Three articles by an Ex-JW.
What follows is my rendering of three articles which were written by an ex-JW. The author of these articles indeed shows the falsehood of “trinitarian logic.” However, I have performed some editing: including changes to grammar and punctuation; removal of any JW-ish renderings; whilst retaining the general core of all three articles.
I'm gonna do some scriptural hopping to find out the clear biblical formula as opposed to any creeds that were formulated in councils of men for who exactly Jesus is.
Everyone believing that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God, and everyone who loves the Father loves whoever has been born of him. —1 John 5:1-5
The Bible says that we can be born of God and that we are if we confess Christ and that God raised him from the dead. So if we are born of God and we aren't the same as God, the same should be said of Christ who is born/begotten of God!
Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God —1 John 4:14, 15
Matthew 3:17 Look! Also, there was a voice from the heavens that said: “This is my Son, the beloved, whom I have approved.”
John 10:36: do you say to me whom the Father sanctified and dispatched into the world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, I am God’s Son? So Jesus is God's son — He is the most special firstborn who is heir to a kingdom like no other but yet he remains His son. [Col. 1.18, Heb. 1.2, 4]
Please note: Solomon, Adam, and Israel were all called sons of God. If God calls them "His sons" and it does not make them, God — the same goes for Christ!
He is “the apostle and high priest of our confession”—the “one mediator between God and men” (Heb. 3:1; 1 Tim. 2:5). So here we have some more clear succinct formulas of who Christ is . . . high priest and mediator.
So he is high priest and high priests in scripture serve God in things which pertain to God — which therefore, does not make them God! The same goes for Christ!
“God has made this Jesus whom you crucified both Lord and Christ” —Acts 2:36
Interestingly, trinitarians have a God who had to be made Lord or his human nature did, I should say, which really doesn't make any sense at all since he is still one hundred percent man right? So why did his human nature have to be made Lord if he already was 100 percent God and his human nature supposedly retained nothing but humanity? Either his human nature is no longer really a human nature because it had to be made Lord supposedly again OR it is still 100 percent human as I've heard trinitarians say. Which is it? Both make moot of scripture:
That Jesus was a perfect man while he was here and then was exalted to the right hand of his Father because he obeyed God not because he is God.
I'm probably inadvertently misrepresenting something here in regards to the "2 natures" thing in my ditziness. If so, forgive me.
“…if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” —Rom. 10:9
I have already covered how Jesus had to be MADE LORD and I confess that readily and without hesitation. I also confess that God raised him from death and that he is alive to plead for me now at God's right hand. Yet to Christians I'm not a Christian at all. Interesting.
What does it mean when the Bible says Jesus dies? How does the Bible define death?
First let us establish that souls can die and be destroyed and perish. (Ezek 18:4, Matt 10:28, James 5:20) Having said that let's go further:
Ecc 9:5: the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all (which excludes the possibility that one is breathing, moving or existing elsewhere)
Psalm 146:4: His spirit goes out, he goes back to his ground; In that day his thoughts do perish.
So since Jesus died and this is God's definition of death, there is no reason to think Jesus was anything but completely dead until his God raised him on the 3rd day. Any other confession is a manmade one based on philosophy of man and is frankly Gnostic.
So on the third day God gave Christ back his spirit or his breath … and immortalized him. I confess this. Do you?
Do you confess that Christ was dead in a grave and not alive at all with no thoughts for 3 days?
Moving on. John lets us know why he wrote his book—why he wrote the book of John:
“These things are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you might have life in his name.” —John 20:31
Just because he has been appointed to a position that no other son has ever been exalted to, does not mean he is anything but God's most beloved exalted only-begotten son.
1. A shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse; from his roots a Branch will bear fruit.
2. The Spirit of YAHWEH will rest on him (Jesus)-- the Spirit of wisdom and of understanding, the Spirit of counsel and of power, the Spirit of knowledge and of the fear of YAHWEH (Jesus fearing his GOD)
3. And he will delight in the fear of YAHWEH. He will not judge by what he sees with his eyes, or decide by what he hears with his ears;
Matthew 12:18 Here is my servant whom I have chosen, the one I love, in whom I delight; I will put my Spirit on him (Jesus), and he will proclaim justice to the nations.
So we know from these verses that God's spirit rests upon his awesome servant Jesus. Jesus is not a servant of his own being but a servant of his God who allows him to live and breathe and gives him His orders and he performs God’s will.
Acts 2:22 Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man publicly shown by God to you through powerful works and portents and signs that God did through him in your midst, just as you yourselves know, 24 But God resurrected him by loosing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to continue to be held fast by it.
So death held him fast for three days but did not continue to do so. As promised, his God raised him on the 3rd day.
Acts 3:13 The God of Abraham and of Isaac and of Jacob, the God of our forefathers, has glorified his Servant, Jesus
So again we have Jesus being … DISTINGUISHED from the Most High of the OT as the Most High's servant and son. Jesus is never said to be a member of his being! Anywhere! Ever!
Acts 3:22 In fact, Moses said, ‘YAHWEH God will raise up for you from among your brothers a prophet like me. You must listen to him according to all the things he speaks to you. 23 Indeed, any soul that does not listen to that Prophet will be completely destroyed from among the people. ’
26 To you first God, after raising up his Servant, sent him forth to bless you by turning each one away from your wicked deeds.
Here are more testimonies from God-breathed scripture who Jesus is. No need to infer anything further than what's given.
Daniel 7:13 I kept on beholding in the visions of the night, and, see there! With the clouds of the heavens someone like a son of man happened to be coming; and to the Ancient of Days he gained access, and they brought him up close even before that One. 14 And to him there were given rulership and dignity and kingdom, that the peoples, national groups and languages should all serve even him. His rulership is an indefinitely lasting rulership that will not pass away, and his kingdom one that will not be brought to ruin.
So what we have here is a lovely prophecy and picture of someone like the SON OF MAN being GIVEN a rulership and kingdom from a loving father AKA the Ancient of Days and being distinguished from that One; as the one who had to be given what he has and therefore, would have to be here excluded from himself being the Ancient of Days!
Unless you're willing to only be traditional and philosophical as opposed to succinctly biblical.
The Ancient of Days would be the supreme sovereign Lord of the universe, the Most High YAHWEH God Almighty. —The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; the God of my appointed king and consecrated Lord, Jesus Christ.
Again I would like you ask why a human nature had to be given anything given the fact that it is still one hundred percent human and the God nature should've already had this.
And has it ever stricken you as bizarre at all, to blame every reliance and declaration of inferiority of Jesus to a nature and not just Jesus himself, who never qualified this for us?
1 Corinthians 15:27 For God “subjected all things under his feet.” But when he says that ‘all things have been subjected,’ it is evident that it is with the exception of the One who subjected all things to him. 28 But when all things will have been subjected to him, then the Son himself will also subject himself to the One who subjected all things to him, that God may be all things to everyone.
Let’s never forget to praise the God of Jesus Christ and let us cease to worship anyone else as the same God as the God of Jesus Christ.
John 17:3: This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ.
And this isn't a "joint object" as I've heard James White say or two persons existing in the same God as trinitarians boldly say but a Father who is the only true God and His son who He sent forth to save us who will always serve Him and worship Him as his One and Only True Most High God.
And because of Jesus’ faith, obedience, goodness and love; God has exalted him to be our Lord and King and second most high over the entire universe.
Praise God for His power to do this. Praise Jesus for his exalted status and love and goodness and exceptionalness. Praise Jesus for all the same reasons that God blessed his most exalted servant and son. Because God loves him and tells us to do so. Because Jesus is a deserving king and Lord.
So if you're the one who thinks that these statements and BIBLICALLY based "givens" are not good enough "formulas" for who Christ really is, then I would say you have a problem with scripture itself.
If the fact that: Jesus is called God on a literal few occasions in a representational and authoritative sense; coupled with the fact that this was in light of the authority that he had been GIVEN! If this cannot be reconciled in your mind with the sheer irrefutable Jewish Monotheism without having to add 2 persons to God's "being" then IMO there's a problem.
There is both, clear and tenable proof; and there is precedent in scripture: for others to bear the title ’God’ and the name of God that He places within them.
[E.g. Exo 4.16, 7.1, 22.28, 23.20-21; etc]
Why? Because they are acting on the ONE God’s behalf. They have been given power from the Most High Himself, to represent Him.
3 simple truths:
1. No one may see God and live. Yet Jesus has been seen … literally seen and people continued to live.
2. God cannot die and Jesus can and did.
3. Calling someone who is Almighty God, "God's son", would be misleading and ridiculous.
This reminds me of Jesus saying we need to be like children—I knew as a child God's son wasn't God and told the preachers around me. I did not listen to them when they insisted he was. I knew it wasn't possible. And I quickly recognized scriptural precedence for others bearing the title god.
And doesn't the Bible say that the kingdom belongs to childlike ones?
Is it really appropriate to not trust that God would've revealed a distinctive formula so we would at least know He was three persons? Even IF we couldn't grasp it? Do you really think He wanted to conceal His identity of a composition of three persons so that 400 years later trinitarians could arrogantly proclaim that you cannot know who He is except through divine revelation? And that we should not question this "orthodox" "truth" and are in fact threatened with title "heretic" and "cultist" if we do?
Suddenly the logic and reason and truth-seeking, God endowed and blessed me with, aren’t valid and must be ignored! Suddenly I am unchristian for only being willing to confess Christ as Messiah, Son of the Living God! For those of you who condemn people like me to either hell or something else for not confessing that Christ is the second person of a triune God, then your condemnation is unfounded; given my ready willingness to confess that Christ is God's son, who has been anointed as Christ by the God he himself serves and worships.
All I can say is—who are you to judge someone for confessing what the Bible says we must confess for salvation and then telling me I have none? Now the scriptures I've provided are the overwhelming testimony of Christ's identity.
The trinity "proof texts" are never clear and can all be found wanting even in the "orthodox" community itself— conflicting views and interpretations. So when you have a doctrine that forces you to infer, be dogmatic about irrefutably precarious texts, to formulate doctrine not even based on scriptural terms, and throw reason by the wayside while embracing philosophical terminology that the Bible never uses—then Houston we have a problemo. In conclusion, Jesus is:
1. High Priest.
2. Appointed as Lord.
4. The Christ of God.
5. God's son.
6. Servant of and beloved one of God.
7. Second only to God and worthy of our confession, faith, and honor.
After posting the above blog, the ex-JW author received a comment and responded accordingly; as shown in this second article:
Answering a comment. . .
Answering a comment on my last blog:
You said: … “What is interesting about this comment is that you seem more interested in confessing that Jesus was MADE LORD more than you are in confessing him as YOUR LORD. Regardless of your opinion of Him, He IS sovereign over you and ALL of creation.
Jesus is the only One who can save people. His name is the only power in the world that has been given to save people. We must be saved through him. Acts 4:12
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me; John 14:6
I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour. Isa 43:11”
Thanks for your comment. The following is said assuming you're trinitarian: Yes, Jesus had to be made Lord. And yes, he is my Lord. And no, he couldn't have saved if he hadn't been sent forth to do so by his Father. God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son to die for us. I sincerely hope you understand the sacrifice Jesus’ Father made; at least as much as the one, His Son made. And that Jesus worships his Father as the Only True God so there is no reason anyone else shouldn't. Jesus said "We worship what WE know." —including himself as one who worships his Father in spirit and truth. Does his Father worship him? If not, there is no coequality. An Almighty God in no way logically would be worshipping someone else called Almighty God within his own "being". That is unreasonable in the highest degree and not supported in scripture or explicitly stated anywhere. Also, that would equal two Almighties already regardless of what ANYONE says to make it "go away". Even if they share the SAME "substance" within the 1 "godhead" as separate individuals, it would STILL equal 2 Almighty Gods.
I don't disagree with any scripture you provide. Jesus is absolutely the way, the truth, the life. His Father used him to save us, making him mediator and king and Lord. Why shouldn't He? He's a proud Father with an obedient faithful and inimitable Son He "approves" of, who is "beloved." …
The best proof that Jesus was created—is that he is called "God's Son."
John 10:34 Jesus answered them: “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said: “you are gods”’? 35 If he called ‘gods’ those against whom the word of God came, and yet the Scripture cannot be nullified, 36 do you say to me whom the Father sanctified and dispatched into the world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, I am God’s Son?
"God's Son" would be HIGHLY illogical language to use for someone who IS THE "TRUE God". You won't find the Bible itself stating that Jesus shares God's "essence" or "nature" as one of three persons in God's "being"; so no one should formulate a doctrine to accommodate philosophies that support this.
I am not demoting Christ. I am recognizing his God-given position as the Second most high person over the entire Universe; who is never said to exist within the same “being" as the "Most High God"; so there is no reason for me to put him there.
Recognizing that Jesus had to be "Made Lord" aids in understanding WHY he IS Lord. Take heed! Even the name that is the only one that can save us under heaven was GIVEN him. Keep in mind: the Father's so-called “equal" should NEVER have to be given anything at all; whether it be a name, a power, a kingdom, a revelation!
Rather, God made Jesus heir and loved him. …
As For Jesus being Sovereign: even if I surrendered that point it would only be possible because HIS God made him so. This could only mean he would STILL not be the SAME TRUE GOD his Father is OR equal as to His authority. Rather Christ’s authority is that which had to been gifted from a superior. God has no superiors, and certainly not within his own "being"! God works through Christ's agency by means of the holy spirit so powerfully, that Jesus can do what his Father does, because his Father grants it. (Acts 2:22, John 3:34) If it is not granted to Jesus or GIVEN him from his own God, Jesus wouldn't have anything at all! This therefore, excludes the possibility that Jesus is the true God.
Jesus lives BECAUSE of his Father! (John 5:26) And lives forever now because the One he said was greater and the only One good [John 14.28, Mark 10.18] (without any qualification that only his "flesh" was speaking and not his ENTIRE person as the Christ of God—no inference needed) raised him from a genuine death.
Acts 2:32 This Jesus God resurrected, of which fact we are all witnesses. 36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know for a certainty that God made him both Lord and Christ
So again, WHY is Jesus Lord, WHY is he savior, and WHY is he alive at all? As for absolute statements in scripture, they are sometimes qualified in other texts.
For instance, YAHWEH is the ONLY savior BUT …
Judges 3:9: Then the people of Israel cried out to YAHWEH for help. YAHWEH sent a savior to rescue them. It was Othniel, son of Caleb's younger brother Kenaz. 15 YAHWEH sent a savior to rescue them. It was Ehud, a left-handed man from the tribe of Benjamin. …
[See also 2 Kings 13.5, Neh. 9.27, Obad. 21] …
Thanks for reading my blog!
Here is another article by the same author:
Why do trinitarians omit relevant facts?
Trinitarians are fond of doing something I've seen appropriately called "misuse of similarities" to prove that Jesus is the same God his Father is. They play a game of pretend and omission. I'm not sure how honest it is to ignore the fact that NUMEROUS OT passages applied to people like David, Solomon, Nebuchadnezzar, Melchizedek (in addition to a few about Yah which is their ONLY focus, while they're trying to prove Jesus is the True God with this method) are ALSO applied to God's Christ, God's servant and Son, King Jesus, in the New Testament.
Also, many foreshadowings of the Messiah in the lives and life-work of people like Moses and Joseph are fulfilled in Christ in a greater way. With trinitarian standards and logic, because Jesus is foreshadowed by these men and passages applied to them are also applied to Christ, therefore to trinitarians, Jesus is a person, one of three persons in the being of God! …
Interestingly and unfairly, trinitarians often don't point out what is commonly done in the Bible.
That is, to apply the same passages used of others in the OT to Jesus in the NT in DIFFERENT FULFILMENTS AND APPLICATIONS. They simply present that some about Yah are applied to Jesus, and do not present that there are others that apply to other people besides Jesus as well!
I wonder why they omit that information? The reason why this is disturbing is because if someone who is witnessed to doesn't know this, they can be fooled that this application only happens with Yah and Jesus. Because trinitarians are omitting these vital facts, it can than appear that they are proving something that, indeed isn't true. In other words, their omissions are fodder for potential deception. Let me demonstrate exactly what they're doing and what conclusions we will reach using their trinitarian reason (which is unreasonable) and their logic (which is illogical) and their standards (which are dangerous). I don't personally think it is right to prove something with a standard that omits relevant facts. Now, let's get started.
First let's give an example of trinitarian reasoning. They say that since Yah and Jesus are BOTH called the rock of offense in a passage applied to both of them at different times, then they have to be the same God! (Isa. 8:14; 1 Peter 2:8) BOTH of them are rocks of offense to disobedient unbelievers. All one needs to do is recognize how the texts applied to both have different fulfilments in each and pertain to both. If Jesus and Yah are both called the rock of offense does that mean they share a substance and being?
Just like Jesus’ light shining through his followers means not only is Jesus our light but those he shines through are too [i.e. John 8.2, 9.5; Matt. 5.14].
When people are called saviors in scripture even though the Bible says God is the only savior, it is because no one could save without God saving through them. [Judges 3.9, 15; 2 Kings 13.5, Neh. 9.27, Obad. 21]
Likewise, the Bible says God saves through Christ. :-)
Suffice to say that when God works through Jesus as his chief agent in all things and gave him all power in heaven and on earth [Matt. 28.18] as his inheritance as the firstborn; many of the same phrases therefore, could be used and many of the same things could be said of both. This occurs in different applications and fulfilments because God uses and highly exalts His Christ and Son, and accomplishes so much through his agency, essentially making Jesus the great Amen. [Rev 3.14]
This verse is in the book of Samuel and is said about Solomon:
2 Samuel 7:14: I will be his father, and he will be my son.
This is in the book of Hebrews and is said about Christ:
Hebrews 1:5: "I will be his Father, and he will be my Son"?
So using trinitarian standards and logic the ONLY possible conclusion (which would be an erroneous and absurd one) is that Jesus is the same being Solomon is! Two separate sons, same substance. That's the way it would have to be according to trinitarians because with their logic a passage applied to one then applied to Jesus, makes Jesus a person of the substance of that someone.
Psalm 45:6, 7: Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever; a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom. You love righteousness and hate wickedness; therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy.
This is a psalm first fulfilled, according to most scholars, in King Solomon. How in the world could King Solomon also be called God? Because in Hebraic times God's kings and agents and exalted servants representing Almighty God, could sometimes be called God (gasp!) Like Moses was in Exodus 7:1 and 4:16. How come trinitarians ignore this? …
Nebuchadnezzar is called "king of kings" in Daniel 2:37. [Ezek. 26.7. Also Artaxerxes Ezra 7.12] Jesus is called such in Revelation 17:14. A facsimile to a typical trinitarian argument in relation to when similar phrases are used of both Yah and Jesus, would be "Well, no one but one being could be called king of kings. There's only ONE king of kings. How could there be two? Therefore Nebuchadnezzar and Jesus must share a substance and a being!"
We all know many things said of Melchizedek are also precisely said of Jesus and we also know logically they don't share a substance either.
So, again, WHY do similar phraseologies or passages applied to both Yah and Christ mean they have to share a substance and being; something the Bible NEVER mentions?
Now to address all the texts first applied to David and Solomon then Christ. … Here is some logic I have already used in another blog:
Is saying "well, David and Solomon foreshadowed or were a type of Christ so it isn't the same thing" a good reason to be bias when the same texts are applied to both them and Christ and that's the only reason THEY don't have to share a substance? No. Because the same texts are applied to both for the same reasons the ones about Yah are applied to Jesus. . . DIFFERENT APPLICATIONS AND FULFILLMENTS and pertaining to BOTH in different ways. ... It is that simple.
In other words, to be fair and unbiased, if you are going to assume Jesus is Yah by this reasoning, then you MUST assume Jesus is David and Solomon (and others), unless you're simply unwilling to be unbiased.
It should be no surprise that calling on the name of Jesus (In Joel [2.32] it says to call on Yah's name. —In Romans [10.13] Jesus’ name) and proskuneo-ing (often translated as worship or bow down to or honor) Jesus is very important, just as it is important to do so of Yah. Therefore just because, like we've demonstrated the Bible commonly does, there may be a text that says to worship Yah; then it is also applied to Jesus, doesn't mean they have to share a substance; but rather that … we must honor Jesus to the glory of the One who commands this …
In Hebraic times Yah's kings were proskuneo’d with people's faces to the ground. One clear example where God's king is worshiped at the same time as God is, is found in:
1Chronicles 29:20: Then David said to the whole assembly, “Praise YAHWEH your God.” So they all praised YAHWEH, the God of their fathers; they bowed low and fell prostrate before YAHWEH and the king.
With common trinitarian logic, the king would have to be a person of God's substance for this to be ok. Trinitarian arguments are often simply bias and blind.
The Bible says all of Jesus, (who isn't a split personality and 200 percent), was faithful and loved enough for his Father to command that he be honored highly. Similar to how the synagogue of Satan will be commanded to proskuneo (translated worship) before the feet of faithful Christians, whom God loves in Revelation 3:9. … Jesus is more exalted and important than they are by far; however being the second most high person in the universe means one ISN'T the Most High God! (1 Corinthians 15:27, 28).
Jesus worships the same God who COMMANDED the angels to worship Jesus [Heb. 1.6]. This worship will come about because of Christ's faithfulness, goodness, obedience, and inheritance, and not due to ontology. At least I can't find anywhere where it is said ontologically Christ requires worship to the glory of another equal substance existing in the same God that he is.
Yah reveals himself through His agent Jesus. This fact should make for an easy understanding of why certain things could be said of both.
All power in heaven and on earth has been given Jesus. The difference is: all power was given Jesus whereas no power has ever been given to God. And to say all power was given to a nature from the first person of the same being of which that human nature is 100 of 200 percent of the second person of that SAME triune being is absurd in the highest order.
It should be no surprise that calling on the name of Jesus, through whom Yah is working and saving and resurrecting and judging and blessing, has tremendous power, second only to Yah's name, which is actually wrapped up in Jesus’ name. After all, Jesus means "Yah is salvation."
Even if Jesus could be called Yah as Yah's agent according to the Hebrew law of agency … the Bible makes it clear that whatever name Jesus has, it was given him. [Phil. 2.9] As if ANYONE ever had to give God or a nature, a name!
Jesus is the mediator between God and man, the great Amen, through whom God caused all things … to be blessed and saved, resurrected, judged and glorified. Therefore Praise them both as The Only True God and His Son and king; as oppose to praising the Only True God that includes his own son in the same entity! Unless you want to do something scripture doesn't tell you to do! Because then, you would be worshipping a Platonic Greek philosophical unbiblical God.
Jesus has a God! That is, the God OF our Lord Jesus Christ [Eph 1.17, 2 Cor 1.3, 2 Cor 11.31, Eph 1.3, Col 1.3, 1 Pet 1.3]; and all that means is, that the one that God MADE to be our Lord isn't the same God who made him Lord.
If the Most High has a God, then he's no longer the Most High God! Obviously then, the Most High is the Only True God, the God of Jesus Christ.
To say God has a God within his own being. … That the second person of God's God is superior only in a functional but not an ontological way. … That father and son is simply relational terminology and not what these terms would naturally mean — are clearly not asserted in scripture.
These are MANMADE arguments, introduced from Platonically schooled men, and are not scripture.
There are those who will suggest that I am ignoring the incarnation. Why yes I am! Because it is not a scriptural truth. God didn't become a man! — allowing his fully God nature to hibernate while his fully man nature took over when he desired it to!!
Rather, God sent His son—the Last Adam, fully man, perfect, like his brothers in every way, obedient, faithful and true like the first man was not; thus, vindicating God's sovereignty by proving that man (someone TRULY man/human with God's spirit upon him and nothing else—anything beyond that is Gnostic) can love, obey and succumb to God wholeheartedly.
If Jesus was Almighty God, the whole truth of all that Jesus actually accomplished would be negated; e.g. like proving that man CAN be true to God. NOT that the second person of God's substance can be true to the first person of God's substance.
God can't die and a nature can't "sleep" etc . . . . but that's a whole other story. …
Either Jesus lied when he said his Father was the only true God and confirmed the Shema [Deut. 6.4] as his statement of faith [John 17.3, Mark 12.28-32], (and no Jew thought God was three persons), OR trinitarians are lying in that Jesus’ Father isn't the Only True God.
Jesus worshipped the True God, the One God of the Shema, the same God of the OT Jews, who was One Person. - If Jesus’ God isn't 3 persons, why is yours?
As Christians, aren't we supposed to follow Jesus and do what he did? Well, Jesus, all of his being and not just a nature attached to someone fully God, worshiped his Father as the only True God.
Mr. Trinitarian, if you're truly sola scriptura, then John 17:3 is as crystal clear and unprecarious a text as is possible. A beautiful scriptural formula that I would say is an inspired irrefutable creed. It doesn't gel so well with the Nicene one.
See also "The Attribute Association Farce"
See also "The Attribute Association Farce"