implies acceptance of this worship.

you quote an exclamation of Thomas written by John who went unto to conclude in that very chapter John.20.31 But these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing in him you will have life.

There's a reason new living translation puts it
John.20.28 "My Lord and my God!" Thomas exclaimed.

Even if you do not understand verse 28 understand verse 31 of what you are expected to believe.

Hebrews 1:6 – God commands that the angels worship Jesus: "Let all God’s angels worship Him." This is significant because only God is to be worshiped.

if only God is to be worshipped then why does God need to command the angels to worship a being who being God already deserves worship. Why then was God and the lamb of God worshipped in revelations. You assume that because he is worshipped he is God, yet even while he is worshipped he is never called God.

John 1:1 – "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

John 8:58 – Jesus says, "Before Abraham was, I am," which is a reference to God’s self-identification in the Old Testament (Exodus 3:14), indicating His eternal existence and divinity.




Even in Genesis 1:1, we see the concept of the Trinity, the very first verse of the Bible


Please explain these without being sensual.

John 1:1 is the word was God's or the word is from God, I have written the explanation previously about the difference between a normative noun, theos, and an accusative noun, theon. Normative is used to show derivative or what something is related to.

And I have also spoke on John 8:58, where I explained the term eimi, used in Greek doesn't mean God either in that verse nor in the context of the conversation in that chapter, even explaining the difference between what was here and what was said in Exodus 3:14 which is who God is and how it relates to the name of God revealed in Exodus 6:3.

Did Jesus exist before Abraham yes he did
God reveals himself as the one who causes things to exist, who is self existing

Is Jesus self existing? No, did he come from God? Yes


Why don't you show us the trinity in Genesis 1:1
Which is "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

gohf:
how you see the phrase "the Son of God" and conclude that they said God is indeed a mystery that relates with demonic blindness because how else can one say or state that here is Jesus being worshipped as God when he is declared to be the Son of God

I started by saying

There are many ages in the New Testament that show Jesus being worshipped or being referred to as God.

Why would the Son of God be worshipped if God is the only one deserving of worship according to scriptures; the old testament especially.