There is no such thing as trinity in Scripture *at all.* It is a philosophical concept (not a teaching) pushed on the Scriptures by mainly *abusing* the Gospel of John. The Israelites were no trinitarians and neither were Jesus Christ and the Apostles. They worshipped one God >>> The Father!
8:08 A Son must be begotten, not made or created. I hear allot of people say the process of the Son being brought forth was like when Eve was brought forth from Adams rib, from his substance? But that sounds like created from? So I am a bit confused between made, brought forth ect. Even between Afrikaans and English is a difirence, but that could just be the translation. Begotten is one thing, but "eersgebore Seun" sounds very natural, yet wrong. The second birth as sutch was 'n birth from a woman, more natural, even if it was without a Father figure. So Supernatural. Thank you for praying for us all and may the Spirit lead us to better understanding through the Word. I stil struggle with it all, but your videos do help. Thank you 🌿
@@GIDO74 my boys are begotten from us. That does not mean we created them. To create is outside of us, to give birth is from within. The rib is a good analogy. Eve was taken from within Adam. So the Son of God came forth from His Father. Anything created is outside of God. Eersgebore sê maar net enige gebore en is maar dieselfde. Jesus is al een wat gebore is vanuit God.
The Jews had never before heard such words from human lips, and a convicting influence attended them; for it seemed that divinity flashed through humanity as Jesus said, "I and my Father are one." The words of Christ were full of deep meaning as he put forth the claim that he and the Father were of one substance, possessing the same attributes.--The Signs of the Times, Nov. 27, 1893, p. 54.
@@ThePropheticMirror so true. A great quote to show that Jesus was OF the same substance, not THE same Substance, not one entity, but consisting of the same substance. So they are one in attributes and character,, but not one entity.
@@frederickanderson1860 so where does it state that God is a triune god? Or is the Trinity that argues about who God is, not us. The Bible is clear that God is a person, a He, a Him. God is not a they/them. That is human sophistry. The best is to stay with the simplicity of Scripture, not en constructs that was added long after the Bible was written. So, yes, you are right, it is wrong to gives theories about who God is in nature. God's nature is a mystery, but we need to know His identity, who He is. The Bible is clear that God is the Father of Jesus Christ. Isa 55:8-9 MKJV1962 8 For My thoughts [are] not your thoughts, nor your ways My ways, says the LORD. 9 For [as] the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts. This talks about the ways of God. It is not about who God is, His identity. The identity of God is everything to us. If we worship the wrong God, we cannot be saved. Of course His ways and His nature we cannot grasp, but we are given His identity. Who is God? He is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, He is the Father of Jesus Christ. He is YHWH the creator of everything, which He created through His Son. God as creator and Father is WHO He is. I think you will agree that we can know this truth and is revealed in Scripture and not a mystery. The how and the what is a mystery, but the Who is not.
@TruthUnshackled-Freedom ok l am a human being l have a personality yet my ways are not what others think. To know me is to understand my ways and thoughts. You cannot understand God and not your own identity or other people's ways. As the saying goes " some people are so heavenly minded , they no earthy good.. many instances of crazy ideas in mystical theology, like the Kabbalah and Sufi and other out of this world definitions in all religions.acheiving the balance is impossible to do daily Ecclesiastical verse to consider chapter 7 v 16 -18
@TruthUnshackled-Freedom the disciples thought they knew jesus yet they deserted him in his hour of need. Peter denied him so why did this happen. Same with the Israelites deliverence from Egypt they rebelled and Moses was not allowed to go over the promised land. After 40 years of trials. They knew who he was correct.
@@frederickanderson1860 please read what I wrote. The identity of God is in Him being the Creator and the Father of Jesus Christ. Do you accept that or reject that. That is a simple question. I don't claim to know how He created or what God consist of. I dying claim to know how it is possible for God to have a Son. I dying claim to know How He can love us so much to give us His Son. All I can know, is that He revealed Himself as our Creator and the Father of His Son. That I will defend and accept, even if others will wilfully deny it. Nowhere in the Bible is God revealed as a triune conglomerate entity and nowhere did the early church believe that. These videos is about that topic and nowhere did I claim that I know the ways of God. It seems though that you don't think so. That is your right to think. I'll just proclaim what the Bible teaches. By the way, Moses was not allowed to enter. Why? Because he had a wrong knowledge of God? I think not. The Scripture is clear why not. Yet Moses was not lost.
@TruthUnshackled-Freedom my reasons was that despite the people of Israel who knew the God of Abraham and Issac and Jacob deliver them from slavery in Egypt made no difference to their rebellion later, Moses became angry when he struck the rock twice, God said speak to the rock. Therefore human nature despite seeing miracles and signs still rebel.
Your idea of God having a son means that the son must also be God, you say is logical. Gabriel says, in answer to Mary's question, how can this be, seeing I know not a man, the holy spirit will come upon you.......therefore that holy thing shall be called the son of God. This is simple for me to understand. God, not Joseph, is the father of the human Jesus. Your idea is speculating about something that there is no need for. The church fathers started speculating aswell. Reading the simple messages in the book of Acts should keep us from this speculating. Peter, Steven, Paul and the group that prays give me the impression that they believe that God is a single person, the creator, the God of Abraham, and that Jesus is the son of God, God's anointed, and they call him a man.
@@rsk5660 Ignatius just echoed what his teacher, the apostle John taught Him. If anybody denies that God is the Father Of Jesus before His incarnation and before creation, He denies the Father and the Son and has the spirit of the Antichrist. Of course this is a study of the history of the church and to show that the Trinity is a, false religion, but it also show that Jesus was regarded as God as well, but Gpd in nature, not the person. The Bible is clear though that Jesus was brought forth from the Father before time began. Jesus's beginning was not in Bethlehem. Jesus had two distinct individualities as the Son of God and as the Son of man. The teaches that God gave His only begotten Son. To give a Son, He had to have had a Son. You cannot give something you do not have. I hope that helps. You see, both Trinitarians and Unitarians (what you believe) deny the Father and the Son. That is the spirit of the Antichrist. That is very serious. Please consider that we have been deceived. Please watch the other videos as well.
@@TruthUnshackled-Freedom Hi, thanks for your reply. I have not closed my mind to having been deceived, and I hope you haven't either, because over confidance can be a hindrance to finding the truth. There are a lot of different scriptures to be taken into consideration. Because there are many voices in the world today, and because God understands our weaknesses, I cast myself on him to reval thruths to me. If, however, I misunderstand scripture in my search for the truth, God knows my heart, and a God of love is hardly going to punish a person for misunderstanding his word. Someone who denies the father and the son is a wicked person and obviously an enemy of God. To my mind, the pharisees denied that Jesus was the Christ, and therefore make themselves the enemy of God, so, how can they have the father if they do not have the son? About 30 years ago, someone came to our trinitarian church, who seemed to me have all the traits of a spiritual christian, except that he had a slightly different view on what Jesus' sonship meant. Although he attended our bible discussion meeting, he would not have been allowed to take part in the Lord's supper with us, if he had turned up. His christian demeanor made me question the harsh attitude our church had towards him, and so, I prayed about my concern, asking God to show me whether our church's attitude was correct. As I read through the bible after this, I began to notice things I hadn't noticed before, and I have changed my point of view gradually over the years. Quite an important part of my discovery is what the angel said to Mary. I notice you did not comment on what I said. How do you think Mary understood what the angel said in Luke 1. I understand that this is the reason why Jesus is called the son of God. If he was the son of God before his incarnation then there are two reasons for him being called the son of God. One according to Ignatius (via John, by word of mouth) and one according to Gabriel in scripture. You say The Bible is clear that Jesus was brought forth from the Father before time began. Where does it say this clearly. Your statement is clear, but I don't think the scripture is as clear as your statement, otherwise you would just have quoted the scripture with any comment being required. Many scriptures seem clear, but they do not actually mean what we think they mean. For example, Jesus clearly called Peter Satan, yet we know Peter is not Satan. We are also told that the lamb was slain before the foundation of the world, yet we know he was slain after the foundation of the world. So, accusing me of having the spirit of antichrist because I don't accept your point of view is being a bit harsh and may therefore hinder you from coming to the truth if it so happens that you are wrong. The weak are not to judge the strong, and the strong are not to despise the weak. If you happen to be weak, you may be judging me who may be strong. If you happen to be strong then you are despising me who am weak. I would appreciate your idea as to how Mary would have understood Gabriel, thanks.
@@TruthUnshackled-Freedom In reply to the following comment:The teaches that God gave His only begotten Son. To give a Son, He had to have had a Son. You cannot give something you do not have. I hope that helps. If you look at the context of John 3v16 you will notice that it is in connection with Moses lifting up the serpent in the wilderness, even so, must the son of man be lifted up. For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son. You assume that God gave his son at the time of incarnation, whereas the context would suggest to me that the giving could be at the time of his death. No one was ever saved by the incarnation, but we have eternal life by believing in the death of the Lord Jesus. So, I also believe that God had a son to give. The same mistake is also possibly made when it says Though he were rich yet for our sakes became poor that through his poverty we might be made rich. This is also normally understood that Jesus was rich before the incarnation and became poor by the incarnation. But if we take these meanings of rich and poor, and apply them to the rest of the verse we have: That through his incarnation we become rich(meaning what?) Again, we are not saved in this way. If however we get saved through his death, then the following makes more sense. If rich means that he had life and did not need to die because he was sinless, then he became poor by dieing. And we though his poverty (his death) might be made rich (we receive eternal life) I noticed that someone encouraged you in a comment that if they persecuted Jesus they would persecute you. Might I suggest that you be careful in calling others antichrist who may not be. Otherwise you could be taking part in persecuting (accidentally) someone who may be a child of God. Jude says "of some making a difference" Thanks
@@rsk5660 of course Scripture is primary. You just ignore history as well and you cannot do that. First off, Prov 8 makes it clear that Jesus was begotten before creation. Not only that, He said that He was before Abraham. You have the same problem as the Trinitarians, your theology is missing in the early church. You can try and claim that all the early church believers were already in apostacy, but that really is a very weak argument and makes God unable to even keep a remnant alive, which He always has. Just go and look at who these people were. The early church were the most tenacious Christians that walked the earth. To say that God only gave His Son on the cross, had serious consequences. First off, it is not just His death that saved us, but actually His life. He showed that it is possible for a human being, Him having the same flesh as us, to overcome sin and never sin. That was His victory. You are basically saying that Jesus was on earth and then one day Good just decided to give Him to die. That is reading into the Bible. It is clear that God sent His only begotten Son, a Son that He already had as Prov 8 clearly declares. Jesus then became the Son of Man. Did the apostles forget to teach their disciples that Jesus was not really the Son of God before creation? It seems so with your theology. Where did your theology originate in history? When was it recorded to be taught in history? Did you that seems irrelevant, for me not.
@@TruthUnshackled-Freedom I can answer some of your comments but not all at the moment. First of all I have a lot of respect for anyone who even thinks for himself instead of being afraid of their pastors threats. You come across as if you know everything and cannot be taught anything by me but I will try for a little and then give up if I think you continue in this arrogance. I have looked at Proverbs 8 which trinitarians also like to bring up to support their doctrine. It is in a poetry book which has metaphorical language in it. A female person is the personification of wisdom. You cannot support your doctrine from this chapter. If you do, then you show to me that you do not have much concrete scripture to support your view, that you have to resort to doubtful passages. Jesus did not say he was before Abraham, he said before Abraham was I am. There is a difficulty in the way Jesus says what he says which cannot be ignored. In other places, possibly all other places, I am is translated as I am he. I am who? So, this is a difficult passage for everyone to interpret, but you pretend it only suits your doctrine. Multiple times the scriptures emphasise that Christ died for our sins, not lived for our sins. Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins, it is true that Jesus lived a perfect sinless life, but this is not what saves us, but it makes him able to save us, if he had sinned he would not have qualified to die for us, he would have had to die for his own sin. We are reconciled to God by the death of his son. Here we see that the son dies, not the body in which the son lived. This agrees with my previous message that it is the son that was conceived by the holy spirit, that died. In your doctrine the son is a spiritual being that incarnated, which cannot die, but the scripture says the son died. Again Proverbs 8 does not clearly mention the son, a female figure is in Proverbs 8, is it not? The lamb was slain from before the foundation of the world, so no, God did not decide one day to give his son to die. In God's mind he planned for his son to die before the world I don't think the apostles forgot to teach their disciples anything. In the book of Acts they did not seem to mention anything about incarnation which means to me they did not know anything about it. You have not commented on this. You also have not commented on what Gabriel meant or how Mary would have understood Gabriel. In my childlike belief, Gabriel was answering Mary's simple question as to how she would get pregnant and Gabriel told her God would perform the father duty which is why he would be called the son of God. I wonder what your thoughts are. Most people don't like to bring this pasage up. I don't know enough about church history yet to answer your question, but I know at least that Tertullian was not trinitarian, but I also know that he talked about the majority of simple believers disagreeing with him and I gather that they believed that there was just one God. I also know that Justin Martyr in the dialogue with Trypho, talked about others who disagreed with him, just believed that Jesus was the anointed and did not believe he preexisted. He talks about them as if they were believers, like Tertullian does. This attitude is different from yours, where you think anyone who disagrees with you is antichrist.
Justin Martyr. I made a small typo.
There is no such thing as trinity in Scripture *at all.* It is a philosophical concept (not a teaching) pushed on the Scriptures by mainly *abusing* the Gospel of John. The Israelites were no trinitarians and neither were Jesus Christ and the Apostles. They worshipped one God >>> The Father!
8:08 A Son must be begotten, not made or created.
I hear allot of people say the process of the Son being brought forth was like when Eve was brought forth from Adams rib, from his substance?
But that sounds like created from?
So I am a bit confused between made, brought forth ect.
Even between Afrikaans and English is a difirence, but that could just be the translation.
Begotten is one thing, but "eersgebore Seun" sounds very natural, yet wrong.
The second birth as sutch was 'n birth from a woman, more natural, even if it was without a Father figure. So Supernatural.
Thank you for praying for us all and may the Spirit lead us to better understanding through the Word.
I stil struggle with it all, but your videos do help.
Thank you 🌿
@@GIDO74 my boys are begotten from us. That does not mean we created them. To create is outside of us, to give birth is from within.
The rib is a good analogy. Eve was taken from within Adam. So the Son of God came forth from His Father. Anything created is outside of God.
Eersgebore sê maar net enige gebore en is maar dieselfde. Jesus is al een wat gebore is vanuit God.
The Jews had never before heard such words from human lips, and a convicting influence attended them; for it seemed that divinity flashed through humanity as Jesus said, "I and my Father are one." The words of Christ were full of deep meaning as he put forth the claim that he and the Father were of one substance, possessing the same attributes.--The Signs of the Times, Nov. 27, 1893, p. 54.
@@ThePropheticMirror so true. A great quote to show that Jesus was OF the same substance, not THE same Substance, not one entity, but consisting of the same substance. So they are one in attributes and character,, but not one entity.
@@ThePropheticMirror thanks Sami.
@@TruthUnshackled-Freedom amen
Isaiah chapter 55:8-9 says it all pointless arguing about the definition of God . God ways and thoughts are not like ours!!!
@@frederickanderson1860 so where does it state that God is a triune god? Or is the Trinity that argues about who God is, not us. The Bible is clear that God is a person, a He, a Him. God is not a they/them. That is human sophistry. The best is to stay with the simplicity of Scripture, not en constructs that was added long after the Bible was written.
So, yes, you are right, it is wrong to gives theories about who God is in nature. God's nature is a mystery, but we need to know His identity, who He is. The Bible is clear that God is the Father of Jesus Christ.
Isa 55:8-9 MKJV1962 8 For My thoughts [are] not your thoughts, nor your ways My ways, says the LORD. 9 For [as] the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts.
This talks about the ways of God. It is not about who God is, His identity. The identity of God is everything to us. If we worship the wrong God, we cannot be saved. Of course His ways and His nature we cannot grasp, but we are given His identity. Who is God? He is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, He is the Father of Jesus Christ. He is YHWH the creator of everything, which He created through His Son. God as creator and Father is WHO He is. I think you will agree that we can know this truth and is revealed in Scripture and not a mystery. The how and the what is a mystery, but the Who is not.
@TruthUnshackled-Freedom ok l am a human being l have a personality yet my ways are not what others think. To know me is to understand my ways and thoughts. You cannot understand God and not your own identity or other people's ways. As the saying goes " some people are so heavenly minded , they no earthy good.. many instances of crazy ideas in mystical theology, like the Kabbalah and Sufi and other out of this world definitions in all religions.acheiving the balance is impossible to do daily
Ecclesiastical verse to consider chapter 7 v 16 -18
@TruthUnshackled-Freedom the disciples thought they knew jesus yet they deserted him in his hour of need. Peter denied him so why did this happen. Same with the Israelites deliverence from Egypt they rebelled and Moses was not allowed to go over the promised land. After 40 years of trials. They knew who he was correct.
@@frederickanderson1860 please read what I wrote. The identity of God is in Him being the Creator and the Father of Jesus Christ. Do you accept that or reject that. That is a simple question. I don't claim to know how He created or what God consist of. I dying claim to know how it is possible for God to have a Son. I dying claim to know How He can love us so much to give us His Son. All I can know, is that He revealed Himself as our Creator and the Father of His Son. That I will defend and accept, even if others will wilfully deny it.
Nowhere in the Bible is God revealed as a triune conglomerate entity and nowhere did the early church believe that. These videos is about that topic and nowhere did I claim that I know the ways of God. It seems though that you don't think so. That is your right to think. I'll just proclaim what the Bible teaches.
By the way, Moses was not allowed to enter. Why? Because he had a wrong knowledge of God? I think not. The Scripture is clear why not. Yet Moses was not lost.
@TruthUnshackled-Freedom my reasons was that despite the people of Israel who knew the God of Abraham and Issac and Jacob deliver them from slavery in Egypt made no difference to their rebellion later, Moses became angry when he struck the rock twice, God said speak to the rock. Therefore human nature despite seeing miracles and signs still rebel.
Your idea of God having a son means that the son must also be God, you say is logical. Gabriel says, in answer to Mary's question, how can this be, seeing I know not a man, the holy spirit will come upon you.......therefore that holy thing shall be called the son of God. This is simple for me to understand. God, not Joseph, is the father of the human Jesus. Your idea is speculating about something that there is no need for. The church fathers started speculating aswell. Reading the simple messages in the book of Acts should keep us from this speculating. Peter, Steven, Paul and the group that prays give me the impression that they believe that God is a single person, the creator, the God of Abraham, and that Jesus is the son of God, God's anointed, and they call him a man.
@@rsk5660 Ignatius just echoed what his teacher, the apostle John taught Him. If anybody denies that God is the Father Of Jesus before His incarnation and before creation, He denies the Father and the Son and has the spirit of the Antichrist.
Of course this is a study of the history of the church and to show that the Trinity is a, false religion, but it also show that Jesus was regarded as God as well, but Gpd in nature, not the person.
The Bible is clear though that Jesus was brought forth from the Father before time began. Jesus's beginning was not in Bethlehem. Jesus had two distinct individualities as the Son of God and as the Son of man.
The teaches that God gave His only begotten Son. To give a Son, He had to have had a Son. You cannot give something you do not have. I hope that helps.
You see, both Trinitarians and Unitarians (what you believe) deny the Father and the Son. That is the spirit of the Antichrist. That is very serious. Please consider that we have been deceived.
Please watch the other videos as well.
@@TruthUnshackled-Freedom Hi, thanks for your reply. I have not closed my mind to having been deceived, and I hope you haven't either, because over confidance can be a hindrance to finding the truth. There are a lot of different scriptures to be taken into consideration. Because there are many voices in the world today, and because God understands our weaknesses, I cast myself on him to reval thruths to me. If, however, I misunderstand scripture in my search for the truth, God knows my heart, and a God of love is hardly going to punish a person for misunderstanding his word. Someone who denies the father and the son is a wicked person and obviously an enemy of God. To my mind, the pharisees denied that Jesus was the Christ, and therefore make themselves the enemy of God, so, how can they have the father if they do not have the son?
About 30 years ago, someone came to our trinitarian church, who seemed to me have all the traits of a spiritual christian, except that he had a slightly different view on what Jesus' sonship meant. Although he attended our bible discussion meeting, he would not have been allowed to take part in the Lord's supper with us, if he had turned up. His christian demeanor made me question the harsh attitude our church had towards him, and so, I prayed about my concern, asking God to show me whether our church's attitude was correct. As I read through the bible after this, I began to notice things I hadn't noticed before, and I have changed my point of view gradually over the years.
Quite an important part of my discovery is what the angel said to Mary. I notice you did not comment on what I said. How do you think Mary understood what the angel said in Luke 1. I understand that this is the reason why Jesus is called the son of God. If he was the son of God before his incarnation then there are two reasons for him being called the son of God. One according to Ignatius (via John, by word of mouth) and one according to Gabriel in scripture.
You say The Bible is clear that Jesus was brought forth from the Father before time began. Where does it say this clearly. Your statement is clear, but I don't think the scripture is as clear as your statement, otherwise you would just have quoted the scripture with any comment being required. Many scriptures seem clear, but they do not actually mean what we think they mean. For example, Jesus clearly called Peter Satan, yet we know Peter is not Satan. We are also told that the lamb was slain before the foundation of the world, yet we know he was slain after the foundation of the world. So, accusing me of having the spirit of antichrist because I don't accept your point of view is being a bit harsh and may therefore hinder you from coming to the truth if it so happens that you are wrong. The weak are not to judge the strong, and the strong are not to despise the weak. If you happen to be weak, you may be judging me who may be strong. If you happen to be strong then you are despising me who am weak.
I would appreciate your idea as to how Mary would have understood Gabriel, thanks.
@@TruthUnshackled-Freedom In reply to the following comment:The teaches that God gave His only begotten Son. To give a Son, He had to have had a Son. You cannot give something you do not have. I hope that helps.
If you look at the context of John 3v16 you will notice that it is in connection with Moses lifting up the serpent in the wilderness, even so, must the son of man be lifted up. For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son.
You assume that God gave his son at the time of incarnation, whereas the context would suggest to me that the giving could be at the time of his death. No one was ever saved by the incarnation, but we have eternal life by believing in the death of the Lord Jesus. So, I also believe that God had a son to give. The same mistake is also possibly made when it says Though he were rich yet for our sakes became poor that through his poverty we might be made rich. This is also normally understood that Jesus was rich before the incarnation and became poor by the incarnation. But if we take these meanings of rich and poor, and apply them to the rest of the verse we have: That through his incarnation we become rich(meaning what?) Again, we are not saved in this way. If however we get saved through his death, then the following makes more sense. If rich means that he had life and did not need to die because he was sinless, then he became poor by dieing. And we though his poverty (his death) might be made rich (we receive eternal life)
I noticed that someone encouraged you in a comment that if they persecuted Jesus they would persecute you. Might I suggest that you be careful in calling others antichrist who may not be. Otherwise you could be taking part in persecuting (accidentally) someone who may be a child of God. Jude says "of some making a difference" Thanks
@@rsk5660 of course Scripture is primary. You just ignore history as well and you cannot do that.
First off, Prov 8 makes it clear that Jesus was begotten before creation. Not only that, He said that He was before Abraham.
You have the same problem as the Trinitarians, your theology is missing in the early church. You can try and claim that all the early church believers were already in apostacy, but that really is a very weak argument and makes God unable to even keep a remnant alive, which He always has. Just go and look at who these people were. The early church were the most tenacious Christians that walked the earth.
To say that God only gave His Son on the cross, had serious consequences. First off, it is not just His death that saved us, but actually His life. He showed that it is possible for a human being, Him having the same flesh as us, to overcome sin and never sin. That was His victory.
You are basically saying that Jesus was on earth and then one day Good just decided to give Him to die. That is reading into the Bible.
It is clear that God sent His only begotten Son, a Son that He already had as Prov 8 clearly declares. Jesus then became the Son of Man.
Did the apostles forget to teach their disciples that Jesus was not really the Son of God before creation? It seems so with your theology.
Where did your theology originate in history? When was it recorded to be taught in history? Did you that seems irrelevant, for me not.
@@TruthUnshackled-Freedom I can answer some of your comments but not all at the moment. First of all I have a lot of respect for anyone who even thinks for himself instead of being afraid of their pastors threats.
You come across as if you know everything and cannot be taught anything by me but I will try for a little and then give up if I think you continue in this arrogance.
I have looked at Proverbs 8 which trinitarians also like to bring up to support their doctrine. It is in a poetry book which has metaphorical language in it. A female person is the personification of wisdom. You cannot support your doctrine from this chapter. If you do, then you show to me that you do not have much concrete scripture to support your view, that you have to resort to doubtful passages.
Jesus did not say he was before Abraham, he said before Abraham was I am. There is a difficulty in the way Jesus says what he says which cannot be ignored. In other places, possibly all other places, I am is translated as I am he. I am who? So, this is a difficult passage for everyone to interpret, but you pretend it only suits your doctrine.
Multiple times the scriptures emphasise that Christ died for our sins, not lived for our sins. Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins, it is true that Jesus lived a perfect sinless life, but this is not what saves us, but it makes him able to save us, if he had sinned he would not have qualified to die for us, he would have had to die for his own sin. We are reconciled to God by the death of his son. Here we see that the son dies, not the body in which the son lived. This agrees with my previous message that it is the son that was conceived by the holy spirit, that died. In your doctrine the son is a spiritual being that incarnated, which cannot die, but the scripture says the son died.
Again Proverbs 8 does not clearly mention the son, a female figure is in Proverbs 8, is it not?
The lamb was slain from before the foundation of the world, so no, God did not decide one day to give his son to die. In God's mind he planned for his son to die before the world
I don't think the apostles forgot to teach their disciples anything. In the book of Acts they did not seem to mention anything about incarnation which means to me they did not know anything about it. You have not commented on this. You also have not commented on what Gabriel meant or how Mary would have understood Gabriel. In my childlike belief, Gabriel was answering Mary's simple question as to how she would get pregnant and Gabriel told her God would perform the father duty which is why he would be called the son of God. I wonder what your thoughts are. Most people don't like to bring this pasage up.
I don't know enough about church history yet to answer your question, but I know at least that Tertullian was not trinitarian, but I also know that he talked about the majority of simple believers disagreeing with him and I gather that they believed that there was just one God. I also know that Justin Martyr in the dialogue with Trypho, talked about others who disagreed with him, just believed that Jesus was the anointed and did not believe he preexisted. He talks about them as if they were believers, like Tertullian does. This attitude is different from yours, where you think anyone who disagrees with you is antichrist.