The Trinity

[Sigurd]

Sorry about the late reply... the flu and other stuff interfered.

I never claimed that Trinitarianism was the dominant position within Christendom at the time of Nicaea or Athanasius. From what I have read, I would be agreement that Trinitarianism was a minority position at that time. What I was trying to say was that I believe that the scriptures show Trinitarianism to be the position of the earliest church - the church in the time of Christ and the apostles..

Well… it is my claim that Trinitarianism was doctored by the Church-fathers (not the Apostles – the Church-fathers are those responsible for the church which emerged after the downfall of the early church which the New Testament predicted.

For this reason, I think it is important to appeal to the scripture as effectively the best source we have on what exactly the very earliest Christians believed - not those hundreds of years later at Nicaea.

Ah.. But you see… It was after Nicæa that the scriptures were canonized.

I thought a key belief of Subordinationism which distinguished it from Trinitarianism was the idea that Christ and the Holy Spirit are subordinate to the Father both in nature and their 'office' or 'function'? Isn't that why, after all, you appeal to those verses of scripture which speak of minor created gods, and identify Christ with them? The wikipedia article on Subordinationism opens with:

"Subordinationism is a doctrine in Christian theology which holds that the Son and the Holy Spirit are subordinate to God the Father in nature and being."

I know its not the best source but I did initially refer to that to try to understand where you are coming from. Would you disagree that Subordinationism says Christ is subordinate in nature to the Father?

I think the author is being sloppy in the definition. Subordinationism doesn't agree with Arius that Christ was simply a man created at birth and bestowed with Godliness. Yes Jesus Christ is different in nature and being – but the point is ontologically separate from God. As two full grown elephants are different, they are the same species and would have roughly the same strength and attributes, one is however dominant and the other subordinate because that is their way.

The idea of interpreting scripture with scripture doesn't mean excluding all other sources for understanding the scripture. It just means that when you come across a verse which is unclear to you, you should attempt to understand it in a way that is consistent with other verses of scripture which speak more clearly on the matter. Naturally, you also have to look to scholarly extra-scriptural sources to understand the historical and cultural contexts.

Then we agree. There are scholars out there that have a greater understanding of the scriptures and its context, and we would be wise to read their books.

I don't think there is anything in the context of Isaiah 43:10-11, to suggest that when God speaks of gods being formed, he means only gods being formed by clay.

Sure .. include gold and other substances. Do you suggest other ways of forming a god?

Also, I would say it is unfair for you to simply state that my belief in Trinitarianism comes from the Church Fathers and not from scripture. Have I ever appealed to their authority to justify Trinitarianism?

Ah but you do… This idea originated by them. Do you suggest that if Athanasius and his minority supporters had not convinced the church to adapt to their view, you would still believe in Trinitarianism today as you say: found in the scriptures?

"And again, when he [the Father] bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him." (Hebrews 1:6)

Not a contradiction, but the Father does speak of God as though God is somehow distinguished from himself [the Father]. In the same way that Paul distinguished between God the Father and Christ the Son.

So, both the Son and the Father are distinguished as being distinct from God.

That is not how I read it. Angels of God is a title and it should be qualified like that as the word in Hebrew means messenger.

You are right in that he isn't necessarily talking about them having different roles or being ontologically distinct beings. That was my point - you offered this verse as an argument for them being ontologically distinct, but there are other reasonable interpretations of this verse.

This is a verse used by Trinitarians to show how God and Jesus is the same. I used it to show that it could be interpreted differently.

"But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him." (1 Corinthians 8:6)

Paul here says there is one Lord, Jesus Christ. Elsewhere, God is called Lord:

"And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord." (Mark 12:29)

Quoting the gospels can be tricky as you should find 4 versions of the same event and hence if they all say the same, it should be a truth established by several witnesses. But in this case it is only Mark that has the prefix to the great commandment of loving God and neighbors. Is this then the insertion of a misguided translator at one point?

A similar example:

"Neither is there salvation in any other [than Christ]: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." (Acts 4:12)

Jesus is here called our only Saviour. Elsewhere, God is called our Saviour:

"To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen." (Jude 1:25)

You are quoting a doxology. Saviour is not mentioned in your first quote, you are inferring it. But still, it is through Christ’s atonement whereby men can be saved, but it was God who sent the Messiah – and hence he can easily be called a Saviour as the Assyrian King Cyrus who was named Saviour of Israel.

From my OP:

"Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am." (John 8:58)
"I [Jesus] am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty." (Revelation 1:8)

These statements are not compatible with the idea of Christ being a subordinate, created god. These are claims of being the God, as the parallel verses (which Christ was deliberately referencing) regarding God make clear:

"Thus saith the Lord the King of Israel, and his redeemer the Lord of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God." (Isaiah 44:6)
"And God said unto Moses, I Am That I Am: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I Am hath sent me unto you." (Exodus 3:14)

I think you have heard of divine agents, it is a common argument used by the Unitarians against Trinitarians. There are many instances in the Bible and especially in the Old Testament that an angel speaks as he was God the Father. I am the great I AM could be uttered by an angel as a divine agent of God. The best example of this is Moses and the burning bush as the Angel says: I AM WHO I AM and “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob”.
It is the view of many Christians that Jesus was this angel and especially with Unitarians.

Other examples would be Exodus 13:21
And the LORD went before them by day in a pillar of a cloud, to lead them the way; and by night in a pillar of fire, to give them light; to go by day and night
Exodus 14:19
And the angel of God, which went before the camp of Israel, removed and went behind them; and the pillar of the cloud went from before their face, and stood behind them

I think you have too narrow a view of Trinitarianism.

Could be as I basically think of Trinitarians as modalists.

Didn't you say that the unity that Christ and the Father share is the same unity shared amongst the saints? In what special sense is Christ then the Father's Son? In what way is it merciful to send one of your brethren to be punished for the sins of a third party? It would only be merciful and selfless to bear that punishment yourself.

Really?? God and Jesus can’t be two separate entities because he shouldn’t send anyone but himself as a ransom against justice.

This begs the question… why use phrased such as Father and Son? Why not state the apparent full truth then? The Father condescended to make himself subject to the full law and brought justice to heel by paying for all sin himself. He himself being the embodiment of Justice and executioner at the same time as being the one executed.

Christ doesn't put himself in the category of the lesser gods. He quotes Psalm 82 to say that if those who hear the word are called gods, how great then is the blasphemy to deny someone so much greater - the Son of God who has been sanctified and sent into the world by the Father?

I don’t think so… he would have further supported his claim as The God IF that was his claim in the first place. Not basically say that they were as much God as he was in the sense of sons and daughters of God whom they call Father.

First of all, dealing the the "ye are gods" phrase. Actually, a good idea is to look at a dictionary closer to the times to help determine meaning. Wine nowadays is strictly alcoholic, back in 1611 it simply meant "the fruit of the vine". Gods can refer to deity, but it can also refer to people in high power, such as princes and kings. That is a possible explanation.

It doesn't answer why this would be his argument against his accusers.

Sigurd, I am familiar with the controversy surrounding 1 John 5:7, I will respond to that later when I have studied what I have learned about it

I eagerly await your comments.

Christ talks about the glory he left when he came down (John 17:5). He did not surrender his deity, as shown that he had power to raise himself from the dead. Yet other places say that God raised him from the dead. Only a God could raise himself from the dead. Yet this shows there has to be more than one aspect of God, the one who raises the dead part.
The Son, when quoting seeming inferiority to the Father, is speaking from his man state. Other passages clearly show he still retained his God state.

I am not arguing against his status as God (a god).

Sigurd, there is a doctrine of preservation, which states that God has perfectly preserved his Word. We accept that by faith, and I believe it to be the Authorized Version, otherwise known as the King James Version. That is why we interpret Scripture with Scripture, because it is God's (written) Word, so we can't treat it like a normal book.

So you are a KJV onlyist. This begs the question. Take my bible which is a Norwegian translation of Luther’s bible, Am I not able to discern the word of God from this? Is the word of God as preserved by Him only available to the English speaking Christians?

[Vincent Butler]

It doesn't answer why this would be his argument against his accusers.

It would more seem that he is using the wording to say why what he said doesn't necessarily mean he is speaking blasphemy, not to actually state any doctrine. He liked turning their reverence for David, Moses, and Abraham against them.

So you are a KJV onlyist. This begs the question. Take my bible which is a Norwegian translation of Luther’s bible, Am I not able to discern the word of God from this? Is the word of God as preserved by Him only available to the English speaking Christians?

KJV onlyist for the English-speaking people. I should have been more clear, I forgot that not everybody on the thread is from an English-speaking country. I guess if somebody wants to use the Geneva Bible or Coverdale Bible I don't really have too much against that, I don't know. That bears more thought. What I look for in a Bible is, was it taken from the Textus Receptus, the Received Text? For other languages, that will not necessarily be the KJV.

There are scholars out there that have a greater understanding of the scriptures and its context, and we would be wise to read their books.

OK, but remember that it is the Holy Ghost that reveals his word to us. A lost scholar can study the Bible all day, and not get it. That is why non-Christians have such issues with the Bible.

"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Corinthians 2:14

About 1 John 5:7. Let me first point out that every part of Scripture in the KJV was reviewed at least fourteen times before it was cleared to be put in, so if that many comparisons led to 1 John 5:7 being considered part of the text, it should have been in there. We are still taking into account the doctrine of preservation, after all.
Erasmus only used two manuscripts for the bulk of his work. Erasmus omitted this passage because he could not find it in any Greek Text. But in the third edition, in 1522, he put it in because he received the manuscript that had it. Numerous codices do have it, so it was accepted in the KJV by the KJV's translators. If you are using a translation by Luther, Sigurd, that explains why you don't have it. He compiled his translation from Erasmus's works, printing his Bible in 1522, evidently from Erasmus's first or second edition.

I am not arguing against his status as God (a god).

But God says that there is no God beside him, see Isaiah 45:5. And the Son is called in Isaiah 9:6 the Everlasting Father and the Mighty God. Jesus is also called Emmanuel, which means "God with us". So if he is a god, he has to be The God.
I think I have said all I was wanting to say for now. If I see anything else I think begs a response, I will respond. Otherwise, I await comments from the others.

[Sigurd]

It would more seem that he is using the wording to say why what he said doesn't necessarily mean he is speaking blasphemy, not to actually state any doctrine. He liked turning their reverence for David, Moses, and Abraham against them.

What is the point of quoting psalm 82 if they accuse him of being God (the Father)? They could just brush it off - what has that to do with you claiming to be the Father? But that is not what they accuse him of... the word is Theos and it can be translated as 'a god' and suddenly the quote from the psalms makes sense.

OK, but remember that it is the Holy Ghost that reveals his word to us. A lost scholar can study the Bible all day, and not get it. That is why non-Christians have such issues with the Bible.

I have a problem with this statement.
It begs the question of why there are 35 000 Christian denominations. Why is there contention within the different sects on matters of doctrine when the Holy Ghost should reveal the same understanding to all honest seekers. Two so called saved persons (at least that is what they claim) can contend over a passage of scripture, both professing to have been guided by the spirit to understand its meaning. Believe me, I have 20 years of experience with these things, I have met many who claim to have been given the truth by the Holy Ghost, yet they say different things.

About 1 John 5:7. Let me first point out that every part of Scripture in the KJV was reviewed at least fourteen times before it was cleared to be put in, so if that many comparisons led to 1 John 5:7 being considered part of the text, it should have been in there. We are still taking into account the doctrine of preservation, after all.
Erasmus only used two manuscripts for the bulk of his work. Erasmus omitted this passage because he could not find it in any Greek Text. But in the third edition, in 1522, he put it in because he received the manuscript that had it. Numerous codices do have it, so it was accepted in the KJV by the KJV's translators. If you are using a translation by Luther, Sigurd, that explains why you don't have it. He compiled his translation from Erasmus's works, printing his Bible in 1522, evidently from Erasmus's first or second edition.

It should be noted that Erasmus considered the manuscript forged for the purpose of forcing him to include it. As he had wagered that if anyone found a Greek manuscript with the controversial text, he would include it in his translation.

I have a slight problem with KJV-onlyism. The problem is found on the title page : by his Majesties special Commandment. What was the instruction given the translators from the King? -to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its belief in an ordained clergy. Ah... problem. it had to conform to the Church of England's ecclesiology or how they viewed the Godhead, how they viewed salvation etc.

Well.. The Church of England commissioned a new Bible and in 1962 the Bible which is called The New English Bible (NEB) saw light in this world and lo and behold the verse in 1 John 5:7 is as it should be without the reference to the Trinity.

For there are three witnesses, the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and these three are in agreement.
(1.John 5:7 - NEB)

But God says that there is no God beside him, see Isaiah 45:5. And the Son is called in Isaiah 9:6 the Everlasting Father and the Mighty God. Jesus is also called Emmanuel, which means "God with us". So if he is a god, he has to be The God.
I think I have said all I was wanting to say for now. If I see anything else I think begs a response, I will respond. Otherwise, I await comments from the others.

We have already been over this. The Bible do allow for more than one God, no need to rehash One-God claims... as the purpose of the wording has been explained.
Either The Bible contradicts itself - or there are a specific purpose of the quoted verses that doesn't refute the doctrine of more than one true god.
Also, read about divine agents. I have another card up my sleeve that I haven't used yet. Look up Deuteronomical Reform.

[Beskar]

Also, read about divine agents. I have another card up my sleeve that I haven't used yet. Look up Deuteronomical Reform.

I have already played that card before, it received a astounding "meh" and then completely ignored.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I will prepare a proper reply to your main response Sigurd, but in the meantime...

Look up Deuteronomical Reform.

I have already played that card before, it received a astounding "meh" and then completely ignored.

I think it is very problematic if you want to start saying that the Bible contradicts itself, and that different parts of the book argue for different Gods or gods.

As I said earlier when I interpret verses from the Bible, I do so in a way that is consistent with the entirety of scripture. Naturally, if I was to abandon this approach and only study verses in the isolation of a particular book or part of the Bible, I could come to a variety of different conclusions on what the scripture teaches on a particular topic.

If we have a situation where as you seem to be saying, that Genesis is polytheistic and Deuteronomy is monotheistic, then I suppose that both our ideas of God(s) could be half-right, and this debate would be a bit pointless.

I also think you must remember that the early Christians who you appeal to to justify Subordinationism, would never have accepted the idea that the scripture contradicts itself. Certainly not in such a fundamental way as you are suggesting.

[Vincent Butler]

What is the point of quoting psalm 82 if they accuse him of being God (the Father)? They could just brush it off - what has that to do with you claiming to be the Father? But that is not what they accuse him of... the word is Theos and it can be translated as 'a god' and suddenly the quote from the psalms makes sense.

Just because it can be translated a certain way doesn't mean it needs to be taken that way. Besides, in Psalm 82, it says they will die. Now, in most cultures, deities are immortal; I know Norse deities die, and I am not sure if any other cultures have that the case, the Norse are the only ones I know of.

It begs the question of why there are 35 000 Christian denominations. Why is there contention within the different sects on matters of doctrine when the Holy Ghost should reveal the same understanding to all honest seekers.
Believe me, I have 20 years of experience with these things, I have met many who claim to have been given the truth by the Holy Ghost, yet they say different things.

Well, "Christian" covers a wide range of religions, from a secular point of view, it includes Catholics and Mormons, among others, whom I personally would not call Christian, why I would not is outside the scope of this discussion. When somebody tells you something the Holy Ghost showed them, you have to line it up with what the Bible actually says. 1 John says to "try the spirits, whether they are of God", which we do with God's Word. The Holy Spirit will not reveal something that does not line up with the Word of God. Also, many passages can be applied multiple ways and still be right, example, parable of the prodigal son. Look at what the Bible says.
A common mistake many people make is to take a Scripture out of context and use that to support their cause. Like anything else, it has to be taken in context. "A text taken out of its context becomes a pretext."

It should be noted that Erasmus considered the manuscript forged for the purpose of forcing him to include it. As he had wagered that if anyone found a Greek manuscript with the controversial text, he would include it in his translation.

My mom's Dutch Bible, which is taken mainly from Latin texts, has 1 John 5:7. There was no officially accepted Greek text, though there were numerous Greek texts available. There are enough references to this passage from other sources that it is not a problem. I don't need that passage to support my claim about Christ's part in the Trinity anyway(but it helps), numerous other passages directly call him God, and numerous passages state the existence of only one God.

The problem is found on the title page : by his Majesties special Commandment. What was the instruction given the translators from the King? -to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its belief in an ordained clergy.

I checked several of my Bibles, none have that comment, they all say something like "Translated out of the original tongues, diligently compared and revised with other texts". It is called the Authorized Version because King James saw the need for an officially accepted text, so he commissioned the translators to come up with one. Again, many of these "conflicting passages" are in numerous manuscripts as well, cited in other sources.

We have already been over this. The Bible do allow for more than one God, no need to rehash One-God claims... as the purpose of the wording has been explained

I guess we will keep going over it. No, the Bible does not allow for the existence of multiple Gods, God clearly states that "there is none else", and "the Lord our God is one Lord".

Also, read about divine agents. I have another card up my sleeve that I haven't used yet. Look up Deuteronomical Reform.

All I can find on it is something to do with Josiah bringing back the following of the law to Judah. If that is what you mean, I don't see how that supports your case.
By "divine agents", are you talking about such instances as Joshua meeting the Captain of the Host of the Lord, and such like? If so, those are considered preincarnate appearances of Christ. You see verses where standard angels refuse worship. Yet these characters accept worship. They must be God. But since there is only one God, it must be Jehovah these people are talking to.

Look, we can argue all day long about what certain passages may mean, what is the interpretation, and all that stuff. Very clear references have been given stating that there is ONLY one God, and verses where Jesus is directly called God. If you don't accept what the Bible clearly says, then arguing about interpretation of passages would be pointless.

[Sigurd]

Just because it can be translated a certain way doesn't mean it needs to be taken that way. Besides, in Psalm 82, it says they will die. Now, in most cultures, deities are immortal; I know Norse deities die, and I am not sure if any other cultures have that the case, the Norse are the only ones I know of.

Christ died. Although he chose to do so, the fact still remains.

Well, "Christian" covers a wide range of religions, from a secular point of view, it includes Catholics and Mormons, among others, whom I personally would not call Christian, why I would not is outside the scope of this discussion. When somebody tells you something the Holy Ghost showed them, you have to line it up with what the Bible actually says. 1 John says to "try the spirits, whether they are of God", which we do with God's Word. The Holy Spirit will not reveal something that does not line up with the Word of God. Also, many passages can be applied multiple ways and still be right, example, parable of the prodigal son. Look at what the Bible says.
A common mistake many people make is to take a Scripture out of context and use that to support their cause. Like anything else, it has to be taken in context. "A text taken out of its context becomes a pretext."

I have a serious problem with this. I am using context provided by many theologians and scholars. All though I am presenting these interpretations, they have been presented before by others.
But that is beside the point. You make a claim to have knowledge from the Holy Ghost. How would I verify this? What if the claims are contrary to others who make the same claim of divine revelation?
Ok... lets get scientific about this. How does the Holy Ghost reveal the truth to you? What is the process involved. I will have to check this against more than one claim of divine revelation.

My mom's Dutch Bible, which is taken mainly from Latin texts, has 1 John 5:7. There was no officially accepted Greek text, though there were numerous Greek texts available. There are enough references to this passage from other sources that it is not a problem. I don't need that passage to support my claim about Christ's part in the Trinity anyway(but it helps), numerous other passages directly call him God, and numerous passages state the existence of only one God.

It is a controversy and should have been removed using the same rules as in the process of canonization the Bible back whenever.

I checked several of my Bibles, none have that comment, they all say something like "Translated out of the original tongues, diligently compared and revised with other texts". It is called the Authorized Version because King James saw the need for an officially accepted text, so he commissioned the translators to come up with one. Again, many of these "conflicting passages" are in numerous manuscripts as well, cited in other sources.

You of course checked the original 1611 version?

I guess we will keep going over it. No, the Bible does not allow for the existence of multiple Gods, God clearly states that "there is none else", and "the Lord our God is one Lord".

Yes it does. It says Gods (plural) every time Elohim is named. Christ quotes psalm 82:6 which uses the word Elohim (’ănî- ’ā-mar-tî ’ĕ-lō-hîm). And to say that this is the tri-une God is clearly missing the context in every instance of the use of this word (also see next comment).

All I can find on it is something to do with Josiah bringing back the following of the law to Judah. If that is what you mean, I don't see how that supports your case.
By "divine agents", are you talking about such instances as Joshua meeting the Captain of the Host of the Lord, and such like? If so, those are considered preincarnate appearances of Christ. You see verses where standard angels refuse worship. Yet these characters accept worship. They must be God. But since there is only one God, it must be Jehovah these people are talking to.

That you are not aware of the travesty around the Deutoronomic reform is surprising. Maybe it is a buzz-killer and is therefore not taught in the Christian churches. You (not you specifically, but your team-mates) keep the fidelity of the Bible so close to heart that you won't allow for even the slightest possibility that someone along the line tampered with and changed scripture. This might come as a surprise, but this reform did just that. They changed the texts to conform to a single God - Jahveh, and removed everything else that was referring to worship of other deities. The intention was good as they wanted to slam down on idolatry or rather false worship of true deity. One particular is the Asherah. We don't know much about her since more or less everything about her worship was wiped from the records. She was a part of the temple worship and worshiped among the patriarchs since at least Abraham. She stood in the temple as a symbol of the tree of life next to the holy anointing oil in the holy of holies 2/3 of the Temple's existence in Jerusalem. Josiah threw her out together with the brazen serpent that Moses had fashioned. Not long after the South Kingdom with Jerusalem fell to Babylon, no longer supported by their God as prophesied by among others Isaiah.

[Vincent Butler]

Christ died. Although he chose to do so, the fact still remains.

His human body died. Because sin came by man, redemption had to come by man. Thor dies and that is it. Odin dies and that is it. Jesus died and rose again. He said that he himself had power to lay down his life, and power to take it up again. The God part of him did not die.

I have a serious problem with this. I am using context provided by many theologians and scholars. All though I am presenting these interpretations, they have been presented before by others.
But that is beside the point. You make a claim to have knowledge from the Holy Ghost. How would I verify this? What if the claims are contrary to others who make the same claim of divine revelation?
Ok... lets get scientific about this. How does the Holy Ghost reveal the truth to you? What is the process involved. I will have to check this against more than one claim of divine revelation.

As I said before, look at other Scriptures. If somebody claims revelation, but that part conflicts with what the Bible says, we can ignore them. Case in point, the people who claim to know the hour of the return of Christ. The Bible says that no man knows the hour. That is an easy example.
I can't explain how the Holy Ghost reveals things, I just know he does. But if I do see something, I had better make sure it lines up with other Scripture or the nature of God as revealed in his word, or however I am trying to apply that verse. If it does not, then I know it was not the Holy Spirit.

It is a controversy and should have been removed using the same rules as in the process of canonization the Bible back whenever.

If we are going to remove every controversy found in the manuscripts, Esther would have to go, Proverbs would have to go, Kings and Chronicles would have to go, all that stuff. The translators of the KJV knew of those controversies, that is why each part went through fourteen different examinations, to determine if they should leave it in or out.

Yes it does. It says Gods (plural) every time Elohim is named. Christ quotes psalm 82:6 which uses the word Elohim (’ănî- ’ā-mar-tî ’ĕ-lō-hîm). And to say that this is the tri-une God is clearly missing the context in every instance of the use of this word (also see next comment).

I guess we will just disagree on the interpretation of how Elohim is used, I believe it to refer the three parts of Elohim. "Let us make man in our image". Christ is in the image of God, he did tell Philip "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father."
Look at the possible definitions of Elohiym in the Strong's Concordance. Then look at the context. It is not necessarily referring to Jehovah, obviously not there. When Christ quotes that verse, look at the surrounding verses, he made them mad because he made himself God, not a god.

A couple of comments on your last paragraph. I don't know where you heard of Deutoronomical reform, it sounds more like a conspiracy theory to me. We don't have the originals, we can't say for sure what they say (from a purely secular standpoint). But I believe in the inerrant preservation of God's word, so I believe that God kept his word pure throughout history. If I did not believe that, what would be the point of believing the Bible? If I was not sure that what it says was really the Word of God as given in the originals, it would be pointless to believe any Bible.
Oh, I fully believe that people would tamper with the Word of God, that is why we have all those other translations, again, I am speaking from an English-speaking standpoint. For those who use other translations, that is my personal opinion, you are welcome to yours. I will say there are bigger fish to fry than arguing about Bible versions.
Ultimately, Sigurd, it comes down to faith in God. Just because the Trinity is beyond reason does not mean it is against reason. I can't explain everything about it, I have to take what the Bible says on it.
I have shown very clear reasons for my viewpoint. You keep coming back to one or two passages and trying to interpret their meaning, or at least what you believe they say. How about looking at very direct passages that don't need interpretation? And quoting the Hebrew is nice, but God gave me his Word in my own language. I take by faith that it was translated according to the true words of God.
I look forward to seeing why Rhy has to say.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Well… it is my claim that Trinitarianism was doctored by the Church-fathers (not the Apostles – the Church-fathers are those responsible for the church which emerged after the downfall of the early church which the New Testament predicted.

Ah.. But you see… It was after Nicæa that the scriptures were canonized.

What we know from the pre-Nicaea centuries suggests that the scripture that was canonized around the time of Nicaea was not hugely different from what it was in its more primitive incarnations. The Muratorian canon for example is dated to the 2nd Century and lists the four Gospels, as well as several Pauline Epistles. Indeed, the four Gospels seem to have been the core New Testament documents well before Nicaea, and were championed by Iraneus, Tatian and Origen, to name a few. The Pauline Espitles (although the particular epistles are not specified) are shown to have scriptural status at the time of their very writing (2 Peter 3:16).

It is this historic scripture of the four Gospels and the Pauline Epistles that was affirmed by the Trinitarians - they did not just concont the scripture to support their beliefs.

I think the author is being sloppy in the definition. Subordinationism doesn't agree with Arius that Christ was simply a man created at birth and bestowed with Godliness. Yes Jesus Christ is different in nature and being – but the point is ontologically separate from God. As two full grown elephants are different, they are the same species and would have roughly the same strength and attributes, one is however dominant and the other subordinate because that is their way.

Subordinate in what sense though? By virtue of nature, or just by circumstance? If you say that Christ is entirely equal by nature with the Father, but submits to the Father in taking upon a human body and suffering his wrath upon the cross, then you are not in disagreement with the Trinitarians on this point.

Sure .. include gold and other substances. Do you suggest other ways of forming a god?

Supernatural formation - for example the Jehovah's Witnesses belief that God created Jesus as an inferior divine being. In the passage here in question (Isaiah 43:10-11), God is saying that no other God was formed by any means. And even if minor gods were created, we know that Christ isn't one of them, since Christ claimed to be the uncreated I AM, the alpha and the omega. Therefore, Christ must be that single, uncreated God.

Ah but you do… This idea originated by them. Do you suggest that if Athanasius and his minority supporters had not convinced the church to adapt to their view, you would still believe in Trinitarianism today as you say: found in the scriptures?

That is what I say. Have I appealed to the authority of Athanasius, or to the scriptures that were accepted for hundreds of years before him?

That is not how I read it. Angels of God is a title and it should be qualified like that as the word in Hebrew means messenger.

That is also a valid interpretation. You can see the problem with these grey areas - where as you note elsewhere - we have to be careful to balance a plain reading with an appreciation for the author's intent, and the use of doxologies, etc.

To return to your original example of 1 Corinthians 8:4-6, I would say that in speaking of "one God, the Father" and "one Lord Jesus Christ", Paul is using a sort of doxology to show the role of the various aspects of the Godhead in our salvation - the Son submitting himself to perform the traditional role of the sacrificial lamb, with the Father performing the traditional role of God as the punisher of sin.

This is a verse used by Trinitarians to show how God and Jesus is the same. I used it to show that it could be interpreted differently.

Fair enough, but I think its best to stick to the arguments that the other person is making themselves.

Quoting the gospels can be tricky as you should find 4 versions of the same event and hence if they all say the same, it should be a truth established by several witnesses. But in this case it is only Mark that has the prefix to the great commandment of loving God and neighbors. Is this then the insertion of a misguided translator at one point?

To save us from debating the translation of this disputed verse of Mark, I will just point to the Old Testmant verse that Jesus was referencing, which makes the exact same point:

"Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord." (Deuteronomy 6:4)
"And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord." (Mark 12:29)

You are quoting a doxology. Saviour is not mentioned in your first quote, you are inferring it. But still, it is through Christ’s atonement whereby men can be saved, but it was God who sent the Messiah – and hence he can easily be called a Saviour as the Assyrian King Cyrus who was named Saviour of Israel.

Cyrus is considered a 'type' or foreshadow of Christ as Messiah, in the same way that David foreshadowed Christ's kingship, and Melchizedek his priesthood. He is a messiah, but not the Messiah. I guess you are referring to verses such as Isaiah 45:1? Cyrus is indeed called God's "anointed", a word which may also be translated as "messiah" - it means generally one given a special purpose by God. It is the same way that many are called apostle in the New Testament, yet we speak in particular of the Twelve Apostles as having a unique apostleship - there is a distinction to be made between the basic meaning of the word on the one hand, and its use as a special title on the other.

This is not just some sort of Christian revisionism. In other parts of Isaiah, although Cyrus is called messiah, a far greater messiah is prophecied of, the one who would be called "Immanuel", or "God with us" (Isaiah 7:14, Matthew 1:23). To this day, the Jews wait for the Messiah, not just a messiah.

I think you have heard of divine agents, it is a common argument used by the Unitarians against Trinitarians. There are many instances in the Bible and especially in the Old Testament that an angel speaks as he was God the Father. I am the great I AM could be uttered by an angel as a divine agent of God. The best example of this is Moses and the burning bush as the Angel says: I AM WHO I AM and “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob”.
It is the view of many Christians that Jesus was this angel and especially with Unitarians.

Other examples would be Exodus 13:21
And the LORD went before them by day in a pillar of a cloud, to lead them the way; and by night in a pillar of fire, to give them light; to go by day and night
Exodus 14:19
And the angel of God, which went before the camp of Israel, removed and went behind them; and the pillar of the cloud went from before their face, and stood behind them

OK, but you are not arguing for Unitarianism. As a Subordinationist, how would you respond to those verses I gave you, which I'll list again below:

"Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am." (John 8:58)
"I [Jesus] am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty." (Revelation 1:8)

"Thus saith the Lord the King of Israel, and his redeemer the Lord of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God." (Isaiah 44:6)
"And God said unto Moses, I Am That I Am: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I Am hath sent me unto you." (Exodus 3:14)

As a Subordinationist, I presume that you do not agree with the Unitarians. Surely you would believe that when Christ called himself the I AM, the alpha and the omega, he was in fact speaking of himself, and not merely acting as a mouthpiece for the Father. How does a Subordinationist reconcile those verses with their idea that Christ is one of the elohim, an inferior created god?

I don’t think so… he would have further supported his claim as The God IF that was his claim in the first place. Not basically say that they were as much God as he was in the sense of sons and daughters of God whom they call Father.

Would you not agree that Christ is claiming to be something greater than them? Christ claims to be he "whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world" in this passage, so surely his point must be that if it is not blasphemy to call those who hear the word "gods", then is it not far less blasphemy for Christ to call himself God?

There is another passage where Christ is claimed to be equal with God, and is subordinate only in the sense of taking upon himself a human body for his death upon the cross:

"Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross." (Philippians 2:5-8).

Really?? God and Jesus can’t be two separate entities because he shouldn’t send anyone but himself as a ransom against justice.

This begs the question… why use phrased such as Father and Son? Why not state the apparent full truth then? The Father condescended to make himself subject to the full law and brought justice to heel by paying for all sin himself. He himself being the embodiment of Justice and executioner at the same time as being the one executed.

Because the Father didn't die for our sins upon the cross. The Son did. We can agree on that much.

Where we differ is when I say that God died for our sins upon the cross, whereas you would say that a god died for us. I believe that the Father is God, Jesus is God, and the Spirit is God. Father, Son and Spirit all share a single essence that dwells fully and indivisibly in each of them. If the Son died for us on the cross, then the fullness of God died for us upon the cross. God's entire essence/nature suffered for us upon the cross in the person of the Son. The beauty of the Gospel lies in that perfect, sefless act of sacrifice by God himself.

Subordinationists on the other hand would say that the supreme God never endured any suffering, but rather a separate created god. From a legalistic perspective it allows for our salvation, but it takes away so much of the power of the Gospel message.