Okay, I see where this is heading. Been there, done that.
Blessings
Dave
Alright, whatever man. Anyway, though you are not able to discern my true intentions I’ll let you know that I am new to the forum and have followed your comments on other posts about Ultra-Universalism and enjoyed what you’ve had to say.
THAT is the statement that causes woe and the gritting of teeth. Because now, I am not your brother, right? Which means - what? Does that mean I’m not a christian? What is it to deny that someone is a brother in Christ?
Trins always think they are on the ‘high ground’ looking down at other pov’s. I dispute that, but I actually don’t care that much (because I don’t think it matters all that much), except when they say things like the above.
In any case, I’ll stay away from it. Dale Tuggy has an entire website concerning this and anyone interested can read to their heart’s content.
You and I will get along just fine.
I always stay away from the non-T topics/discussions (unless I should happen to get a complaint from one of them–which I can’t remember ever having gotten any). I love the people and do consider them my brothers and sisters in Christ, but I don’t want to argue the Trinity with them. I’m not the Holy Spirit and besides I’m not all that sure we disagree at the deepest levels. We just see things from a different perspective, Alexander. I haven’t discovered a way to explain how I view the Trinity so that they can see into my thought process, and I think they probably feel the same about me.
Okay, see? I didn’t know what in the world I said to bother you so much, because I clearly didn’t say anything with the intent to do that. Knowing now that you are a unitarian, that makes sense why you would be offended. Nevertheless, how you can deny that Christ is God baffles me.
I am not a unitarian. But it is understandable how you would think that.
We will have fruitful discussions on many topics, I expect, and I’m glad you are here on the Forum!
I’m not really that concerned about the doctrine, be it true or not; I do not think it is the secret handshake to being a ‘REAL’ Christian however.
Again, welcome. 
Actually I went to Dubuque IA a few months back and played a show with a guy who was a Unitarian. I kind of looked up the description of what a Unitarian was and … well, it wasn’t so bad. Any way the problem was the guy was a doof… told me in the middle of the show to turn my guitar volume down. I’m very conscience about that volume thing. I don’t like that… I really don’t like that. I wonder if it was his Unitarian ways 
As Dave said we will be waiting for your discussions. 
Alexander, I too, deny Trinitarianism, yet I do hold that Jesus is God in the sense that He is as fully divine and the Father who begat Him before all ages. So where does that leave me in your eyes? “A brother in Christ” or someone who is outside the fold?
What do you believe, if you don’t believe in the Trinity? It’s really troublesome because I don’t see how an honest person can look at the pages and just flat out deny the Trinity. It’s one of those doctrines that is not mysterious or hard to understand. It’s plain, simple, and right there in scripture. It’s really concerning. I’m not saying you’re being blatantly dishonest though. Why do you deny the Trinity?
Edit - see below
Alexander, contrary to what you affirm, the Trinity is nowhere to be found in the Scriptures except in 1 John 5:7—and that verse is known to have been added in the ninth century.
Alexander I just deleted a post in which I directed you to an article in the Stanford Encylopedia on the Trinity. Realizing you may/may not have a philosophical background and a grasp of the vocabulary and such, I would suggest you listen To This for an easier way into what I and others hold.
That’s if you are interested in knowing why I and others take a position different from yours and the entire Trin school of thought. I’m not saying Trins are wrong, though my strong suspicion is that they are - I’m saying there is good reason to disagree, and more reason just to accept as brothers/sisters those who worship Christ according to the New Testament, not Creeds.
Good luck. I hope you listen to that podcast.
Hi Alexander. My view is this (and I realize it may well have been put this way already and I did not find it in my quick -non- perusing of all the posts )
John 1: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 [a]He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. 5 The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not **comprehend it.
So if we take a different view about this, we can see that vs 2 says *He was in the beginning with God *which does show some separation.
Now let’s look at it like my own personal job. My boss wants to do something. He declares 'this … is what I want to do. Maintenance man, you are the one for the job, thus I am sending you. You will know everything I want accomplished, you have been here from the beginning, and you will have complete autonomy as my sole ambassador in this matter, and everything you say and proclaim will be as if it came from my own mouth.
I go to the meeting. I declare everything the boss has said and, as far as I am concerned, I am the boss. There is no appeal past me. I am the one they have to deal with.
(I still can’t believe no one has brought this scenario up and if so, so sorry)
Many of the people at the meeting consider me the boss. Though I am not technically the boss, everything I am and do and say is the soul of the boss. I even at some point may point out that I and the boss are one because of the assignment he sent me on, but I am still not the real boss.
This is were it gets interesting: Some of the workers say “this guy is the real deal. The boss sent him to show us about this …” But some of the workers say, " This guy can not be the real delegate of the boss, because we know what the boss is really like and this dude is nothing like him" 
I hope you see the correlation here. There is separation. **
Not only that - but it does not say ‘He’ was in the beginning with God.
It says the WORD was in the beginning with God, and was God. What is the Word? It was a common usage of the greek LOGOS, which means plan, intent, pattern - what has always been in the Father’s mind, the LOGOS - that plan intent pattern became flesh. Christ became at birth the full expression of God’s logos.
1 Like
So by your definition we have:
In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God
The Word became flesh
In the beginning was the plan
and the plan was with God
and the plan was God
and the plan was made flesh
Wow, that was insightful
You need to get up to speed. Whether trins are right or wrong, they do not have the high ground. There is a case to be made - ah I’m tired of talking -
Here, I’ll make it easy. There are better articles but we have to start somewhere.
christianmonotheism.com/medi … hn%201.pdf
And a short one:
trinities.org/blog/incarnation-g … ohn-11-18/
Though I hold that Jesus WAS the Logos (the expression) of God, the point at which people get confused lies in the clause “the Logos was God.”
The word “God” in that clause does not refer to the Father. If it did, the article would precede it, as it does when it says that the Logos was with God (with THE God).
Not only is the article absent, but the order of the words—placing “God” before “was” indicates that the word “God” in the clause “The Logos was God” is a QUALITY of the Word. Another way of saying the same thing would be “The Logos was divine.” We find exactly the same Greek construction in the phrase “God is love” The word “love” is placed before “is” and has no article,indicating that “love” is a quality—the very essence of God.
Jesus Himself didn’t consider Himself to be part of a Trinity, for He addressed His Father in prayer as “the ONLY true God” as recorded in John 17:3.
He then adds “… and Jesus Christ whom you have sent,” indicating that He Himself was someone OTHER THAN “the only true God.”
James are you trolling us, or just being ignorant? Talking that way to Paidion is uncalled-for and your accusations are soooooooo wide of the mark. He’s proved his wisdom for many years and earned the admiration - if not full agreement - of everyone here.
You should apologize.
From a Greek scholar in response to Paidion:
That’s incorrect. In the Greek it reads “and God was the word” this organization of the wording is for emphasis. It implies that everything God is, the word is. The word contains the definite article because it is the subject. While he’s right that it carries with it the nature of essence, that is because it’s separating the person if the Word (i.e. Christ) from the person of God. If both contained the definite article we would be left with sabellianism.
Essentially what John is saying is that Jesus possesses all the attributes of the Father, but the lack of the definite article demonstrates that he is not the Father.