On a different question I got an answer and some comments. One of which said: > Generally, when a Christian says that Jesus is the "Son of God" they are referring to the doctrine of the Trinity, where Jesus is a person of a three-part godhead. It's a complicated doctrine that necessitates antinomy. As for your friend's reasoning, it is sound, and is the same reason we call Adam, from Genesis, the son of God also, for he also had no human father, instead God fashioned him from the clay of the Earth and breathed life into him. – fredsbend yesterday If that is what Trinitarians usually mean when they call Jesus the "Son of God", what do non-trinitarians mean when they say it?

Non-Trinitarians who do not believe Jesus is God Almighty include Unitarians, Socinians, Arians, Jehova's Witnesses, etc. This would not include, supposedly, Modalists and LDS/Mormons. The idea of atonement in the Old Testament was that a sinner would bring an offering to atone for his sin, and the death of that animal (and thus, its life) would take the place of the sinner's. In his *Temple, Its Ministry and Services *, Alfred Edersheim wrote, >The fundamental idea of sacrifice in the Old Testament is that of substitution, which again seems to imply everything else—atonement and redemption, vicarious punishment and forgiveness. The firstfruits go for the whole products; the firstlings for the flock; the redemption-money for that which cannot be offered; **and the life of the sacrifice, which is in its blood (Lev 17:11), for the life of the sacrificer**. Hence also the strict prohibition to partake of blood. Even in the ‘Korban,’ gift (Mark 7:11) or free-will offering, it is still the gift for the giver. This idea of substitution, as introduced, adopted, and sanctioned by God Himself, is expressed by the sacrificial term rendered in our version ‘atonement,’ but which really means covering, **the substitute** in the acceptance of God **taking the place of**, and so covering, as it were, **the person of the offerer**. Now, this would be a 1:1 relationship, i.e. one sinner, one animal. If Jesus is just a man (or even an angel, another created being), even if he be a sinless man (just like the animal was sinless and was offered as an atonement), how can Jesus effect atonement for all of humanity (John 1:29 ) rather than just one person?

To Peter Turner’s point A) Scripture is the source that says blood was necessary and that blood was sufficient, question revolves around why a Non-Trinitarian Jesus has sufficient worth to save mankind from sin of He is not God and therefore not infinitely valuable as God is. > “*For by **a single offering** (blood offering) he has perfected **for all time** those who are being sanctified*.” ‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭10:14‬ ‭ . > *“he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but **by means of his own blood**, thus **securing** an eternal redemption.”* ‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭9:12‬ To point B) this question is for non Trinitarians, if moderators require a more specific group, to Jehovah Witnesses. (Not for Modalist Non-Trinitarian) —————— The OT foreshadowed a coming sacrifice through which sin would be purged and expunged > “For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.” ‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭10:4‬ ‭ Animal sacrifices were done in faith anticipating the future redemption of mankind But why was Jesus’ death/blood sufficient? If Jesus was merely a coequal to satan or of the same kind any other ‘angel’ as some claim, and NOT God incarnate (as Trinitarians say He is) then why is an angel incarnate a sufficient sacrificial lamb for the sins of mankind? It is clear that prior to incarnation Jesus existed as a non “Adam” man, two texts, one is His own admission because the conversation was prior to the prepared body > *“Consequently, when Christ came into the world, he said, “Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired, but **a body have you prepared for me**;” “Then I said, ‘Behold, **I have come to do your will**, O God, as it is written of me in the scroll of the book.’‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭10:5‬,7 > “For **I have come down from heaven**, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me.” ‭‭John‬ ‭6:38‬* And secondly *“But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Too little to be among the clans of Judah, From you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel. His goings forth are from long ago, **from eternity**.””* ‭‭Micah‬ ‭5:2‬ ‭ If He is not God, as God the Father is God, but a created being on what basis is His sacrifice sufficient? > “But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent ( not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption. For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer, sanctify for the purification of the flesh, **how much more will the blood of Christ**, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God.” ‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭9:11-14‬ Why is His blood sufficient if he is not the eternal God? ———— - Animals were used in substitution for sin as foreshadowing - One man could die for another man or take the punishment in substitution - **Since when can an angel substitute the sins of all mankind? It would make sense if it were the eternal everlasting God but a created being makes no sense, humans are created, as are angels why is one angel worth all of mankind?**

> Zechariah 14 > > 17 And it will be that whichever of the families of the earth does not > go up to Jerusalem to worship **the King, YHWH of hosts,** there will be > no rain on them. > > Psalms 47 > > 2 For YHWH Most High is to be feared, **A great King over all the > earth**. 3 He subdues peoples under us And nations under our feet. 4 > He chooses our inheritance for us, The glory of Jacob whom He loves. > Selah. 5 God has ascended with a shout, YHWH, with the sound of a > trumpet. 6 Sing praises to God, sing praises; Sing praises **to our > King,** sing praises. 7 For **God is the King of all the earth;** Sing > praises with a skillful psalm. > > Psalms 47 > > 6 Sing praises to God, sing praises; Sing praises to **our King,** sing > praises. 7 For **God is the King of all the earth;** Sing praises with a > skillful psalm. In these verses above we can read that the Most High YHWH is King of the earth. Now the next verses shows that the Son, the Messiah Yahusha (Jesus/Yeshua) is going to be King. > Jeremiah 23 > > 5 “Behold, the days are coming, declares YHWH, when I will raise up > for David a righteous Branch, and **he shall reign as king** and deal > wisely, and shall execute justice and righteousness in the land. > > Jeremiah 33 > > 16 In those days Judah will be saved, and Jerusalem will > dwell securely. And this is the name by which it will be called: ‘YHWH > is our righteousness.’ 17 “For thus says YHWH: David shall never lack > a man to **sit on the throne** of the house of Israel, > > Luke 1 > > 30 And the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you > have found favor with God. 31 And behold, you will conceive in your > womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. 32 He will be > great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God > will **give to him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign > over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no > end.”** As we can see, YHWH and His son Yahusha, are going to be King. Zecharia 14 refers to the promised Kingdom, the New Jerusalem, where YHWH is King. In Jeremiah 23 and 33 we can read that it is prophesied that a offspring of David is going to be King forever. Luke makes it clear that the son Yahusha is going to be that offspring that's going to sit on that throne as King forever. I do not believe in the tri-une God but do believe that YHWH and His Son are two different persons that do not share the same essence. From this perspective how must we look at the two kingships or what are the differences between them? And conscidering the everlasting kingships how must we interpret the part were the Son is going to give everything back to YHWH the Most High? In Luke for example, it stated really clear: "and of his kingdom there will be no end." > 1 Corinthians 15 > > 20 But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits > of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For as by a man came death, by a > man has come also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all > die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. 23 But each in his own > order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to > Christ. 24 Then comes the end, **when he delivers the kingdom to God the > Father** after destroying every rule and every authority and power. 25 > For **he must reign until** he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 > The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For “God has put all > things in subjection under his feet.” But when it says, “all things > are put in subjection,” it is plain that he is excepted who put all > things in subjection under him. 28 When all things are subjected to > him, **then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all > things in subjection under him,** that God may be all in all.

Jesus' most important commandment is the following: >Jesus answered him, *“The first of all the commandments is: ‘Hear, O Israel, YHWH our Elohim, YHWH is 1. And you shall love YHWH your Elohim with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ This is the first commandment."* Those who reject the triune theory do so because we interpret the scriptures to show a clear distinction between the person of YHWH (the 1 God), and His only begotten, the Son of God. The most well known words of Jesus are recorded in John 3:16. This is only 1 simple example of Jesus making a distinction between himself and God. John 3:16 >For **God** so loved the world that **He** gave ***His** only begotten Son*, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life. Throughout scripture this theme holds very consistent and can be shown with countless verses. There are too many to list them all. ***What are the BEST scriptures to support the interpretation that Jesus is not the same person as God (YHWH), but rather the Son of God and a completely separate person?*** -- Note: In the context of this question, verses that make a distinction between YHWH and Jesus would be greater support than verses that make a distinction between the Father and Jesus (even though we know the Father is YHWH according to this perspective).

**Introduction** Arius believed that Jesus was a creature, a created god. What did he write about John 1:1? Or if there is no such extant manuscript, how would he interpreted ''the Word was God'' in John 1:1 based on his Christology? > Arius was was a Libyan presbyter and ascetic, and priest in Baucalis > in Alexandria, Egypt. His teachings about the nature of the Godhead in > Christianity, which emphasized God's uniqueness and the Christ's > subordination under the Father,and his opposition to what would become > the dominant Christology, Homoousian Christology, made him a primary > topic of the First Council of Nicaea, which was convened by Emperor > Constantine the Great in 325.'' (Source ). > > In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and > the Word was God. John 1:1 (ESV) ---------- **Question** What was the stance of Arius on the third clause of John 1:1?

I was finishing up a read through of the Hebrew Bible when I came across this gem: Zechariah 14:6-9 (NASB) > On that day there will be no light; the luminaries will die out. 7 For it will be a unique day which is known to the Lord, neither day nor night, but it will come about that at the time of evening there will be light. 8 And on that day living waters will flow out of Jerusalem, half of them toward the eastern sea and the other half toward the western sea; it will be in summer as well as in winter. > > 9 And the Lord will be King over all the earth; on that day the Lord will be the only one, and His name the only one. This passage posses a logical contradiction for those that would assert that Jesus is LORD (YHWH). First, in v7 it says that this unique day is known to the LORD, to YHWH. Yet Christ himself makes it clear that he himself does not know when this day is, nor anyone else, but only the Father knows it. Matthew 24:36 (NASB) > “But about that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone. Furthermore, in v9 it says that God alone will be King over all the earth; there won't be any other kings. Paul tells us that in the end, Christ himself will subjected to the Father - ie, there is an end to Christ's reign as king. 1 Corinthians 15:26-28 (NASB) > The last enemy that will be abolished is death. 27 For He has put all things in subjection under His feet. But when He says, “All things are put in subjection,” it is clear that this excludes the Father who put all things in subjection to Him. 28 When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all in all. This is consistent with what the prophets said concerning the throne of David. Psalm 89:29 (NASB) > So I will establish his descendants forever, And his throne as the days of heaven. Isaiah 65:17 (NASB) > “For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth; And the former things will not be remembered or come to mind. So then, since Christ neither knows the day which is known to the LORD, to YHWH, and since his reign will end when God creates the new heavens and the new earth, then logically Christ cannot be YHWH. Rather, the only one who can be identified as YHWH given these restrictions is the Father. -------- **QUESTION**: How do Trinitarians address these two major conflicts? How can Christ be said to be YHWH when he does not know the day nor the hour when YHWH does know it? And if Christ's reign on the throne of David ends with the new creation, reversing the sin of Israel when they demanded a human king, then how can Christ be YHWH who is King over all - and at the end, the only king ?

The following has been quoted from a Biblical Unitarian Source >Contrary to the assumption that Christ must be God for redemption to be accomplished, we find, upon a closer scrutiny, that the opposite must be the case—that unless he was a man, Jesus could not have redeemed mankind. God’s “infinite” (we prefer a less mathematical and more biblical term like “immortal”) nature actually precluded Him from being our redeemer, because God cannot die. He therefore sent a man equipped for the task, one who could die for our sins and then be raised from the dead to vanquish death forever. This is the clear testimony of Scripture. >Romans 5:15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one MAN [Adam], how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one MAN, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! >If it were a major tenet of Christianity that redemption had to be accomplished by God Himself, then this section of Romans would have been the perfect place to say it. But just when Scripture could settle the argument once and for all, it says that redemption had to be accomplished by a man. The theological imaginings of “learned men” that only God could redeem mankind are rendered null and void by the clear voice of God Himself speaking through Scripture: a man had to do the job. Not just any man, but a sinless man, a man born of a virgin—THE MAN, Jesus, now The Man exalted to the position of “Lord” at God’s right hand. How would Trinitarians counter this argument ? ------------------------------------------------------------ >πολλω μαλλον η χαρις του θεου και η δωρεα εν χαριτι τη του ενος ανθρωπου ιησου χριστου εις τους πολλους επερισσευσεν [Romans 5:15 TR Stephanus, Beza, Elzevir and Scrivener all identical] ------------------------------

I looked at the [*Wikipedia* page on the St. Thomas Christians](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Thomas_Christians) , the oldest school of Indian Christians who follow the teachings of St. Thomas the Apostle, who had travelled to India to preach. However, I couldn’t find what their beliefs *were* from that page. Were they Trinitarian or Unitarian? Are there any academic references (books, papers) that discuss their religious beliefs on the nature of God, Jesus, etc?

> 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: - Philippians 2:5-6 Various translations render "*hegeomai*" as thought, consider, regard, count, esteem, deem, reckon, and even a strange "take advantage" (which I think is outside the box). All of these rightly represent a function of mind, as the object in question (equality with God) is perceived and rationally, accurately considered. For comparison, the exact same word in the exact same form appears in 1 Timothy 1:12 (he counted) and Hebrews 11:11 (she judged). Indeed, we are exhorted to have the same mind in us as was in Christ Jesus when He, Christ Jesus, thought (*hegeomai*) it not robbery to be equal with God **when** He was in the form of God. Following that consideration he "took upon him the form of a servant". The condescension follows after and flows from the consideration in the text of v. 6-8 just as the exaltation of v. 9 follows after and flows from the condescension. There are those who declare that, prior to his birth, Jesus did not exist with person-hood and that, if he existed in some form, he existed as "an idea in the mind of God". Biblical Unitarians are one such group. However this verse declares that, prior to his birth in Nazareth, Christ Jesus displayed function of mind. He considered, thought, reckoned, esteemed, or counted. Additionally, having considered he then acted by "making himself of no reputation" and "took the form of a servant" in accordance with his reckoning. It is crystal clear from the verse in question that it is the "who" which "thought" and equally clear that the "who" is Christ Jesus prior to his birth in Nazareth. The who, "being in the form of God", is prior to "in the form of a servant" and "made in the likeness of men" as evidenced by the conjunctive "but" separating the *hegeomai* of equality with God, which took place when in the form of God, and the actions of making himself of no reputation, etc. which result from the *hegeomai*. If the latter activity can be understood as Jesus' birth in Nazareth (and indeed it must if he did not pre-exist his birth), then it is prior to his birth in Nazareth when he considered. From those who deny a pre-incarnate "person" of Christ; Who or what performed "*hegeomai*", that function of personal, rational mind?

There are a number of Christians (groups that believe in Christ and name themselves "Christian") who don't believe in the Trinity. Many of these are broadly considered Christians. Muslims are non-Trinitarians, but they believe in Jesus and claim that they follow his teachings. Why won't Muslims be considered Muslims and Christians at the same time in the sight of God?

John said the Word was with God and was God (John 1:1), and the Word became flesh (John 1:14)—Jesus. Jesus said "Before Abraham was I AM" (John 8:58)—Jesus' claim to be YHVH. Jesus acknowledged the Father to be God. However YHVH says there are no other gods beside Him (Exodus 20:3; Deuteronomy 5:7; Deuteronomy 4:35; Deuteronomy 4:39). Trinitarianism is a solution to this. How do non-trinitarians resolve the clear indications that both the Father and Jesus are God?

John 1:14 is generally used to say that "God" became "flesh" based on the understanding that "the Word" addressed in John 1:1 refers to God. However, other texts of Scripture appear at variance with this interpretation. The texts which help clarify the basis of this question are shown below. I seek a non-Trinitarian explanations for how these texts might be shown to agree with each other and not be found in contradiction. | Text (KJV) | Typical Assumption | Opposed by? | |---|---|---| | In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (John 1:1) | "the Word" = God | And the Word was made flesh . . . and we beheld his glory . . . . (vs. 14) **VERSUS** No man hath seen God at any time . . . . (vs. 18) | | And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. (John 1:14) | God became a man (Jesus) | God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: . . . . (Numbers 23:19; cf. 1 Samuel 15:29) **AND** For I am the LORD, I change not;. . . . (Malachi 3:6)| How do various Christian faith traditions (Unitarians, Jehovahs Witnesses, etc.) that believe in Jesus, reverence sacred scriptures, but don't believe the in Trinity as understood by the various Ecumenical Councils refute the syllogism: - If the Word is God and the Word became Flesh (in Jesus), why is the Jesus not God? using scripture?

The Nicene and Dedication Councils were attended by more or less the same people and were only 16 years apart (325 vs 341) but resulted in opposing creeds. The Nicene Creed is pro-Sabellian but the Dedication Creed is anti-Sabellian. What made the difference? More or less the same people ---------------------------- The Dedication Council was a Council of the Eastern Church and the Nicene Council was almost exclusively Eastern: > At Nicaea, the delegates were “drawn almost entirely from the eastern > half of the empire” (LA, 19). > > “Very few Western bishops took the trouble to attend the Council (of > Nicaea). The Eastern Church was always the pioneer and leader in > theological movements in the early Church. It is well known that > Hilary, for instance, never really understood the Arian Controversy > till he reached the East as a result of being exiled. The Westerners > at the Council represented a tiny minority.” (RH, 170) > > The Nicene Council “was overwhelmingly Eastern, and only represented > the Western Church in a meagre way.” (RH, 156) The Nicene Creed is pro-Sabellian. ---------------------------------- > “If we are to take the creed N at its face value, the theology of > Eustathius and Marcellus was the theology which triumphed at Nicaea. > That creed admits the possibility of only one ousia and one > hypostasis. This was the hallmark of the theology of these two men.” > (RH, 235) [Eustathius and Marcellus were the two main Sabellians > who attended in Nicene Council.] > > “The Creed of Nicaea of 325 … ultimately confounded the confusion > because its use of the words ousia and hypostasis was so ambiguous as > to suggest that the Fathers of Nicaea had fallen into Sabellianism, a > view recognized as a heresy even at that period.” (Hanson’s Lecture ) > > “In the controversies which erupted over Eustathius of Antioch and > Marcellus after Nicaea, both thought their theologies faithful to > Nicaea—and they had good grounds for so assuming. Both were > influential at the council, and Nicaea’s lapidary formulations were > never intended to rule out their theological idiosyncrasies.” (LA, 99) > > After Nicaea, the Creed was associated “with the theology of Marcellus > of Ancyra. … The language of that creed seemed to offer no > prophylactic (prevention) against Marcellan doctrine, and increasingly > came to be seen as implying such doctrine.” (LA, 96, 97) > > “To many the creed seemed strongly to favour the unitarian tendency > among these existing trajectories.” (LA, 431) [Ayres uses the term > “unitarian” to refer to Sabellianism. For example: “A great deal of > controversy was caused in the years after the council by some > supporters of Nicaea whose theology had strongly unitarian tendencies. > Chief among these was Marcellus of Ancyra.” (LA, 431)) > > “Simonetti estimates the Nicene Council as a temporary alliance for > the defeat of Arianism between the tradition of Alexandria led by > Alexander and ‘Asiatic’ circles (i.e. Eustathius, Marcellus) whose > thought was at the opposite pole to that of Arius. … Alexander … > accepted virtual Sabellianism in order to ensure the defeat of > Arianism. … The ‘Asiatics’ … were able to include in N a hint of > opposition to the three hypostases theory.” (RH, 171) > > It is not “an openly Sabellian creed.” “It is going too far to say > that N is a clearly Sabellian document. … It is exceeding the evidence > to represent the Council as a total victory for the anti-Origenist > opponents of the doctrine of three hypostases. It was more like a > drawn battle.” (RH, 172) Ayres says that his conclusions are close to > Hanson’s in this regard (LA, 92). > > The Dedication Creed of 431 “represents the nearest approach we can > make to discovering the views of the ordinary educated Eastern bishop > who was no admirer of the extreme views of Arius but who had been > shocked and disturbed by **the apparent Sabellianism of Nicaea**.” (RH, > 290) The Dedication Creed is anti-Seballian. --------------------------------------- While Sabellianism asserts only one single hypostasis, meaning one single rational capacity or mind, the Dedication Creed explicitly asserts that the trinity is “three in hypostasis but one in agreement (συμφωνία)” (LA, 118). “One in agreement” indicates the existence of three distinct ‘Minds’. > The Dedication Creed’s “chief bête noire [the thing that it > particularly dislikes] is Sabellianism, the denial of a distinction > between the three within the Godhead.” (RH, 287) > > The Dedication creed is “strongly anti-Sabellian.” (RH, 287) > > “The creed has a clear anti-Sabellian and anti-Marcellan thrust.” (LA, > 119) LA = Ayres, Lewis, Nicaea and its Legacy, An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology, 2004 RH = Hanson RPC, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy, 318-381. 1988

Essentially the opposite of [this question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/82780/50422) : 1. What is the earliest recorded post-NT instance of a clear and unambiguous **denial** of the personhood of the Holy Spirit? When was it claimed for the first time that the Holy Spirit is *not* a Person, distinct from the Father and the Son, in the history of Christianity? 2. When did this belief reach widespread acceptance among Christians for the first time, if ever?

If I am not mistaken (but do correct me if I am), The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three separate beings, i.e. three separate Gods. What Scripture passages do Latter-day Saints use to refute the “three persons in one God” view of trinitarianism?

Isaiah 6:1, "In the year of King Uzziah's death, I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, lofty and exalted with the train of His robe filling the temple." This is confirmed by the Apostle John at John 12:41, "These things Isaiah said, because he spoke of Him." At John 12 Jesus is addressing the Jews and John says at John 12:36, "These things Jesus spoke, and He departed and hid Himself from them." Vs37, But though He had performed so many signs before them, yet they were not believing Him; vs38, that the word of Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spoke, "Lord, who has believed our report? And to has the arm of the Lord been revealed? vs39, For this cause they could not believe, for Isaiah said again, Vs40, "He has blinded their eyes, and He hardened their heart; Lest they see with their eyes, and perceive with their heart, and be converted, and I heal them." The verb Isaiah used for "saw" in Isaiah 6:1 is (ra'ah). In the qal, it refers to the act of seeing in the literal sense, to see with the eyes (as opposed to, for example "machazeh," which is the act or event of an ecstatic "vision.) In referring to this event, John uses the Greek word (eidon), also a verb referring to the act of seeing with the eyes in the natural sense. We know that God the Father is invisible, "whom no man hath seen, nor can see" (1 Timothy 6:16). He is transcendent and lives in unapproachable light (1 Timothy 6:16). But the Son is "the image of the invisible God" (Colossians 1:15). Thus the one whom Isaiah "saw" in the literal sense with his eyes is the one whom he explicitly identified as "YHWY", the same one whose glory he saw according to John at John 12:41. Jesus Himself makes this clear at John 12:45, "He who beholds Me beholds the One who sent Me."

The Son only has to exist if Man needed to saved, He is not inherent by any means. Likewise, a similar argument can be made for the Holy Ghost. How, then, can all three Persons of the Trinity be uncreated, inherent in God's nature, yet work out perfectly in order for His plan of grace? I am looking for a trinitarian, Bible-based answer, although Catholic tradition or papal statements may be included as way of explanation.

Jeff Deuble in Christ Before Creeds says (p. 33-34) > The significant controversies about the Messiah that were strongly > contested in the New Testament were: his death by crucifixion, his > resurrection, and his subsequent ascension and glorification. [...] As > you read through the book of Acts you will discover that these are the > three facts that the apostles continue to preach and debate, > especially with Jews (Acts 2:22-36, 3:17-26, 5:29-32, 10:34-43, > 13:26-41, 17:2-4, 17:29-31, 26:19-23). [...] These basic > Christological tenets differed from previous perceptions, so they were > strongly proclaimed and debated from the inception of the church on > the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:14-36). Yet, he continues > Nowhere is there reference to a debate over Jesus being "fully human > and fully God," or being himself God or on the same level as God. It > doesn't appear at all on the landscape of first-century church > history, whereas it looms large, at center stage in the church history > of the fourth and fifth centuries. > > This silence is remarkable because the early church was strongly > Jewish and the Jews were strongly monotheistic. Any suggestion that > Jesus was *Yahweh*, or a part of *Yahweh*, or even equal to *Yahweh*, > would have been vehemently resisted, would it not? **This silence is > certainly difficult to explain if, as claimed by some, Trinitarian > doctrine existed from the outset, from the earliest days of the > church.** How do those who hold that Trinitarian doctrine existed from the earliest days of the Church respond to the sort of argument Deuble lays out here?

I have heard that over half of Protestants do not believe in an earlier theological conception of the Trinity. I have heard that this is especially true of Evangelicals, and that they consider the older type of belief to be Catholic in nature. In what sense has personal belief in (this older Protestant conception of) the Trinity decreased? Why? Note that I am not asking whether Christians believe in the Trinity (most do), nor about Church doctrine, but about some sort of broad shift in belief. This poll provides an example, though I am not asking for analysis of that poll but rather about what further knowledge people have on this.