Troubling verses for the Trinity

[Wootah]

John 14:28 – "The Father is greater than I."
1 Corinthians 15:27-28 – "For 'He has put everything under his feet.' Now when it says that 'everything has been put under him,' it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ."
John 5:19 – "The Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing."
John 10:29 – "My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all."
Philippians 2:6-8 – "Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage... he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death—even death on a cross!"
John 17:1-5 – "Father, the hour has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you... I brought you glory on earth by finishing the work you gave me to do."
Matthew 26:39 – "My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will."
Luke 22:42 – "Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done."

It's a topic that Trinitarians often avoid discussing because the concept of God being both Master and Servant presents an apparent contradiction. It's difficult to reconcile these two roles without creating a logical inconsistency.

One of many with the Trinity.

Asking them to explain, prove, and provide evidence for Hypostasis is, at best, quite entertaining.

1) John 14:28 - The president is greater than me. But the president and I are both humans. Our position does not make us of a different substance.
2) 1 Corinthians 15:27-28 - Did Jesus put himself under his own feet? Let's not make this silly.
3) John 5:19 - Obedience does not imply anything more. Hopeful you were obedient to your parents.
4) John 10:29 - The father is greater in status not in God power.
5) Philippians 2:6-8 - I have a thread on this. The problem for you is that the verse makes no sense unless Jesus is God and did not use that equality to his own advantage. Otherwise the verse itself is a lie because Jesus is not equal with God.
6) John 17:1-5 - can any non-God being glorify God? Truly?
7) Matthew 26:39 - obedience or subservience does not imply a different substance.
8) Luke 22:42 - obedience or subservience does not imply a different substance.

1 Corinthians 15:27-28 longer answer from Grok because I had questions. Basically why would the Bible need to say something so obvious at all.

explain 1 Corinthians 15:27-28 why bother to say it is clear that does not include God himself since that seems obvious

In 1 Corinthians 15:27-28, Paul writes:
"For he ‘has put everything under his feet.’ Now when it says that ‘everything’ has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 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." (NIV)
Paul is addressing the ultimate authority and submission in the cosmic order, specifically Christ’s reign and relationship to God the Father. The phrase "it is clear that this does not include God himself" might seem unnecessary at first glance because, to many readers, it’s obvious that God wouldn’t be subject to anyone, including Christ. So why does Paul bother to clarify this?
One reason is to avoid any potential misunderstanding. Paul is quoting Psalm 8:6 ("You made him ruler over the works of your hands; you put everything under his feet"), which originally described humanity’s dominion over creation but is now applied to Christ’s exalted status. When he says "everything" is put under Christ, he’s emphasizing the totality of Christ’s authority over all creation—every power, force, and being. However, in a Greco-Roman or Jewish context, where debates about hierarchies of gods, powers, or authorities were common, someone might misinterpret "everything" too literally and wonder if even God the Father is included. By explicitly stating that God himself is excluded, Paul ensures his readers don’t stumble into a theological error, like suggesting that the Father is somehow subordinate to the Son.
Another angle is theological precision. Paul is building a careful argument about the relationship between the Father and the Son, especially in the context of Christ’s temporary reign before handing all things back to God (v. 28). This passage reflects the early Christian understanding of the Trinity and Christ’s role as the mediator. The clarification reinforces that Christ’s authority, while absolute over creation, is still derived from and subject to the Father’s ultimate sovereignty. It’s a way of guarding against any confusion about the unity and distinction within the Godhead.
So, while it might seem obvious to us now, Paul’s audience— steeped in diverse philosophical and religious ideas—might have needed the reassurance. He’s dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s to keep the focus on God’s supreme authority and the Son’s willing submission, paving the way for the climactic point: "so that God may be all in all."

Debate topic: Debate these 'troubling verses' for the Trinity.

[Capbook]

Are you serious, your 8 explanations or analogies are nonsense. They are all given through the lens, not of scripture, of the Trinity, that in itself is nonsense.

You do know WHAT you believe in is not in a personal God, it is an impersonal WHAT of a God. If yo really know what your Trinity God means then you must have no misunderstandings in what I'm saying here.

Unless you need me to break it all down for you. Let me know.

God and his human son are both human, please...you must not be serious. If you know your god then yo must also know that in this model of belief, Jesus can never be a human person. Of course you already knew that already.

Jesus cannot be a human? Yes please tell more.

And you are serious then, that as a Trinitarian you do not know that your doctrine does not allow Jesus to be a human person. It is part of your orthodox history and foundation, although I must admit it is hidden from most folks.

The Trinity doctrine really says that Jesus cannot be a human person, only a divine person as this would then upset the apple cart. In this ridiculous and incredible pagan idea of incarnation, its says that Jesus maintained his divine personhood and acquired a human nature, therefore he's a divine being, a divine person and a human being because of his human nature, although, never a (mere) human person.

If Jesus was accepted to be both a human person and a divine person, then the Trinity model would crash and burn instantly. The doctrine would now not have all persons of the same substance or essence (the 'thing' that makes or glues its God as 'one' thing) amongst, now 4 persons, as a new Quadrinity or quaternity model. The trinity would be gone.

If you cannot understand this critical point then I suggest you find other sources that say essentially what I just said with most probably more obscure clouded language by design.

And there's no point going any further until you see this point, if you are really interested of course.

Hope this helps.

Ok, let me present to you this simple logic;
1. Jesus as the Son of man, as His mother is human, is He man or not?
2. Jesus as the Son of God, as His Father is God, is He God or not?
3. If you honestly answer the 1st question, why can't you used the same logic to the 2nd question? Why, kindly explain.

Matt 26:63-64
63 But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest said to Him, "I adjure You by the living God, that You tell us whether You are the Christ, the Son of God." 64 Jesus said to him, "You have said it yourself; nevertheless I tell you, hereafter you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven."
NASB
Matt 17:5-6
5 While he was still speaking, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them; and behold, a voice out of the cloud, saying, "This is My beloved Son, with whom I am well-pleased; listen to Him!"
NASB

Capbook, this is not logic at all to a Trinitarian or anyone else. Here's why.

In 1. Trinitarians say that Jesus took on human flesh, took on a human body only as his housing to function as a human being only. That Jesus is only a divine PERSON, a human and divine BEING with an acquired human NATURE with his divine NATURE - NOT A HUMAN PERSON!!!

Look, I would have thought you would have dared reach out to other sources to prove me right or wrong, and I guess you are not capable.

Here a couple for you within easy reach. One from a Trinitarian source and the other is non-Trinitarian.

A trinitarian site:

https://douglasbeaumont.com/2022/11/30/ ... an-person/

A non-trinitarian site:

https://21stcr.org/trinity-videos/was-j ... an-person/


In 2. It is very ignorant to desire or to automatically think that the Spirit of God who, yes, created Jesus make him also a god. God is not in the business of generating offspring, as in little gods, as Greece or Roman mythology would agree. I mean there are two very clear examples of God creating or causing the creation of human beings also called sons of God and get they were not called God. Adan and Isaac as examples.

You have to reread and truly understand what I just said, please do not ignore it, it is a core belief of Trinitarianism that has been deliberately hidden from its adherents.

This cold well be stunning news for you..?

My presentation needs reason why you cannot apply the same to the first question.

1. I think you outlined a different Trinitarian perspective. And I'm quite baffled of your statements, you say, "Jesus as human being only and only a divine person." How do you define person by the way? You come into conclusion that Jesus not a human person, while definition below refute what you say.

While both "being" and "person" relate to existence, "being" is a broader term referring to anything that exists, while "person" specifically refers to a human being, often emphasizing their unique qualities and social roles.
https://www.google.com/search?q=being+v ... e&ie=UTF-8

I think, with the online definition of term, I prove you wrong.

I believe no need for me to visit the link provided, as the concept of Trinity you've given differs from mine.

2. For us, Jesus is not a creation (John 1:3). And I think it would also be untaught to deny the Divinity of Jesus, where it is clear rendering from literal word for word Bible translations that aims to maintain the highest degree of accuracy to original words (Hebrew and Greek) that says, Jesus is God. (John 1:18). Where the "N7" prove that the original Greek words of the text is "only-begotten God or the only-begotten God. Only various readings says, "Son." Both translations are correct, we'll just acknowledged that Jesus has the nature of God.

(Updated ASV+) Jhn 1:18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God N7  who is in the bosom of the Father, N8  that one has made him fully known.

N7 John 1:1 (UASV+)
The original words were μονογενὴς θεός or ο μονογενης θεος “only-begotten God” or “the only-begotten God” (P66 P75 א B C* L 33 syrhmp 33 copbo) A variant reading is ο μονογενης υιος “the only begotten Son” A C3 (Ws) Θ Ψ f1, Maj syrc).

I believe this will be more stunning news for you.

[APAK]

Are you serious, your 8 explanations or analogies are nonsense. They are all given through the lens, not of scripture, of the Trinity, that in itself is nonsense.

You do know WHAT you believe in is not in a personal God, it is an impersonal WHAT of a God. If yo really know what your Trinity God means then you must have no misunderstandings in what I'm saying here.

Unless you need me to break it all down for you. Let me know.

God and his human son are both human, please...you must not be serious. If you know your god then yo must also know that in this model of belief, Jesus can never be a human person. Of course you already knew that already.

Jesus cannot be a human? Yes please tell more.

And you are serious then, that as a Trinitarian you do not know that your doctrine does not allow Jesus to be a human person. It is part of your orthodox history and foundation, although I must admit it is hidden from most folks.

The Trinity doctrine really says that Jesus cannot be a human person, only a divine person as this would then upset the apple cart. In this ridiculous and incredible pagan idea of incarnation, its says that Jesus maintained his divine personhood and acquired a human nature, therefore he's a divine being, a divine person and a human being because of his human nature, although, never a (mere) human person.

If Jesus was accepted to be both a human person and a divine person, then the Trinity model would crash and burn instantly. The doctrine would now not have all persons of the same substance or essence (the 'thing' that makes or glues its God as 'one' thing) amongst, now 4 persons, as a new Quadrinity or quaternity model. The trinity would be gone.

If you cannot understand this critical point then I suggest you find other sources that say essentially what I just said with most probably more obscure clouded language by design.

And there's no point going any further until you see this point, if you are really interested of course.

Hope this helps.

Ok, let me present to you this simple logic;
1. Jesus as the Son of man, as His mother is human, is He man or not?
2. Jesus as the Son of God, as His Father is God, is He God or not?
3. If you honestly answer the 1st question, why can't you used the same logic to the 2nd question? Why, kindly explain.

Matt 26:63-64
63 But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest said to Him, "I adjure You by the living God, that You tell us whether You are the Christ, the Son of God." 64 Jesus said to him, "You have said it yourself; nevertheless I tell you, hereafter you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven."
NASB
Matt 17:5-6
5 While he was still speaking, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them; and behold, a voice out of the cloud, saying, "This is My beloved Son, with whom I am well-pleased; listen to Him!"
NASB

Capbook, this is not logic at all to a Trinitarian or anyone else. Here's why.

In 1. Trinitarians say that Jesus took on human flesh, took on a human body only as his housing to function as a human being only. That Jesus is only a divine PERSON, a human and divine BEING with an acquired human NATURE with his divine NATURE - NOT A HUMAN PERSON!!!

Look, I would have thought you would have dared reach out to other sources to prove me right or wrong, and I guess you are not capable.

Here a couple for you within easy reach. One from a Trinitarian source and the other is non-Trinitarian.

A trinitarian site:

https://douglasbeaumont.com/2022/11/30/ ... an-person/

A non-trinitarian site:

https://21stcr.org/trinity-videos/was-j ... an-person/


In 2. It is very ignorant to desire or to automatically think that the Spirit of God who, yes, created Jesus make him also a god. God is not in the business of generating offspring, as in little gods, as Greece or Roman mythology would agree. I mean there are two very clear examples of God creating or causing the creation of human beings also called sons of God and get they were not called God. Adan and Isaac as examples.

You have to reread and truly understand what I just said, please do not ignore it, it is a core belief of Trinitarianism that has been deliberately hidden from its adherents.

This cold well be stunning news for you..?

My presentation needs reason why you cannot apply the same to the first question.

1. I think you outlined a different Trinitarian perspective. And I'm quite baffled of your statements, you say, "Jesus as human being only and only a divine person." How do you define person by the way? You come into conclusion that Jesus not a human person, while definition below refute what you say.

While both "being" and "person" relate to existence, "being" is a broader term referring to anything that exists, while "person" specifically refers to a human being, often emphasizing their unique qualities and social roles.
https://www.google.com/search?q=being+v ... e&ie=UTF-8

I think, with the online definition of term, I prove you wrong.

I believe no need for me to visit the link provided, as the concept of Trinity you've given differs from mine.

2. For us, Jesus is not a creation (John 1:3). And I think it would also be untaught to deny the Divinity of Jesus, where it is clear rendering from literal word for word Bible translations that aims to maintain the highest degree of accuracy to original words (Hebrew and Greek) that says, Jesus is God. (John 1:18). Where the "N7" prove that the original Greek words of the text is "only-begotten God or the only-begotten God. Only various readings says, "Son." Both translations are correct, we'll just acknowledged that Jesus has the nature of God.

(Updated ASV+) Jhn 1:18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God N7  who is in the bosom of the Father, N8  that one has made him fully known.

N7 John 1:1 (UASV+)
The original words were μονογενὴς θεός or ο μονογενης θεος “only-begotten God” or “the only-begotten God” (P66 P75 א B C* L 33 syrhmp 33 copbo) A variant reading is ο μονογενης υιος “the only begotten Son” A C3 (Ws) Θ Ψ f1, Maj syrc).

I believe this will be more stunning news for you.

Why do you deliberately sidestep the message of my post. Jesus is NOT a human person, no matter what you say or tell yourself, for the reason I already spoke of and also in what these links tell you. What I present is not a different Trinity explanation it is the foundational orthodox version that many like you cannot come to terms with I'm afraid.

You have said it all when you say you will not open the links provided, afraid to even open the links I gave...there are many books and authors who have written on this subject.

[marke]

John 14:28 – "The Father is greater than I."
1 Corinthians 15:27-28 – "For 'He has put everything under his feet.' Now when it says that 'everything has been put under him,' it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ."
John 5:19 – "The Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing."
John 10:29 – "My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all."
Philippians 2:6-8 – "Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage... he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death—even death on a cross!"
John 17:1-5 – "Father, the hour has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you... I brought you glory on earth by finishing the work you gave me to do."
Matthew 26:39 – "My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will."
Luke 22:42 – "Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done."

It's a topic that Trinitarians often avoid discussing because the concept of God being both Master and Servant presents an apparent contradiction. It's difficult to reconcile these two roles without creating a logical inconsistency.

One of many with the Trinity.

Asking them to explain, prove, and provide evidence for Hypostasis is, at best, quite entertaining.

1) John 14:28 - The president is greater than me. But the president and I are both humans. Our position does not make us of a different substance.
2) 1 Corinthians 15:27-28 - Did Jesus put himself under his own feet? Let's not make this silly.
3) John 5:19 - Obedience does not imply anything more. Hopeful you were obedient to your parents.
4) John 10:29 - The father is greater in status not in God power.
5) Philippians 2:6-8 - I have a thread on this. The problem for you is that the verse makes no sense unless Jesus is God and did not use that equality to his own advantage. Otherwise the verse itself is a lie because Jesus is not equal with God.
6) John 17:1-5 - can any non-God being glorify God? Truly?
7) Matthew 26:39 - obedience or subservience does not imply a different substance.
8) Luke 22:42 - obedience or subservience does not imply a different substance.

1 Corinthians 15:27-28 longer answer from Grok because I had questions. Basically why would the Bible need to say something so obvious at all.

explain 1 Corinthians 15:27-28 why bother to say it is clear that does not include God himself since that seems obvious

In 1 Corinthians 15:27-28, Paul writes:
"For he ‘has put everything under his feet.’ Now when it says that ‘everything’ has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 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." (NIV)
Paul is addressing the ultimate authority and submission in the cosmic order, specifically Christ’s reign and relationship to God the Father. The phrase "it is clear that this does not include God himself" might seem unnecessary at first glance because, to many readers, it’s obvious that God wouldn’t be subject to anyone, including Christ. So why does Paul bother to clarify this?
One reason is to avoid any potential misunderstanding. Paul is quoting Psalm 8:6 ("You made him ruler over the works of your hands; you put everything under his feet"), which originally described humanity’s dominion over creation but is now applied to Christ’s exalted status. When he says "everything" is put under Christ, he’s emphasizing the totality of Christ’s authority over all creation—every power, force, and being. However, in a Greco-Roman or Jewish context, where debates about hierarchies of gods, powers, or authorities were common, someone might misinterpret "everything" too literally and wonder if even God the Father is included. By explicitly stating that God himself is excluded, Paul ensures his readers don’t stumble into a theological error, like suggesting that the Father is somehow subordinate to the Son.
Another angle is theological precision. Paul is building a careful argument about the relationship between the Father and the Son, especially in the context of Christ’s temporary reign before handing all things back to God (v. 28). This passage reflects the early Christian understanding of the Trinity and Christ’s role as the mediator. The clarification reinforces that Christ’s authority, while absolute over creation, is still derived from and subject to the Father’s ultimate sovereignty. It’s a way of guarding against any confusion about the unity and distinction within the Godhead.
So, while it might seem obvious to us now, Paul’s audience— steeped in diverse philosophical and religious ideas—might have needed the reassurance. He’s dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s to keep the focus on God’s supreme authority and the Son’s willing submission, paving the way for the climactic point: "so that God may be all in all."

Debate topic: Debate these 'troubling verses' for the Trinity.

Marke: Unless sinners seek God for wisdom they will never understand the Bible and will never know who God really is and what He is really like. Jesus is God and that is clearly revealed throughout scriptures. God commanded all creatures on heaven and earth to bow down and worship Jesus and it iks a sin to worship anyone or anything but God.

[APAK]

John 14:28 – "The Father is greater than I."
1 Corinthians 15:27-28 – "For 'He has put everything under his feet.' Now when it says that 'everything has been put under him,' it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ."
John 5:19 – "The Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing."
John 10:29 – "My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all."
Philippians 2:6-8 – "Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage... he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death—even death on a cross!"
John 17:1-5 – "Father, the hour has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you... I brought you glory on earth by finishing the work you gave me to do."
Matthew 26:39 – "My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will."
Luke 22:42 – "Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done."

It's a topic that Trinitarians often avoid discussing because the concept of God being both Master and Servant presents an apparent contradiction. It's difficult to reconcile these two roles without creating a logical inconsistency.

One of many with the Trinity.

Asking them to explain, prove, and provide evidence for Hypostasis is, at best, quite entertaining.

1) John 14:28 - The president is greater than me. But the president and I are both humans. Our position does not make us of a different substance.
2) 1 Corinthians 15:27-28 - Did Jesus put himself under his own feet? Let's not make this silly.
3) John 5:19 - Obedience does not imply anything more. Hopeful you were obedient to your parents.
4) John 10:29 - The father is greater in status not in God power.
5) Philippians 2:6-8 - I have a thread on this. The problem for you is that the verse makes no sense unless Jesus is God and did not use that equality to his own advantage. Otherwise the verse itself is a lie because Jesus is not equal with God.
6) John 17:1-5 - can any non-God being glorify God? Truly?
7) Matthew 26:39 - obedience or subservience does not imply a different substance.
8) Luke 22:42 - obedience or subservience does not imply a different substance.

1 Corinthians 15:27-28 longer answer from Grok because I had questions. Basically why would the Bible need to say something so obvious at all.

explain 1 Corinthians 15:27-28 why bother to say it is clear that does not include God himself since that seems obvious

In 1 Corinthians 15:27-28, Paul writes:
"For he ‘has put everything under his feet.’ Now when it says that ‘everything’ has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 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." (NIV)
Paul is addressing the ultimate authority and submission in the cosmic order, specifically Christ’s reign and relationship to God the Father. The phrase "it is clear that this does not include God himself" might seem unnecessary at first glance because, to many readers, it’s obvious that God wouldn’t be subject to anyone, including Christ. So why does Paul bother to clarify this?
One reason is to avoid any potential misunderstanding. Paul is quoting Psalm 8:6 ("You made him ruler over the works of your hands; you put everything under his feet"), which originally described humanity’s dominion over creation but is now applied to Christ’s exalted status. When he says "everything" is put under Christ, he’s emphasizing the totality of Christ’s authority over all creation—every power, force, and being. However, in a Greco-Roman or Jewish context, where debates about hierarchies of gods, powers, or authorities were common, someone might misinterpret "everything" too literally and wonder if even God the Father is included. By explicitly stating that God himself is excluded, Paul ensures his readers don’t stumble into a theological error, like suggesting that the Father is somehow subordinate to the Son.
Another angle is theological precision. Paul is building a careful argument about the relationship between the Father and the Son, especially in the context of Christ’s temporary reign before handing all things back to God (v. 28). This passage reflects the early Christian understanding of the Trinity and Christ’s role as the mediator. The clarification reinforces that Christ’s authority, while absolute over creation, is still derived from and subject to the Father’s ultimate sovereignty. It’s a way of guarding against any confusion about the unity and distinction within the Godhead.
So, while it might seem obvious to us now, Paul’s audience— steeped in diverse philosophical and religious ideas—might have needed the reassurance. He’s dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s to keep the focus on God’s supreme authority and the Son’s willing submission, paving the way for the climactic point: "so that God may be all in all."

Debate topic: Debate these 'troubling verses' for the Trinity.

Marke: Unless sinners seek God for wisdom they will never understand the Bible and will never know who God really is and what He is really like. Jesus is God and that is clearly revealed throughout scriptures. God commanded all creatures on heaven and earth to bow down and worship Jesus and it iks a sin to worship anyone or anything but God.

Where's the beef in this food you have prepared and presented and advertised in the marketplace? You have to get the beef first and then prepare it well into your presentation. Maybe you only make vegan dishes because you have yet to find any beef you think has it, in the places you have imagined it to be? You might want to resign yourself to the fact that you have none to get, and then you falsely advertise to yourself and others.

And it you are still a sinner, then the one true God can help you with that problem. I for one, I'm not a sinner, I have a friend in Jesus, the Son of the one living eternal God.

[Capbook]

Are you serious, your 8 explanations or analogies are nonsense. They are all given through the lens, not of scripture, of the Trinity, that in itself is nonsense.

You do know WHAT you believe in is not in a personal God, it is an impersonal WHAT of a God. If yo really know what your Trinity God means then you must have no misunderstandings in what I'm saying here.

Unless you need me to break it all down for you. Let me know.

God and his human son are both human, please...you must not be serious. If you know your god then yo must also know that in this model of belief, Jesus can never be a human person. Of course you already knew that already.

Jesus cannot be a human? Yes please tell more.

And you are serious then, that as a Trinitarian you do not know that your doctrine does not allow Jesus to be a human person. It is part of your orthodox history and foundation, although I must admit it is hidden from most folks.

The Trinity doctrine really says that Jesus cannot be a human person, only a divine person as this would then upset the apple cart. In this ridiculous and incredible pagan idea of incarnation, its says that Jesus maintained his divine personhood and acquired a human nature, therefore he's a divine being, a divine person and a human being because of his human nature, although, never a (mere) human person.

If Jesus was accepted to be both a human person and a divine person, then the Trinity model would crash and burn instantly. The doctrine would now not have all persons of the same substance or essence (the 'thing' that makes or glues its God as 'one' thing) amongst, now 4 persons, as a new Quadrinity or quaternity model. The trinity would be gone.

If you cannot understand this critical point then I suggest you find other sources that say essentially what I just said with most probably more obscure clouded language by design.

And there's no point going any further until you see this point, if you are really interested of course.

Hope this helps.

Ok, let me present to you this simple logic;
1. Jesus as the Son of man, as His mother is human, is He man or not?
2. Jesus as the Son of God, as His Father is God, is He God or not?
3. If you honestly answer the 1st question, why can't you used the same logic to the 2nd question? Why, kindly explain.

Matt 26:63-64
63 But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest said to Him, "I adjure You by the living God, that You tell us whether You are the Christ, the Son of God." 64 Jesus said to him, "You have said it yourself; nevertheless I tell you, hereafter you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven."
NASB
Matt 17:5-6
5 While he was still speaking, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them; and behold, a voice out of the cloud, saying, "This is My beloved Son, with whom I am well-pleased; listen to Him!"
NASB

Capbook, this is not logic at all to a Trinitarian or anyone else. Here's why.

In 1. Trinitarians say that Jesus took on human flesh, took on a human body only as his housing to function as a human being only. That Jesus is only a divine PERSON, a human and divine BEING with an acquired human NATURE with his divine NATURE - NOT A HUMAN PERSON!!!

Look, I would have thought you would have dared reach out to other sources to prove me right or wrong, and I guess you are not capable.

Here a couple for you within easy reach. One from a Trinitarian source and the other is non-Trinitarian.

A trinitarian site:

https://douglasbeaumont.com/2022/11/30/ ... an-person/

A non-trinitarian site:

https://21stcr.org/trinity-videos/was-j ... an-person/


In 2. It is very ignorant to desire or to automatically think that the Spirit of God who, yes, created Jesus make him also a god. God is not in the business of generating offspring, as in little gods, as Greece or Roman mythology would agree. I mean there are two very clear examples of God creating or causing the creation of human beings also called sons of God and get they were not called God. Adan and Isaac as examples.

You have to reread and truly understand what I just said, please do not ignore it, it is a core belief of Trinitarianism that has been deliberately hidden from its adherents.

This cold well be stunning news for you..?

My presentation needs reason why you cannot apply the same to the first question.

1. I think you outlined a different Trinitarian perspective. And I'm quite baffled of your statements, you say, "Jesus as human being only and only a divine person." How do you define person by the way? You come into conclusion that Jesus not a human person, while definition below refute what you say.

While both "being" and "person" relate to existence, "being" is a broader term referring to anything that exists, while "person" specifically refers to a human being, often emphasizing their unique qualities and social roles.
https://www.google.com/search?q=being+v ... e&ie=UTF-8

I think, with the online definition of term, I prove you wrong.

I believe no need for me to visit the link provided, as the concept of Trinity you've given differs from mine.

2. For us, Jesus is not a creation (John 1:3). And I think it would also be untaught to deny the Divinity of Jesus, where it is clear rendering from literal word for word Bible translations that aims to maintain the highest degree of accuracy to original words (Hebrew and Greek) that says, Jesus is God. (John 1:18). Where the "N7" prove that the original Greek words of the text is "only-begotten God or the only-begotten God. Only various readings says, "Son." Both translations are correct, we'll just acknowledged that Jesus has the nature of God.

(Updated ASV+) Jhn 1:18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God N7  who is in the bosom of the Father, N8  that one has made him fully known.

N7 John 1:1 (UASV+)
The original words were μονογενὴς θεός or ο μονογενης θεος “only-begotten God” or “the only-begotten God” (P66 P75 א B C* L 33 syrhmp 33 copbo) A variant reading is ο μονογενης υιος “the only begotten Son” A C3 (Ws) Θ Ψ f1, Maj syrc).

I believe this will be more stunning news for you.

Why do you deliberately sidestep the message of my post. Jesus is NOT a human person, no matter what you say or tell yourself, for the reason I already spoke of and also in what these links tell you. What I present is not a different Trinity explanation it is the foundational orthodox version that many like you cannot come to terms with I'm afraid.

You have said it all when you say you will not open the links provided, afraid to even open the links I gave...there are many books and authors who have written on this subject.

I'm quite baffled of what your definition of person is, so I could discourse your point. Do you mean that just because you said it, then it is true? In Orthodox Christian theology, the Trinity is the doctrine that God exists as one in three co-equal and co-eternal persons: the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit, each distinct yet sharing divine essence. And Jesus as 100% human and 100% God.

Yes, many authors wrote about it, but if their theology differs to what I respond above. I'm afraid I'm not with you of what you affirmed.

[APAK]

Are you serious, your 8 explanations or analogies are nonsense. They are all given through the lens, not of scripture, of the Trinity, that in itself is nonsense.

You do know WHAT you believe in is not in a personal God, it is an impersonal WHAT of a God. If yo really know what your Trinity God means then you must have no misunderstandings in what I'm saying here.

Unless you need me to break it all down for you. Let me know.

God and his human son are both human, please...you must not be serious. If you know your god then yo must also know that in this model of belief, Jesus can never be a human person. Of course you already knew that already.

Jesus cannot be a human? Yes please tell more.

And you are serious then, that as a Trinitarian you do not know that your doctrine does not allow Jesus to be a human person. It is part of your orthodox history and foundation, although I must admit it is hidden from most folks.

The Trinity doctrine really says that Jesus cannot be a human person, only a divine person as this would then upset the apple cart. In this ridiculous and incredible pagan idea of incarnation, its says that Jesus maintained his divine personhood and acquired a human nature, therefore he's a divine being, a divine person and a human being because of his human nature, although, never a (mere) human person.

If Jesus was accepted to be both a human person and a divine person, then the Trinity model would crash and burn instantly. The doctrine would now not have all persons of the same substance or essence (the 'thing' that makes or glues its God as 'one' thing) amongst, now 4 persons, as a new Quadrinity or quaternity model. The trinity would be gone.

If you cannot understand this critical point then I suggest you find other sources that say essentially what I just said with most probably more obscure clouded language by design.

And there's no point going any further until you see this point, if you are really interested of course.

Hope this helps.

Ok, let me present to you this simple logic;
1. Jesus as the Son of man, as His mother is human, is He man or not?
2. Jesus as the Son of God, as His Father is God, is He God or not?
3. If you honestly answer the 1st question, why can't you used the same logic to the 2nd question? Why, kindly explain.

Matt 26:63-64
63 But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest said to Him, "I adjure You by the living God, that You tell us whether You are the Christ, the Son of God." 64 Jesus said to him, "You have said it yourself; nevertheless I tell you, hereafter you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven."
NASB
Matt 17:5-6
5 While he was still speaking, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them; and behold, a voice out of the cloud, saying, "This is My beloved Son, with whom I am well-pleased; listen to Him!"
NASB

Capbook, this is not logic at all to a Trinitarian or anyone else. Here's why.

In 1. Trinitarians say that Jesus took on human flesh, took on a human body only as his housing to function as a human being only. That Jesus is only a divine PERSON, a human and divine BEING with an acquired human NATURE with his divine NATURE - NOT A HUMAN PERSON!!!

Look, I would have thought you would have dared reach out to other sources to prove me right or wrong, and I guess you are not capable.

Here a couple for you within easy reach. One from a Trinitarian source and the other is non-Trinitarian.

A trinitarian site:

https://douglasbeaumont.com/2022/11/30/ ... an-person/

A non-trinitarian site:

https://21stcr.org/trinity-videos/was-j ... an-person/


In 2. It is very ignorant to desire or to automatically think that the Spirit of God who, yes, created Jesus make him also a god. God is not in the business of generating offspring, as in little gods, as Greece or Roman mythology would agree. I mean there are two very clear examples of God creating or causing the creation of human beings also called sons of God and get they were not called God. Adan and Isaac as examples.

You have to reread and truly understand what I just said, please do not ignore it, it is a core belief of Trinitarianism that has been deliberately hidden from its adherents.

This cold well be stunning news for you..?

My presentation needs reason why you cannot apply the same to the first question.

1. I think you outlined a different Trinitarian perspective. And I'm quite baffled of your statements, you say, "Jesus as human being only and only a divine person." How do you define person by the way? You come into conclusion that Jesus not a human person, while definition below refute what you say.

While both "being" and "person" relate to existence, "being" is a broader term referring to anything that exists, while "person" specifically refers to a human being, often emphasizing their unique qualities and social roles.
https://www.google.com/search?q=being+v ... e&ie=UTF-8

I think, with the online definition of term, I prove you wrong.

I believe no need for me to visit the link provided, as the concept of Trinity you've given differs from mine.

2. For us, Jesus is not a creation (John 1:3). And I think it would also be untaught to deny the Divinity of Jesus, where it is clear rendering from literal word for word Bible translations that aims to maintain the highest degree of accuracy to original words (Hebrew and Greek) that says, Jesus is God. (John 1:18). Where the "N7" prove that the original Greek words of the text is "only-begotten God or the only-begotten God. Only various readings says, "Son." Both translations are correct, we'll just acknowledged that Jesus has the nature of God.

(Updated ASV+) Jhn 1:18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God N7  who is in the bosom of the Father, N8  that one has made him fully known.

N7 John 1:1 (UASV+)
The original words were μονογενὴς θεός or ο μονογενης θεος “only-begotten God” or “the only-begotten God” (P66 P75 א B C* L 33 syrhmp 33 copbo) A variant reading is ο μονογενης υιος “the only begotten Son” A C3 (Ws) Θ Ψ f1, Maj syrc).

I believe this will be more stunning news for you.

Why do you deliberately sidestep the message of my post. Jesus is NOT a human person, no matter what you say or tell yourself, for the reason I already spoke of and also in what these links tell you. What I present is not a different Trinity explanation it is the foundational orthodox version that many like you cannot come to terms with I'm afraid.

You have said it all when you say you will not open the links provided, afraid to even open the links I gave...there are many books and authors who have written on this subject.

I'm quite baffled of what your definition of person is, so I could discourse your point. Do you mean that just because you said it, then it is true? In Orthodox Christian theology, the Trinity is the doctrine that God exists as one in three co-equal and co-eternal persons: the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit, each distinct yet sharing divine essence. And Jesus as 100% human and 100% God.

Yes, many authors wrote about it, but if their theology differs to what I respond above. I'm afraid I'm not with you of what you affirmed.

And its not my definition of what is a person, and there is a much bigger issue you fail to see... as if I created this as a tale to tell...please..

I guess you might want to move on then ....it might hit you square in the face one of these days....and you will remember what I've said...enjoy your day then

[Capbook]

Capbook, this is not logic at all to a Trinitarian or anyone else. Here's why.

In 1. Trinitarians say that Jesus took on human flesh, took on a human body only as his housing to function as a human being only. That Jesus is only a divine PERSON, a human and divine BEING with an acquired human NATURE with his divine NATURE - NOT A HUMAN PERSON!!!

Look, I would have thought you would have dared reach out to other sources to prove me right or wrong, and I guess you are not capable.

Here a couple for you within easy reach. One from a Trinitarian source and the other is non-Trinitarian.

A trinitarian site:

https://douglasbeaumont.com/2022/11/30/ ... an-person/

A non-trinitarian site:

https://21stcr.org/trinity-videos/was-j ... an-person/


In 2. It is very ignorant to desire or to automatically think that the Spirit of God who, yes, created Jesus make him also a god. God is not in the business of generating offspring, as in little gods, as Greece or Roman mythology would agree. I mean there are two very clear examples of God creating or causing the creation of human beings also called sons of God and get they were not called God. Adan and Isaac as examples.

You have to reread and truly understand what I just said, please do not ignore it, it is a core belief of Trinitarianism that has been deliberately hidden from its adherents.

This cold well be stunning news for you..?

My presentation needs reason why you cannot apply the same to the first question.

1. I think you outlined a different Trinitarian perspective. And I'm quite baffled of your statements, you say, "Jesus as human being only and only a divine person." How do you define person by the way? You come into conclusion that Jesus not a human person, while definition below refute what you say.

While both "being" and "person" relate to existence, "being" is a broader term referring to anything that exists, while "person" specifically refers to a human being, often emphasizing their unique qualities and social roles.
https://www.google.com/search?q=being+v ... e&ie=UTF-8

I think, with the online definition of term, I prove you wrong.

I believe no need for me to visit the link provided, as the concept of Trinity you've given differs from mine.

2. For us, Jesus is not a creation (John 1:3). And I think it would also be untaught to deny the Divinity of Jesus, where it is clear rendering from literal word for word Bible translations that aims to maintain the highest degree of accuracy to original words (Hebrew and Greek) that says, Jesus is God. (John 1:18). Where the "N7" prove that the original Greek words of the text is "only-begotten God or the only-begotten God. Only various readings says, "Son." Both translations are correct, we'll just acknowledged that Jesus has the nature of God.

(Updated ASV+) Jhn 1:18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God N7  who is in the bosom of the Father, N8  that one has made him fully known.

N7 John 1:1 (UASV+)
The original words were μονογενὴς θεός or ο μονογενης θεος “only-begotten God” or “the only-begotten God” (P66 P75 א B C* L 33 syrhmp 33 copbo) A variant reading is ο μονογενης υιος “the only begotten Son” A C3 (Ws) Θ Ψ f1, Maj syrc).

I believe this will be more stunning news for you.

Why do you deliberately sidestep the message of my post. Jesus is NOT a human person, no matter what you say or tell yourself, for the reason I already spoke of and also in what these links tell you. What I present is not a different Trinity explanation it is the foundational orthodox version that many like you cannot come to terms with I'm afraid.

You have said it all when you say you will not open the links provided, afraid to even open the links I gave...there are many books and authors who have written on this subject.

I'm quite baffled of what your definition of person is, so I could discourse your point. Do you mean that just because you said it, then it is true? In Orthodox Christian theology, the Trinity is the doctrine that God exists as one in three co-equal and co-eternal persons: the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit, each distinct yet sharing divine essence. And Jesus as 100% human and 100% God.

Yes, many authors wrote about it, but if their theology differs to what I respond above. I'm afraid I'm not with you of what you affirmed.

And its not my definition of what is a person, and there is a much bigger issue you fail to see... as if I created this as a tale to tell...please..

I guess you might want to move on then ....it might hit you square in the face one of these days....and you will remember what I've said...enjoy your day then

How would I know what you mean by person if you fail to define it? I'm afraid I cannot engage rightfully to an undefined term.

Ok, enjoy your day also.

Shalom.