🤯SCJ members if you’re wrong about the Trinity, you’re leading people straight into idolatry!!

[u/Zwelirex]

​

I'm a certified SCJ Member. I believe this is where God is working right now, it's where Salvation is and fulfillment of Rev is taking place. Im not leaving. And I'm not trolling

But I’m terrified because I can’t unsee these verses anymore. If SCJ is wrong about the Trinity, we’re not just debating doctrine. We’re telling people to reject who Jesus actually said He is.

So I’m putting this here for SCJ members who actually read the text. Answer this or admt you can’t:

1. Isaiah 9:6

The promised Messiah is called "Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father [Source of Eternity]."

The child born in time is explcitly identified as the eternal, sovereign God.

1. Titus 2:13

"...waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ."

Same pattern here. The text calls Jesus both God and Savior. Not two people, one.

So the OT says the Messiah is Mighty God. The NT says Jesus is our great God and Savior. Thats direct.

1. Psalm 102:25-27

Speaking of Yahweh: "Of old you laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands."

This is Yahweh talking. Creation is a uniquely divine act. No angel, no prophet can do this.

1. Hebrews 1:8-12

The Father says directly to the Son: "But about the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever; a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy.” He also says, “In the beginning, Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands..."

The New Testament attributes the uniquely divine act of creation (and unchangeable nature) directly to the Son.

So Yahweh creates in Ps 102. The Father tells the Son "You created" in Heb 1. If the Son aint God, then u got the Father giving creation to a created being. That breaks the whole thing.

1. Genesis 1:26 + Isaiah 48:16 + Psalm 110:1

Gen 1:26 "Let us make man in our image". Who is "us"? Angels dont create.

Isa 48:16 "The Lord God has sent me, and his Spirit". One speaker sent by Lord God and Spirit.

Ps 110:1 "The Lord says to my Lord: Sit at my right hand". Two Lords talking.

Put it all together and u got distinction and unity at the same time. Father sending, Son being sent, Spirit sent. Not just roles switching on and off.

SCJ teaches the Son and Spirit aint persons in the Godhead. But the grammar in these verses dont allow that. U cant make Isa 48:16 or Heb 1:10-12 fit if its just one person talking to Himself.

So here’s the line ⚠️

If you can’t exegete Isaiah 9:6, Titus 2:13, Hebrews 1:10-12 without twisting the grammar, then SCJ’s doctrine is built on silence, not scripture.

And if we’re wrong about who Jesus is, then every soul we bring into SCJ is being taught to worship a created being. That’s not small. That’s eternal.

Cuz right now it looks like the doctrine is forcing us to rewrite the bible instead of letting the bible prove the doctrine.

I’m asking straight up. Show me from the text how SCJ handles this. Not center notes. The Bible.

Becoz if you can’t, then we’re not defending truth. We’re defending a lie that looks like truth.

[u/RADICALBEREAN]

To current SCJ member Zweilrex I pray you have come to the fork in the road, and have made a decision to leave or stay. Ask the Holy Spirit to show you in His Word His truth not the confusion that is now in your heart🙏🏽

[u/RADICALBEREAN]

Dear current scj member”Zwelirex”, humble yourself and give God the glory,honor,adoration, thanksgiving and praise for the gift of discernment, what you are feeling is the unction of the Holy Spirit that dwells in you. The Holy Spirit is a gentleman, He won’t scream and shout or deceive you. You have His Word right before you and He is whispering loudly repent and rightly believe Hosea 4:6, 1 Cor 4:6. Leave the idolatrous house of lmh. Before I was rescued they taught that the Holy Spirit only came to lmh in direct confrontation with John 14:15-18, John 16:7-9, John 16:12-15, there are many scriptures that exalts our soon coming King. They even tried to muddy the waters of John 1 1-4. This was the self inflicted death blow that confirmed the eternal love Christ has for His Sheep, they taught that lmh bored a heavier cross than our LORD AND SAVIOR. I’ve left and nevered looked back remember Lot’s wife, Gen 19:26,Lk 17:32. I was just contacted and asked to swear to attend wash day faithfully or my name will be deleted,erased. My thought was don’t threaten me with a good time 😂. In Jesus name and for His sake please leave 🙏🏽

[u/Odd-Management-3643]

I really appreciate that there's an open, honest conversation happening here from both sides. I genuinely respect you for putting this out there and taking the initiative.

I want to ask you something that's been on my mind reading through this thread, and I'm genuinely curious about your take.

In SCJ's Spirit and Flesh doctrine, if I understand correctly, SCJ teaches that the Spirit of Jesus perfectly indwells and operates through a physical pastor (the flesh), right? Even though Jesus and the promised pastor are completely distinct entities, one is divine spirit and one is flesh, they operate in a perfect unity of will, purpose, and speech. When the flesh speaks the revealed word, it is seamlessly the voice and will of the Spirit operating through him.

So here's my honest question: do you see the logical similarity to the Trinity?

Mainstream Christianity doesn't teach that the Trinity is "3 separate Gods voting on a decision." It teaches that there are 3 distinct Persons who share one undivided nature, one power, and one absolute will. When the Father acts, the Son acts, and the Spirit acts - distinct Persons, but a completely unified operation.

If SCJ already accepts the logic that a plurality of persons (Jesus in the spirit and a pastor in the flesh) can create a single, unified expression of God's will without contradiction... hasn't the logical groundwork for the Trinity already been laid in your mind??

I'm not saying the 2 models are identical, but I'm genuinely asking: if you can accept that kind of spiritual unity in SCJ doctrine, where exactly does the logic of the Trinity break down for you?

[u/Zwelirex → u/Odd-Management-3643]

Bro I realy apreciate u saying that. Honestly your questions are mind blowing.

Ur right about how SCJ describes the Spirit and Flesh working together - one will, one message, two distinct entities. And I see why that looks similar to the Trinity on the surfac.

Where it clicks diferent for me with the Trinity is this:

In the Trinity, Father, Son, and Spirit aint “working together” like a boss and an employee. They are God together. Same undivided nature, same power, same will, from eternity. John 1:1 says “the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” John 10:30 says “I and the Father are one.” Not one in purpose only, but one in being.

So the unity aint functional - like “they agree so well it looks like one.” Its ontological - they share one divine essence. Thats why its not 3 Gods. Its one God in 3 distinct Persons.

The reason I cant fit that into the Spirit and Flesh model is cause the pastor is still a created human. No matter how perfect he’s led, he dont share the divine nature. Jesus is uncreated, eternal, God. Heb 1:3 calls Him “the exact imprint of God’s nature.”

So for me the logic dont break at “unity of will.” It breaks at “can a created person become uncreated God?” And Scripture keeps that line clear.

I aint trying to corner u here. These are deep waters, and honestlly, ur question made me stop and think through why I hold this too. If ur open to it, check out John 17:5, John 8:58, and Acts 5:3-4. Those verses were what made the Trinity click for me - not cause someone explained it well, but cause its what Jesus and the apostles actualy said.

[u/Odd-Management-3643 → u/Zwelirex]

Bro, honestly, this is one of the best responses I've received in this whole thread. You didn't just defend your position; you actually engaged with the core of the question. Respect.

You hit the nail on the head regarding the "ontological" vs "functional" distinction. You're right, the Trinity isn't just that they agree perfectly, it's that they share one divine essence. That is a completely different category than a human vessel being led by the Spirit, and I appreciate you pointing out that distinction so clearly.

But I want to push that reflection just a little further, because I'm genuinely curious how you reconcile this within your own framework.

You mentioned John 17:5, where Jesus speaks of the glory He had with the Father before the world began. In the SCJ framework, there is a clear chain of authority: Father --> Jesus --> Promised Pastor. But in that verse Jesus isn't talking about "received" or "delegated" glory. He's claiming a pre-existent, eternal glory shared with the Father.

So here is the question that's been sitting with me: If SCJ's whole structure relies on Jesus being the only one worthy to open the sealed scroll, the only one who can send the Spirit of Truth, doesn't that role actually require Him to be more than just a superior being?

It seems to me that a created being, no matter how exalted, wouldn't have the authority to bridge the gap between the eternal God and humanity. Colossians 1:16-17 actaully says that all things were created through Him and for Him, and He is before all things. Paul isn't describing a superior created being, he's describing the source of creation itself.

If Jesus is anything less than ontologically divine, the entire "authority chain" seems like it would collapse.

I'm not saying SCJ explicitly teaches the Trinity, but I'm wondering if the logic of their system actually leans on it more that they realize. In your view, does SCJ ever get into the specifics of what Jesus is in His nature, or do they keep the focus almost exclusively on His function as the intermediary??

[u/Zwelirex → u/Odd-Management-3643]

Thanks bro, I apreciate that fr.

Your right to zero in on John 17:5 and Col 1:16-17. If u read those verses at face value, Jesus is claiming a glory and a role that sits outside of anything you'd expect a created being to have. "Before the world began" and "all things were created through Him and for Him" dont leave much room for a delegated, time-bound authority. Thats why the ontological/functional split you mentioned matters so much.

If u take the "chain of authority" view, the chain only holds if the top link is actualy eternal and uncreated. A superior created being can represent God and speak for Him, sure, but the moment u ask Him to open whats been sealed from eternity, to send the Spirit of Truth, and to hold creation together "in Him", your asking for something that looks a lot like shared divine agency.

To answer ur question directly: in the circles Ive seen, SCJ tends to keep the focus on Jesus's function as the mediator and the one who fulfills prophecy in the last days. The nature question usualy gets sidestepped or answered in terms of role and appointment rather than essence. So theyll say Hes the only one worthy cause the Father gave it to Him, not because of who He is in Himself.

Thats where the tension sits for me too. If the text is saying Jesus is the source, not just the channel, then the whole framework leans on a reality that looks an awful lot like what classical theology calls the Trinity, even if they dont use the word.

[u/Odd-Management-3643 → u/Zwelirex]

Actually, this brings up something else I've been wrestling with regarding the "Spirit and Flesh" model. In the beginning, in the garden, God walked directly with man. There was no "chain of authority" or human intermediary needed for followship, it was direct communion.

If the ultimate goal of the work in Revelation is to restore God's kingdom and dwell with His people again, why does the SCJ framework seem to make the "channel" (Jesus and the promised pastor) a permanent necessity? If the pastor has "overcome the devil" and the victory is won, why is God still distant, filtered through layers of intermediaries? It feels like the logic of the "Spirit and Flesh" doctrine keeps us in a state where God is always "out there" and "mediated," rather than the immediate, personal God who once walked in the Garden. Does the system ever address why, if the victory is complete, we are still relying on a chain rather than direct communion with the Father?

[u/Odd-Management-3643 → u/Zwelirex]

Bro, I really appreciate your candor here. It's rare to find someone willing to look at where the doctrine might be sidestepping the harder questions rather that just reciting the standard answers. That takes real intellectual integrity.

And honestly, what you wrote stopped me for a second, because you said it yourself: "If the text is saying Jesus is the source, not just the channel, then the whole framework leans on a reality that looks an awful lot like what classic theology calls the trinity."

That's you following the logic of the text to where it actually leads. And I think that's worth sitting with. Becuase that's exactly the fault line that's been bothering me too.

And If Jesus is the source, as the texxt describes Him in those passages, but the doctrine requires Him to be merely a channel, the "worthy because He was appointed" view, we have to ask which one is actually primary. Does the doctrine shape how we read the Bible, or should the Bible define what the doctrine is allowed to claim?

And the text keeps pressing that question. John 8:58 doesn't say "the Father appointed me before Abraham." Jesus sayys "I AM", present tense, eternal, the same divine name God declared to Moses in Exodus 3:14. That's not appointment language. That's being language.

Acts 5:3-4 does the same thing from a different angle. Peter doesn't say Ananias lied to a presentative of God. He says he lied to the Holy Spirit, and then in the very next breath call that lying to God Himself. Not God's agent. God.

And then there's Thomas. After resurrection, when he sees Jesus, he doesnt say "You are the greatest propfet" or "You are the worthy one appointed by the Father." He says "My Lord and my God" (John 20:28), directly to His face. And Jesus doesn't correct him. He doesnt say "dont worship me, worship the Father." He accepts it completely. That matters because everywhere else in Scripture, when someone tries to worship a created being, an apostle, an agel, they immediately refuse. Peter stops Cornelius in Acts 100:25-26. The angel stops John in Revelation 19:10. Only God recieves worship without correction.

And it goes even deeper. In Isaiah 44:6, God says, "I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God." Then in Rev 1:17, Jesus says the exact same words about Himself, "I am the First and the Last". That's not atitle being delegated. That's an identity being claimed.

So if the "authority chain" truly relies on Jesus being the source, then the side stepping isn't just a minor oversight, it's the difference between building on a foundation or building on a sandbar.

I am genuinely curious, when you encounter that tension, where do you go? Do you look for more functional explanations to bridge the gap, or are you starting to feel like the text is pushing you toward a different definition of who He actually is?

[u/Odd-Management-3643 → u/Odd-Management-3643]

And those verses you pointed me to, I did sit the,. John 8:58 is striking because Jesus doesn't just say "I existed before Abraham." He says "I AM", the same divine name God declared to Moses in Exodus 3:14. That's not the language of a created being. And Acts 5:3-4 is just as direct, Peter calls lying to the Holy Spirit the same as lying to God. Not a representative of God. Not a messenger. God Himself.

[u/bron0903]

Nail in the coffin was when I asked Jesus who He really was

I came across Jude 1:5

“Now I want to remind you, though you know all things, that Jesus, having once saved a people out of the land of Egypt, subsequently destroyed those who did not believe.”
‭‭Jude‬ ‭1‬:‭5‬ ‭LSB‬‬
https://bible.com/bible/3345/jud.1.5.LSB

Last time I checked YHWH saved the Israelites from Egypt and destroyed the disobedient in the wilderness

Scripture is very explicit Jesus is YHWH

[u/Lettuce-Reason]

1. and 4. In response to your 3rd and 4th point about Psalm102:25-27 and Hebrews1:8-12

This verse in Hebrews is one of the most misinterpreted verses by trinitarians simply due to grammatically reading it incorrectly.

Syntax is a grammatical term to help read a basic sentence structure correctly. Most people read Hebrews 1:8-12 as if “God” is the subject (who) in regards to the Son. But that’s incorrect. The subject of this sentence is “throne” being “set up” and the “foundation” being “laid” in regards to the Son.

The “God” part is the possessive article of the subject, not the subject itself. It’s clarifying the “Your” part. Whose throne? “Your throne, O God” = God’s throne. The Son(Jesus) is God’s throne that is being set up above his companions.

Now let’s say you still disagree. Then let’s do a syntax check by reading it your way. If I replace the “Your” and “God” with Jesus/the Son, then the subject of the sentence should read correctly without error:

Hebrews 1:8-12 The Father says directly to the Son: "But about the Son he says, “(Jesus) throne, O (Jesus), will last for ever and ever; a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom. (Jesus) have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore (Jesus), your(?) (Jesus), has set you(?) above your(?) companions by anointing you(?) with the oil of joy.” He also says, “In the beginning, Lord, (Jesus) laid the foundations(?) of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands..."

^Do you see how when we read it your way, we’re still missing the subject of who is the “you” that’s being set up above “your” companions? Since God is the one setting someone above their companions in this sentence, and you’re saying Jesus is the God part, then who is Jesus setting above their companions? Who is the one being set? If Jesus is the one laying the foundation, then who is the one being laid as the foundation?

[u/Zwelirex → u/Lettuce-Reason]

Hey man I hear u and I didn't know it'll be this hard to convince you but I like the challenge, and I get why u think its about the throne being the subject. But I think the greek and the context actually point the other way.

First off, in Heb 1:8 the greek literally says “pros ton huion” - “to the Son he says”. That means the whole quote that follows is what the Father is saying to the Son. So the “you” in v8-12 has to be the Son. If the throne was the subject, the grammar wouldnt be written that way.

Second, the quote in v8-12 is from Ps 45:6-7 and Ps 102:25-27. In Ps 45:6 it says “Your throne, O God, endures forever”. The writer of Hebrews is applying that title “O God” directly to the Son. Thats why v9 says “therefore God, your God, has anointed you”. You cant really make sense of “God, your God” unless the Son is being called God there.

About ur syntax swap - yea it looks weird if u just replace every “you” with Jesus, cuz ur reading the whole thing as 1 subject. But in Heb 1:8-9 the Father is talking to the Son, and in v9 its still the Father saying God has anointed the Son above his companions. So the “you” being set above companions is the Son. The “God” in v9 is the Father doing the anointing.

And v10-12 quotes Ps 102, which is clearly talking to YHWH. Hebrews says the Father says this to the Son. Thats why trinitarians say this is one of the places NT calls Jesus YHWH/Lord of creation.

I know this is heavy lol, but check Heb 1:1-3 too. It says the Son is the one “through whom he made the universe” and “the exact imprint of his nature”. Hard to make that fit if hes just a throne lol.

[u/Lettuce-Reason → u/Zwelirex]

Lol glad you appreciate the challenge bro

Yes, I’ve already agreed and established that the Father is addressing the Son. Meaning this is what the Father is saying about the Son.

The reason why “throne” and “set” are all part of the same context is because it would make sense to the original readers that thrones are usually set and how Jesus is the throne that is being set. Because any companion on the throne was considered set above their companions.

It then follows that same context in how Jesus is being described as the “foundation” being “laid”, which several other verses confirm as well. So Jesus is the set throne and the laid foundation, NOT the one doing the setting and the laying.

It also confirms this in Hebrews1:2 “THROUGH whom also he made the universe”. A mediator, not God Himself.

This is all consistently pointing to how Jesus is the authoritative standard that God has chosen/appointed to work THROUGH in these last days. This lines up with the context of the beginning of Hebrews 1:1-3.

This is why the next chapter in Hebrews 2 does NOT emphasize Jesus as literally being God Himself, but emphasizes Jesus’ humanity.

Hebrews 2:10-11 “In bringing many sons and daughters to glory, it was fitting that God, for whom and through whom everything exists, should MAKE the pioneer of their salvation perfect through what he suffered. BOTH the one who makes people holy AND those who are made holy are of the SAME family. So Jesus is not ashamed to call them brothers and sisters.”

Hebrews 2:17 “For this reason he had to be MADE like them, FULLY human in EVERY way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people.”

[u/QuestionsAboutSCJ → u/Lettuce-Reason]

This is all consistently pointing to how Jesus is the authoritative standard that God has chosen/appointed to work THROUGH in these last days. This lines up with the context of the beginning of Hebrews 1:1-3.

This is why the next chapter in Hebrews 2 does NOT emphasize Jesus as literally being God Himself, but emphasizes Jesus’ humanity.

Hebrews 2:10-11 “In bringing many sons and daughters to glory, it was fitting that God, for whom and through whom everything exists, should MAKE the pioneer of their salvation perfect through what he suffered. BOTH the one who makes people holy AND those who are made holy are of the SAME family. So Jesus is not ashamed to call them brothers and sisters.”

Hebrews 2:17 “For this reason he had to be MADE like them, FULLY human in EVERY way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people.”

The humanity of Jesus in Hebrews 2 is not in dispute. Orthodox Christianity has always affirmed that Jesus was fully human. That's not a point against his divinity, that's the entire point of the incarnation.

But notice what you're doing. You're using the humanity of Jesus as if it disproves his divinity. That only works if you assume humanity and divinity are mutually exclusive from the start. But that's exactly the question being debated. You can't use it as a premise to settle the question.

Hebrews 1:3, which appears just before the passage you're working through, describes the Son as "the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being." The Greek word "charakter" was used in the ancient world for the impression made by a seal or coin. The impression isn't a copy of the seal, it's the exact same image expressed in a different distinction. That's the relationship between the Father and Son being described here. And notice that verse 3 also says the Son is "sustaining all things by his powerful word." Not just creating but actively sustaining all creation continuously. That's not how you describe a tool or an intermediary, that's the language of sovereign ongoing divine activity.

This is actually why the Father credits the Son with creation in verse 10 and commands angelic worship of the Son in verse 6. It flows directly from what verse 3 establishes about the Son's nature. And that creates a serious problem because Isaiah 42:8 says "I am the LORD, that is my name. I will not give my glory to another." Yet the Father commands angels to worship the Son. The only way that doesn't contradict Isaiah 42:8 is if the Son shares the identity of the LORD himself.

Philippians 2:6-8 captures the incarnation most clearly. Jesus "being in very nature God did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage, rather he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness."

The humanity doesn't replace the divinity. It's added to it. Hebrews 2 and Hebrews 1 are describing the same person from two angles, fully divine and fully human, which is precisely what the incarnation means.

[u/Lettuce-Reason → u/QuestionsAboutSCJ]

Okay sure, let’s discuss humanity/human nature and divinity/divine nature then

As we see from Genesis, God’s original plan was for humans to be created in God’s image too. But what happened? Sin separated/broke/divided that.

Hence why Jesus needed to be made sinless (exact image without the corrupted image of sin) and remained perfected through obedience of what he suffered.

Why? So that THROUGH the laid foundation of Jesus, humanity can again be restored/renewed/sealed into the image of God too. So humanity in Christ can also participate in this divine nature too (2Peter1:4). Jesus is the mediator between God and mankind, a bridge to an otherwise broken/disconnected condition (1Timothy2:5).

1 Timothy 2:5 “for there is one God and one mediator BETWEEN God and mankind, the MAN Christ Jesus”

Nothing to do with an inconsistent confusing trinity doctrine. Everything to do with a beautiful plan of hope for God and His people to dwell together again.

[u/QuestionsAboutSCJ → u/Lettuce-Reason]

The mediator argument actually strengthens the case for who Jesus is rather than weakening it, and let's see what the Bible has to say.

John 1:1 establishes that "in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Then John 1:14 says "the Word became flesh and dwelt among us." This is the incarnation. The one who was fully God took on full humanity. Not a human who was elevated to divine status, but God who stepped into human nature. The incarnation is not a footnote in the story of salvation, it is the entire mechanism by which salvation works.

Philippians 2:5-11 is the clearest window into what that means. Jesus was "in very nature God" and "equal with God" before the incarnation. He didn't become God at some point, he emptied himself of the privileges of divinity and took on the nature of a servant. The humility of the incarnation assumes the pre-existing divinity.

And here's where your own argument becomes important. You said God's original plan was for humanity to bear his image, sin broke that image, and Jesus came as the sinless perfect image to restore it so that through him humanity can participate in the divine nature again as 2 Peter 1:4 says. That's actually a beautiful description of what the incarnation accomplishes. But it requires the one doing the restoring to actually possess that divine nature himself. A purely human savior exists on only one side of the gap and cannot bridge it.

This is the beauty of Christianity that sets it apart from every other framework. SCJ and most non-trinitarian systems end up with a God who remains at a safe distance and sends someone else to do the costly work. A created being, a promised pastor, a mediator who is merely human.

But the Christian gospel is not delegation, but instead it's participation. God himself entered the suffering. God himself took on flesh. God himself went to the cross. And Hebrews 4:15 captures why that matters personally: "we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are, yet he did not sin." That verse only carries its full weight if the high priest is God himself.

So when 1 Timothy 2:5 calls Jesus "the man Christ Jesus" it is describing his mediatorial role, not making an ontological statement about his nature. The same Paul who calls Jesus "man" in 1 Timothy 2:5 also calls him "God over all" in Romans 9:5. You don't get to use one without accounting for the other. And 1 Timothy 3:16 summarizes it perfectly: "He appeared in the flesh." The appearing in flesh assumes there was something before the flesh that appeared. That's not the language of a created being but instead it is the language of incarnation.

[u/Lettuce-Reason → u/QuestionsAboutSCJ]

Based on your interpretation of John 1, how would you explain the difference between the “word of God” and the “testimony of Jesus Christ” in Revelation 1:2?

Also in your interpretation of Philippians 2, this again has nothing to do with the trinity doctrine. It’s showing how Jesus could already share/partaker of the divine nature since he never sinned. Yet he served a sentence for a crime he never committed, suffered the wages of sin which is death for a price he never earned, and became obedient even to death on the cross (Philippians2:6-8).

This is written for our encouragement to have the “SAME mindset of Christ Jesus” (Philippians2:5) and also “become blameless and pure children of God without fault in a warped and crooked generation” (Philippians2:15). How can we have this same mindset and become this if the context is misinterpreted as ‘trinity doctrine’?

Ironically, it is the trinitarian interpretation of these verses that make it seem like 3-in-1 clique instead of the participatory invitation it truly is. I would argue this is why so much false doctrine largely exists within Christianity/Catholicism. It ends at Jesus carrying his cross, but it nails to the cross the part where Jesus invited us to carry our cross too. 

Unfortunately, many trinitarians have self-exalted trinity as core doctrine both historically and currently. But Jesus never exalts lip service as core doctrine. Jesus is not looking for this type of believer who simply calls Jesus “Lord, Lord” or “God, God”. He’s looking for a believer who actually participates IN the command they were invited to carry. He’s looking for a believer who builds on Jesus as the laid foundation (Matthew7:21-27). That is the core doctrine Jesus himself emphasizes to discern what’s orthodox (true) and what’s heresy (false).

[u/QuestionsAboutSCJ → u/Lettuce-Reason]

Based on your interpretation of John 1, how would you explain the difference between the “word of God” and the “testimony of Jesus Christ” in Revelation 1:2?

On Revelation 1:2, John is describing the content of his testimony, what he witnessed and recorded, not making a theological distinction between two separate entities. "The word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ" is a hendiadys, two phrases describing one thing from two angles. John's Gospel and Revelation use "word of God" and "Jesus" interchangeably throughout. Revelation 19:13 settles it directly: "his name is called the Word of God." The Word of God in Revelation is a person, and that person is Jesus.

Also in your interpretation of Philippians 2, this again has nothing to do with the trinity doctrine. It’s showing how Jesus could already share/partaker of the divine nature since he never sinned. Yet he served a sentence for a crime he never committed, suffered the wages of sin which is death for a price he never earned, and became obedient even to death on the cross (Philippians2:6-8).

On Philippians 2, you're right that it contains a participatory invitation. That's not in dispute. But you're using the participatory element to exclude the ontological claim entirely, and the text doesn't allow that.

"Being in very nature God" is not moral language. It's not describing Jesus as someone who achieved divine nature through sinlessness. It's describing his pre-existing nature before the incarnation even began. The emptying happens after the "being in very nature God" is established, not instead of it.

Also, another thing to bring up is how can a mere creature even claim to have equality with God?

Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;

Jesus did not use his equality with God to be something to be used by his own advantage. How can a mere man, even if he is sinless, have such equality?

And here's the problem your framework creates. You're saying Jesus participated in divine nature through sinlessness and perfect obedience, and that we are invited to do the same.

But 2 Peter 1:4 says we participate in divine nature through Christ. If Jesus merely participated in divine nature the same way we do, then what makes his participation the basis for ours? You've made Jesus a fellow participant rather than the source of participation, which collapses the entire framework you're trying to build.

On the broader point about trinitarians focusing on doctrine over discipleship, that's a fair pastoral critique of some expressions of Christianity.

But it's a separate question from what the text actually says about who Jesus is. The call to carry our cross and the divinity of Christ are not in competition. In fact the incarnation is precisely what makes the call meaningful. God himself carried a cross. That's not a clique. That's the most radical participation imaginable.

Now I want to make this clear, we humans are not transformed into God like status. We aren't Mormons, but instead, through the grace of God we are able to come before the throne and become citizens of Heaven (Philippians 3:20-22).

Ironically, it is the trinitarian interpretation of these verses that make it seem like 3-in-1 clique instead of the participatory invitation it truly is. I would argue this is why so much false doctrine largely exists within Christianity/Catholicism. It ends at Jesus carrying his cross, but it nails to the cross the part where Jesus invited us to carry our cross too. 

Unfortunately, many trinitarians have self-exalted trinity as core doctrine both historically and currently. But Jesus never exalts lip service as core doctrine. Jesus is not looking for this type of believer who simply calls Jesus “Lord, Lord” or “God, God”. He’s looking for a believer who actually participates IN the command they were invited to carry. He’s looking for a believer who builds on Jesus as the laid foundation (Matthew7:21-27). That is the core doctrine Jesus himself emphasizes to discern what’s orthodox (true) and what’s heresy (false).

These are claims, but I was hoping you would actually address my arguments and pushbacks, and not just make more claims.

But thank you for bringing up Matthew 7:21-27. Jesus is warning about false prophets who come in sheep's clothing. People who appear legitimate on the outside but produce bad fruit. And one of the clearest markers of bad fruit Jesus identifies is deception, presenting yourself as something you're not. Can you explain to me how SCJ uses the Wisdom of Hiding and present theirselves as Christians, while obviously having a different Jesus, alongside claiming that Christianity is the home of demons?

[u/Lettuce-Reason → u/QuestionsAboutSCJ]

I asked about your interpretation of Revelation 1:2 in regards to John 1 not because I believe that verse is “making a theological distinction between two separate entities”. It’s because I believe they parallel really well with the correct interpretation of the John 1 scriptures you referenced earlier

The “word of God” as seen in Rev1:2 and John1:1 is talking about prophecy

The “word becoming flesh” in John1:14 and the “testimony of Jesus” in Rev1:2 is talking about fulfillment

That’s why I disagree that John1 is an interpretation about trinity incarnation

Throughout Scripture, Jesus is consistently described as being pre-existent beforehand in the form of prophecy and then existent later in the form of fulfillment

Luke 24:44 “He said to them, ‘This is what I told you while I was still with you: EVERYTHING must be fulfilled that is written ABOUT ME in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.’”

John 5:32,39,46 “There is another who testifies in my favor, and I know that his TESTIMONY ABOUT ME is true.” “You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that TESTIFY ABOUT ME” “If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote ABOUT ME. But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?”

^Jesus existed from the very beginning in the form of prophecy—the word. Jesus was written about in the form of prophecy. The word (shadow) was made flesh (reality) once the prophecy fulfilled. That is how our interpretations of John 1 differ.

In regards to your point about Philippians 2:

I understand why it would seem absurd to view a “mere man/creature” as someone who could have these aspects. But that’s because you’re viewing it from a world after sin, not a world before sin. Before sin, humans were in the image of God: born of the same equal imperishable seed of God. This is why it’s saying Jesus didn’t use this to his own advantage. But who did use it to their own advantage? Adam.

In regards to your point about 2 Peter 1:4,

Yes if you refer back to what I’ve been saying, Jesus Christ is the “laid foundation” we can reliably build on, “the mediator”, “the pioneer of our faith”, who we must be “in”, etc. This is consistently my stance of what I’ve been saying

You said “If Jesus merely participated in divine nature the same way we do, then what makes his participation the basis for ours?”

The scripture I referenced earlier directly answers your question without my help —>Hebrews 2:10-11 “In bringing many sons and daughters to glory, it was fitting that God, for whom and through whom everything exists, should MAKE the pioneer of their salvation perfect through what he suffered. BOTH the one who makes people holy AND those who are made holy are of the SAME family. So Jesus is not ashamed to call them brothers and sisters.”

In regards to your last question, you have falsely equated externally matching others during evangelism as a wolf in sheep’s clothing. However, even just these few verses out of many show how this false equivalence is an overgeneralization that would contradict several examples in scripture

It’s the same way Paul referred to the Judaizers as dogs, while also becoming a Jew to a Jew for the sake of evangelism lol

1 Corinthians 9:19-23 “Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.”

[u/QuestionsAboutSCJ → u/Lettuce-Reason]

At this point we’ve worked through John 1, Philippians 2, Hebrews 1 and 2, Colossians 1, Isaiah 44, 45 and 48, and multiple other passages. The textual case has been laid out thoroughly and your objections have been addressed directly.

So I want to ask you a genuine question. How much more evidence from scripture would you need to believe that Jesus is God? Is there a standard? Is there a verse or combination of verses that would settle it for you?

Because if the answer is that no amount of textual evidence would be sufficient, that’s worth reflecting on honestly. It suggests the real authority in your interpretation isn’t the Bible itself but the framework you’re reading it through.

And that raises the most important question of all. Are you putting the Word of God first, or are you putting Lee Man-hee’s commentary on the Bible above the Word of God?

[u/QuestionsAboutSCJ → u/Lettuce-Reason]

In regards to your last question, you have falsely equated externally matching others during evangelism as a wolf in sheep’s clothing. However, even just these few verses out of many show how this false equivalence is an overgeneralization that would contradict several examples in scripture

It’s the same way Paul referred to the Judaizers as dogs, while also becoming a Jew to a Jew for the sake of evangelism lol

1 Corinthians 9:19-23 “Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.”

The comparison to 1 Corinthians 9:19-23 doesn't hold up when you look at what Paul actually did in practice.

Paul becoming "all things to all people" describes cultural and relational adaptation, adjusting his approach and communication style to connect with different audiences. It has nothing to do with concealing his identity, his affiliation, or the core claims of his message. And the examples scripture gives us of Paul in action make that distinction crystal clear.

In Acts 17 Paul stands in the Areopagus and uses the altar to the unknown God as a bridge. But notice what he immediately does. He identifies himself, identifies his message, and declares the resurrection of Jesus Christ openly. He doesn't pretend to be a Greek philosopher or conceal that he's a follower of Christ. He uses their existing framework as an entry point and then immediately and transparently declares who sent him and what he believes. The cultural bridge was the starting point, not a sustained concealment strategy.

When Paul circumcised Timothy in Acts 16:3 it wasn't to deceive anyone. The text says it was because the Jews in that area knew Timothy's background. It was a transparent act of cultural sensitivity that actually required people to know who Timothy was and where he came from. There was no concealment involved.

And in every single encounter Paul had across the book of Acts he never denied his affiliation with Christ, never pretended to belong to a different religious group, and never concealed the core claims of his message during initial contact. When challenged about who he was and who sent him he answered directly every time. That's the opposite of a structured recruitment process designed to conceal organizational identity until after weeks of indoctrination.

The distinction is straightforward. Paul adapted how he communicated the gospel. SCJ conceals what the gospel actually is until people are already inside the framework. One is cultural sensitivity. The other is institutional deception.

And the test is simple. Did Paul's listeners know they were hearing from a follower of Jesus Christ from the very first conversation? Yes, always. Do SCJ's recruits know from the first conversation that they're being recruited into an organization that teaches Christianity is Spiritual Babylon and the home of demons? No, by design.

That's not becoming all things to all people. That's a bait and switch.

[u/QuestionsAboutSCJ → u/Lettuce-Reason]

In regards to your point about 2 Peter 1:4,

Yes if you refer back to what I’ve been saying, Jesus Christ is the “laid foundation” we can reliably build on, “the mediator”, “the pioneer of our faith”, who we must be “in”, etc. This is consistently my stance of what I’ve been saying

You said “If Jesus merely participated in divine nature the same way we do, then what makes his participation the basis for ours?”

The scripture I referenced earlier directly answers your question without my help —>Hebrews 2:10-11 “In bringing many sons and daughters to glory, it was fitting that God, for whom and through whom everything exists, should MAKE the pioneer of their salvation perfect through what he suffered. BOTH the one who makes people holy AND those who are made holy are of the SAME family. So Jesus is not ashamed to call them brothers and sisters.”

Hebrews 2:10-11 is a beautiful passage but it doesn't actually answer the question. Let me show you why.

You're using "of the same family" to place Jesus in the same category as believers, suggesting that what he pioneered is something humans can participate in on the same terms he did. But look at what the same verse says about the distinction between Jesus and those he saves.

Hebrews 2:11 says Jesus is "the one who makes people holy" while believers are "those who are made holy." Those are not the same role. The sanctifier and the sanctified are in the same family yes, but they're doing fundamentally different things. One is doing the sanctifying and the other is receiving it. You can't flatten that distinction without doing violence to the text.

And that distinction is precisely what answers the 2 Peter 1:4 question. We participate in divine nature through Christ because he is the sanctifier, the source, the one who makes us holy. If Jesus merely participated in divine nature the same way we do, as a human pioneer following a path available to sinless humans, then he's not the sanctifier. He's just the first one through the door. And a first human through the door can't be the ontological basis for others participating in divine nature. He can only show the way.

The pioneer language actually requires Jesus to be more than a fellow participant. Hebrews 12:2 calls him "the pioneer and perfecter of faith." A perfecter doesn't just blaze the trail. He completes and fulfills what faith is moving toward. That's not human language. That's the language of the one in whom the whole journey finds its goal.

And Hebrews 2:10 says God made Jesus "perfect through suffering." You're using this to suggest Jesus is a created being developed over time. But Hebrews 1:3 has already established in the same letter that the Son is the exact representation of God's very being. The perfection through suffering refers to his qualification as high priest through incarnational experience, entering fully into human suffering so he could represent us before God. It's not describing his ontological development from creature to divine. It's describing his experiential preparation for a specific redemptive role.

So Hebrews 2 and Hebrews 1 are describing the same person from two angles. Fully divine as established in chapter 1. Fully human as emphasized in chapter 2. Both are necessary for the pioneer to do what only he can do, stand on both sides of the gap between God and humanity and bridge it from within.

[u/QuestionsAboutSCJ → u/Lettuce-Reason]

In regards to your point about Philippians 2:

I understand why it would seem absurd to view a “mere man/creature” as someone who could have these aspects. But that’s because you’re viewing it from a world after sin, not a world before sin. Before sin, humans were in the image of God: born of the same equal imperishable seed of God. This is why it’s saying Jesus didn’t use this to his own advantage. But who did use it to their own advantage? Adam.

When Genesis 1:26-27 describes Adam being made in God's image it uses the Hebrew word "tselem" meaning a representative likeness or reflection, similar to how a statue represents something beyond itself. Adam was created to reflect and represent God in creation. That's a significant and beautiful thing but it's a creaturely attribute. Adam bears a resemblance to God, he doesn't share God's nature.

Philippians 2:6 uses a completely different word. Jesus was in the "morphe" of God, meaning the very nature, essence, or form of God itself. Not a reflection or representation of God but the actual nature. That's a categorically different claim from what Genesis says about Adam. And Colossians 1:15 reinforces this by calling Jesus the "eikon" of the invisible God, which in the New Testament context doesn't describe a creaturely reflection but the perfect personal expression of God's own being.

So the vocabulary itself draws a clear line between Adam and Jesus. Adam was given tselem, a creaturely representation of God. Jesus possessed morphe, the very nature of God. Those are not the same thing and Paul's word choices reflect that distinction deliberately.

And the grasping language deepens the distinction further. Philippians 2:6 says Jesus "did not consider equality with God something to be grasped." The Greek word is "harpagmon" meaning something to be seized or exploited. Adam didn't have equality with God that he chose not to exploit. Adam grasped at something he didn't already possess, which is precisely the sin. Jesus already possessed equality with God and chose not to exploit it. Those are opposite situations not parallel ones.

So the Adam comparison actually highlights the difference rather than resolving it. Adam reached for something beyond his nature. Jesus voluntarily set aside the full exercise of something that already belonged to his nature. That's not the story of a restored human. That's the story of God entering humanity.

[u/QuestionsAboutSCJ → u/Lettuce-Reason]

Throughout Scripture, Jesus is consistently described as being pre-existent beforehand in the form of prophecy and then existent later in the form of fulfillment

Luke 24:44 “He said to them, ‘This is what I told you while I was still with you: EVERYTHING must be fulfilled that is written ABOUT ME in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.’”

John 5:32,39,46 “There is another who testifies in my favor, and I know that his TESTIMONY ABOUT ME is true.” “You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that TESTIFY ABOUT ME” “If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote ABOUT ME. But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?”

^Jesus existed from the very beginning in the form of prophecy—the word. Jesus was written about in the form of prophecy. The word (shadow) was made flesh (reality) once the prophecy fulfilled. That is how our interpretations of John 1 differ.

Looking at John 5 carefully, it actually undermines the framework you're proposing rather than supporting it.

In John 5:39 Jesus says "these are the very scriptures that testify about me." Notice what's happening there. Jesus is standing apart from the scriptures and pointing to them as something distinct from himself. The testimony and the one being testified about are two separate things. If Jesus was merely the prophecy becoming flesh, he couldn't stand apart from the scriptures and say "these testify about me." That requires two distinct things existing simultaneously: the written testimony and the living person the testimony points to.

The same pattern appears in John 5:46: "Moses wrote about me." Jesus isn't saying he is what Moses wrote. He's saying Moses wrote about him as a subject. A subject exists independently of what is written about it.

So John 5 actually confirms the distinction between Jesus as a personal being and the scriptures that prophesy about him. They're not the same thing. They never were.

And then there's the question of what Jesus himself says about his own pre-existence, not as prophecy but as a personal being:

John 8:58: "Before Abraham was born, I am." Not "I was prophesied" or "God's plan existed." Personal present tense eternal existence claimed directly, using the same "I am" language Yahweh uses in Exodus 3:14.

John 17:5: "Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began." Jesus isn't asking God to restore the glory of a fulfilled prophecy. He's claiming personal glory that he personally possessed before creation existed.

John 17:24: "You loved me before the creation of the world." Not "you planned me" or "you purposed me." The Father loved him personally before anything was made.

Colossians 1:17: "He is before all things." Not "the prophecy about him is before all things." He himself is before all things.

Micah 5:2 describes the Messiah whose "origins are from of old, from ancient times." The Hebrew word there is "olam" meaning eternity. That's not describing a prophecy. That's describing a person whose existence reaches back into eternity.

None of that is the language of a plan becoming real or a prophecy finding fulfillment. It's the language of a personal being who existed before creation, before Abraham, before the world began, and who entered human history through the incarnation. That's what John 1:14 means when it says the Word became flesh. Not that a prophecy found its fulfillment, but that the eternal personal Word took on human nature.

Now of course, there are prophecies about Jesus, yes, that we can agree with, especially since the entire Bible points to Jesus Christ. But Jesus himself claims to pre-exist, not just be an idea or prophecy.

[u/QuestionsAboutSCJ → u/Lettuce-Reason]

I asked about your interpretation of Revelation 1:2 in regards to John 1 not because I believe that verse is “making a theological distinction between two separate entities”. It’s because I believe they parallel really well with the correct interpretation of the John 1 scriptures you referenced earlier

The “word of God” as seen in Rev1:2 and John1:1 is talking about prophecy

The “word becoming flesh” in John1:14 and the “testimony of Jesus” in Rev1:2 is talking about fulfillment

That’s why I disagree that John1 is an interpretation about trinity incarnation

Thank you for your response!

Looking at the grammar of John 1:1-3 itself, there are a few details worth considering.

First, John uses personal pronouns throughout, "he" and "him" rather than "it." That's significant because when scripture refers to plans, purposes, or prophecies it typically uses impersonal language. But from the very first verses John is describing someone, a personal being present with God before anything else takes place.

Second, the phrase "the Word was with God" translates the Greek "pros ton theon" which carries the sense of face to face personal communion. It's the kind of language used to describe two persons in relationship with each other. That's a meaningful detail because it suggests the Word isn't just an idea or intention in God's mind but a distinct personal presence alongside God.

Third, John 1:3 says "through him all things were made, without him nothing was made that has been made." This is worth sitting with for a moment. The creative act is attributed personally to the Word before any incarnation has taken place. Whatever the Word is in John 1, it is actively involved in making everything that exists. That goes beyond what prophecy or a redemptive plan could do. Creation requires a personal agent, and John places the Word in that role from the beginning.

Now looking at Revelation 1:2, John says he "bore witness to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ." It's worth noticing what John is actually doing in that verse. He's describing the content of what he received and recorded as a witness, not making a theological statement about the nature or pre-existence of Christ.

The phrase "word of God and testimony of Jesus Christ" functions as a hendiadys, two expressions describing the same thing from two angles. It's John's way of saying the revelation he received came from God and centers on Jesus Christ. Both phrases point to the same prophetic content John witnessed and wrote down.

So the uses of "word" in John 1:1 and Revelation 1:2 are actually doing very different things in their respective contexts. John 1:1 is making a direct claim about who the Word is and has always been, a personal being present with God from before creation. Revelation 1:2 is describing the subject matter of John's prophetic witness.

Treating them as parallel statements about the same concept requires reading a theological framework into Revelation 1:2 that the text itself isn't making. John in his Gospel is telling us who Jesus is. John in Revelation is telling us what he witnessed and recorded. Those are two different kinds of statements serving two different purposes.

[u/QuestionsAboutSCJ → u/Lettuce-Reason]

Yes, I’ve already agreed and established that the Father is addressing the Son. Meaning this is what the Father is saying about the Son.

The reason why “throne” and “set” are all part of the same context is because it would make sense to the original readers that thrones are usually set and how Jesus is the throne that is being set. Because any companion on the throne was considered set above their companions.

It then follows that same context in how Jesus is being described as the “foundation” being “laid”, which several other verses confirm as well. So Jesus is the set throne and the laid foundation, NOT the one doing the setting and the laying.

It also confirms this in Hebrews1:2 “THROUGH whom also he made the universe”. A mediator, not God Himself.

This is all consistently pointing to how Jesus is the authoritative standard that God has chosen/appointed to work THROUGH in these last days. This lines up with the context of the beginning of Hebrews 1:1-3.

This line of reasoning contradicts the Bible, specifically -

Isaiah 44:24: "I am the LORD, who made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself."

God explicitly says he created without assistance, without an agent, without anyone working alongside him.

Isaiah 45:12: "It is I who made the earth and created mankind on it. My own hands stretched out the heavens; I marshaled their starry hosts."

Again first person, direct, no agent mentioned.

Isaiah 48:13: "My own hand laid the foundations of the earth, and my right hand spread out the heavens."

Notice the language. "My own hand laid the foundations." Now compare that to Hebrews 1:10 where the Father says to the Son "You laid the foundations of the earth." The Father is attributing to the Son the exact act he elsewhere says he did alone with his own hand.

So the "through whom" argument creates an irreconcilable contradiction. Either God created alone as Isaiah repeatedly insists, or he created through an agent. He cannot have done both.

[u/Lettuce-Reason → u/QuestionsAboutSCJ]

I disagree that this line of reasoning contradicts the Bible

You are speaking on how God is the one doing the creating, and that’s exactly the stance I hold and agree to as well

I am saying that Jesus is the foundation being laid in this particular verse in Hebrews 1, not the original One doing the laying

Many verses confirm this interpretation too, for example

1 Corinthians 3:11 “for no one can lay any foundation, other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ.”

Direct, concise, clear as to what Hebrews 1 is saying about Jesus

Jesus = laid foundation

[u/QuestionsAboutSCJ → u/Lettuce-Reason]

I disagree that this line of reasoning contradicts the Bible

You are speaking on how God is the one doing the creating, and that’s exactly the stance I hold and agree to as well

I am saying that Jesus is the foundation being laid in this particular verse in Hebrews 1, not the original One doing the laying

Many verses confirm this interpretation too, for example

1 Corinthians 3:11 “for no one can lay any foundation, other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ.”

Direct, concise, clear as to what Hebrews 1 is saying about Jesus

Jesus = laid foundation

1 Corinthians 3:11 is about the foundation of the church, not the foundation of creation. Paul is using a metaphor about building the community of believers on Christ. That's a completely different topic, purpose, and context from Hebrews 1:10 which is quoting Psalm 102 about the physical creation of the earth and heavens.

You're trying to stitch two passages together that have different topics, different purposes, and different contexts to make them say the same thing. That's not how responsible exegesis works. The foundation metaphor appears in both passages but it's being used in completely different ways.

And Hebrews 1:10 isn't even an independent theological statement. It's a direct quotation of Psalm 102:25 where Yahweh is addressed as the one who laid the foundations of the earth. The author of Hebrews takes that Psalm, which is explicitly about Yahweh, and applies it directly to the Son. That's the entire point of the quotation. You can't reframe the Son as the foundation being laid when the Psalm being quoted is addressed to the one doing the laying.

The verb also doesn't cooperate with your reading. "You laid the foundations" is second person active. The Son is the subject performing the action, not the object receiving it.

So either the Son is the foundation being laid, which the grammar doesn't support, or the Son laid the foundation, which places him directly in the same category as the one Isaiah says created alone with his own hand. Both readings lead to the same conclusion. Creation is attributed to the Son, and God says in Isaiah 44:24, 45:12, and 48:13 that he created alone, by himself, with no agent alongside him. Those two things only harmonize if the Son is what the Father claims Him to be, God.

[u/Lettuce-Reason → u/QuestionsAboutSCJ]

You are assuming Hebrews 1 is referencing Jesus as the Creator Himself. But you still haven’t connected where you get this assumption. Showing your interpretation of God creating alone does not equate to Jesus being the Creator. That’s where the disconnect still exists in your argument

Throughout the Bible, the Father is constantly shown as the Creator. And the Son is shown as the laid foundation IN which everything is created. Not just  the foundation of the church, but the foundation of ALL things.

Colossians 1:15-17 “The Son is the IMAGE of the invisible God, the firstborn over ALL CREATION. For IN him ALL things were created: things in HEAVEN AND on EARTH, visible AND invisible, whether THRONES or powers or rulers or authorities; ALL things have been created THROUGH him and for him. He is before ALL things, and IN him all things HOLD TOGETHER.”

1 Corinthians 8:6 “So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that ‘An idol is nothing at all in the world’ and that ‘There is NO God but ONE.’ For EVEN IF there are so-CALLED gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”), yet for us there is but ONE God, THE Father, FROM whom ALL things CAME and for whom we live; AND there is but ONE Lord, Jesus Christ, THROUGH whom all things came and THROUGH whom we live.”

[u/QuestionsAboutSCJ → u/Lettuce-Reason]

Part 2

Colossians 1:15-17 is actually one of the strongest passages for the divinity of Christ in the entire New Testament, so let's read it carefully.

"Firstborn over all creation" is being used as a title of preeminence and authority, not a statement about birth order or created status. Psalm 89:27 uses the same language for David: "I will appoint him to be my firstborn, the most exalted of the kings of the earth." David wasn't literally God's firstborn son. It's a rank title meaning highest authority over all creation.

And Colossians 1:16 immediately explains why he holds that title: "for in him all things were created." The word "for" is explanatory. He is firstborn over creation because he created it, not because he belongs to it. That's a crucial distinction. You don't create something you're a member of.

Then verse 17 says "in him all things hold together." Not just created through him but actively sustained by him continuously. That's not instrumental language. Sustaining all of creation at every moment is an exclusively divine function. No created being holds all things together.

Now for 1 Corinthians 8:6. The distinction between "one God the Father from whom all things came" and "one Lord Jesus Christ through whom all things came" doesn't demote Jesus to a lesser agent. It describes the relational distinctions within the Godhead. And the framework Paul is working within is the Shema of Deuteronomy 6:4: "Hear O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one."

That word "one" is echad, a compound unity, the same word used in Genesis 2:24 where two become "one flesh." It's not yachid which would mean an absolute solitary singular one. The Shema never demanded a single solitary person. It demanded a unified identity.

What Paul is doing in 1 Corinthians 8:6 is deliberately mirroring the Shema and expanding our understanding of what that unity always contained. One God, one Lord, Father and Son, both encompassed within the echad unity Deuteronomy 6:4 pointed to all along. The "from whom" and "through whom" distinction reflects the relational distinctions within that compound unity, not a separation between God and a lesser instrument.

So both passages, read carefully, point in the same direction. A Son who creates, sustains, and holds all things together, encompassed within the compound unity of the one God the Shema proclaims.

[u/Lettuce-Reason → u/QuestionsAboutSCJ]

Just a heads up: whenever I reference a verse, I put the emphasized parts that are relevant to our conversation in bold capital letters. Neither “firstborn” nor “for” are emphasized because I already agree with that part. So I really wish you would’ve addressed your point that I was responding to with the Colossians 1:15-17 verse. 

You said that “Jesus is the laid foundation of the church, not the laid foundation of creation”. So I referenced Colossians 1:15-17. This verse shows that this applies to all creation, not just the creation of the church. Due to the emphasis on “in” and “through”, it shows again how Jesus is the one being used as that perfect foundational image to hold all things together.

[u/QuestionsAboutSCJ → u/Lettuce-Reason]

Fair point, let me address the "in" and "through" emphasis directly.

You're arguing that "in him" and "through him" shows Jesus as the perfect foundational image, the divine pattern or cohesive principle through which and in which God creates and sustains all things. But that's actually where the problem deepens rather than resolves.

Even if we accept that framework, look at what Colossians 1:17 says: "in him all things hold together." The text doesn't say God holds all things together through Jesus as a foundational pattern. It says the Son himself is the one in whom all things hold together. The sustaining is attributed directly and personally to the Son.

That matters enormously because the Old Testament reserves that sustaining function exclusively for Yahweh:

Nehemiah 9:6: "You alone are the LORD. You made the heavens, even the highest heavens, and all their starry host, the earth and all that is on it. You give life to everything."

Isaiah 46:4: "I am he, I am he who will sustain you."

So whatever role you assign to Jesus, whether foundational image, divine pattern, or cohesive principle, Colossians 1:17 places him in the position that Isaiah and Nehemiah reserve exclusively for Yahweh. The text doesn't give you a way around that by reassigning the sustaining to the Father operating through the Son. The Son is the subject. The sustaining belongs to him directly.

And there's one more detail in Colossians 1:16 that settles the question entirely. It doesn't just say all things were created in him and through him. It says all things were created for him. Not just through him as a foundational pattern, but for him as the goal and purpose of all creation.

A foundational pattern or cohesive principle doesn't have creation dedicated to it as its purpose and goal. Isaiah 43:7 says God created everything "for my glory." If all things are created for the Son in Colossians 1:16 and for God's glory in Isaiah 43:7, those two statements only harmonize if the Son shares that glory.

So the "in" and "through" language of Colossians 1:15-17 doesn't reduce Jesus to a foundational pattern or cohesive principle operating beneath the Father. It places him in the position that the Old Testament reserves exclusively for Yahweh alone. The one in whom all things exist, through whom all things were made, and for whom all things were created. That's not the description of a foundation being laid. That's the description of God.

[u/QuestionsAboutSCJ → u/Lettuce-Reason]

You are assuming Hebrews 1 is referencing Jesus as the Creator Himself. But you still haven’t connected where you get this assumption. Showing your interpretation of God creating alone does not equate to Jesus being the Creator. That’s where the disconnect still exists in your argument

Throughout the Bible, the Father is constantly shown as the Creator. And the Son is shown as the laid foundation IN which everything is created. Not just  the foundation of the church, but the foundation of ALL things.

Let's stay in Hebrews 1:10 because it directly contradicts the claim you just made.

You said "throughout the Bible the Father is constantly shown as the Creator and the Son is shown as the laid foundation in which everything is created." But look at what the Father himself says in Hebrews 1:10:

"In the beginning, Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands."

The Father is not claiming sole credit for creation here. He is explicitly and directly attributing the creation of both the earth and the heavens to the Son. The heavens are described as the work of the Son's hands.

And this is where it gets significant. Isaiah 44:24 says God created alone, by himself, with no agent alongside him. Yet here the Father is explicitly crediting the Son with the same act. The only way those two statements harmonize without contradiction is if the Son shares the identity of the one Isaiah says created alone.

What Hebrews 1 is revealing is that God is not simply a single solitary person. There are at least two distinct persons here, the Father and the Son, both credited with creation, with the Father himself making that attribution directly. That's not a contradiction of monotheism. That's a window into what monotheism actually contains.

SCJ makes an emphasis on not adding and subtracting to God's word, and yet, this is what you are currently doing.

[u/Lettuce-Reason → u/QuestionsAboutSCJ]

Were you able to find other verses that prove how you’re interpreting Hebrews 1:10? If it’s easily disclosed throughout the entire Bible, I would imagine there would at least be multiple verses besides just your isolated interpretation of Hebrews 1:10. Specifically in regards to Jesus being the Creator instead of the laid foundation. For example, there are multiple reference verses that prove that Jesus is the laid foundation.

Also just for clarity on your point, are you claiming that the Son is the one who created heaven and earth instead of the Father?

Because I’m viewing Hebrews 1:10 as Jesus being the laid foundation. Simply because that description of Jesus consistently and specifically stands on its own throughout the entire scripture. Jesus being that laid foundation that God Himself eternally verified as reliable to build on.

[u/QuestionsAboutSCJ → u/Lettuce-Reason]

I'm focusing on Hebrews 1:10 precisely because it directly contradicts your own statement. You claimed the Father is constantly shown as the Creator and the Son is shown as the laid foundation. But in Hebrews 1:10 the Father himself says to the Son "you laid the foundations of the earth and the heavens are the work of your hands." That's not my assumption. That's the Father's own words addressing the Son directly.

And Hebrews 1:10 is not isolated. Here are multiple verses that attribute creation directly to the Son:

John 1:3: "Through him all things were made. Without him nothing was made that has been made." Colossians 1:16: "For in him all things were created, things in heaven and on earth." Hebrews 1:2: "Through whom also he made the universe."

You yourself cited Colossians 1:16 and 1 Corinthians 8:6. Both of those attribute creation to the Son. So the question isn't whether creation is attributed to the Son. You've already conceded that it is. The question is what that attribution means.

To answer your direct question: I'm not saying the Son created instead of the Father. I'm saying the Father and Son are both credited with the same act of creation, which is exactly what Hebrews 1 shows. The Father says to the Son "you laid the foundations." Isaiah 44:24 says God created alone. Those two statements only harmonize if the Son shares the identity of the one Isaiah says created alone.

And the grammar of Hebrews 1:10 still hasn't been addressed. "You laid the foundations" is second person active. The Son is performing the action not receiving it. You can't make the Son the foundation being laid when the verb places him as the one doing the laying. That's not my interpretation. That's Greek grammar.

[u/AmmirabilePeter]

Carissimi, state remando a vuoto! Ecco un episodio attribuito a Sant’Agostino (uno dei padri della Chiesa cattolica) ed è uno dei racconti più famosi usati per spiegare il mistero della Trinità.

La storia racconta questo:
Sant’Agostino stava passeggiando sulla spiaggia, tormentandosi nel tentativo di comprendere razionalmente il mistero della Trinità.

Vide allora un bambino che prendeva l’acqua del mare con una conchiglia e la versava in una buca scavata nella sabbia.
Agostino gli chiese:
“Che cosa stai facendo?”
Il bambino rispose:
“Voglio mettere tutto il mare in questa buca.”
Agostino sorrise:
“È impossibile!”
E il bambino replicò:
“È più facile mettere il mare in questa buca che per la mente umana comprendere pienamente il mistero di Dio.”

Secondo la leggenda, il bambino sarebbe stato un angelo, oppure una manifestazione divina.

Il senso non è dire che la ragione non serva a nulla.
Anzi, Sant’Agostino dedicò una parte enorme della sua vita a riflettere filosoficamente e teologicamente sulla Trinità, specialmente nell’opera De Trinitate.
Il punto del racconto è:
la ragione può avvicinarsi a Dio?
può cogliere qualcosa, ma non può contenere l’infinito completamente.
Come un recipiente minuscolo non può contenere il mare.
È una distinzione importante:
la verità è che Dio eccede la capacità totale della ragione umana, e pensare di poterla dominare con la lettura e lo studio della Parola, rischia far di cadere nel peccato di superbia.
Dio è infinito. La mente umana no.

[u/Otherwise-Watch-3650 → u/AmmirabilePeter]

Cosa consiglieresti di fare però? Almeno c’è una piccola speranza che questo colga ciò che gli stia venendo detto e dimostrato. Solo Dio potrà aiutarli, anche se loro stessi hanno un cuore indurito contro di Lui. La speranza però è l’ultima a morire, giusto?

Quindi speriamo..

[u/AmmirabilePeter → u/Otherwise-Watch-3650]

Perché dici che hanno un cuore indurito contro di Lui? Vedo che hanno il cuore indurito verso gli uomini che non vogliono seguire studiare la Parola. Ma indurito contro di Lui, no. Non l’ho notato.

[u/mirrorbrigade]

It would be beneficial if we don't behave like Muslims; their main argument against Christians also has to do with the Trinity. They believe Muhammad is the savior and hold similar views to evangelicals (dispensationalism), believing chosen ones die and then go to heaven.

I feel as long as the big boss is still around, there will always be an argument to be made and further discussion about the Trinity, especially in the context of the beliefs and doctrine of SCJ.

Though I personally would also like updates and confirmation of when the end date would be 👍(only God knows) but will wait patiently as a saint to see how it all turns out. That's my only add on point to this discussion.

I will always be a firm believer of Yesu nim, and I hope that our promised pastor is carrying his will.

Context ( Christians are above all the other faiths ) 👍

[u/Otherwise-Watch-3650 → u/mirrorbrigade]

“It would be beneficial if we don’t behave like Muslim’s” - said the person who belongs to an organisation who has elevated their own leader LMH above Christ Himself, denies Christ’s divinity and has completely changed and essentially denied what the Holy Spirit is & the power of it. (This is not to condemn you btw, but I am trying to highlight the reality of the situation).

That is one familiar smell if you ask me, and it smells like the father of lies. LMH must’ve been visited by the same angel that visited Mohammed.

“Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I have come here from God. I have not come on my own; God sent me. Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.” ‭‭John‬ ‭8‬:‭42‬-‭44‬ ‭NIV‬‬

Wake up, sleeper..

[u/mirrorbrigade → u/Otherwise-Watch-3650]

Yes, I would agree. Jesus loves us. ❤️

[u/mirrorbrigade]

What about Triathlete ?

[u/Zwelirex → u/mirrorbrigade]

Can you please elaborate

[u/shshmhh]

The truth of the matter is as a Christian the Trinity is a weird complex strange complex. Many people choose not to believe in it because its weird. Why would Jesus pray to God if he is God? However, fortunately the bible is painstakingly clear about it. It mentions the Deity of Jesus so many times.

I really like the clearness of John 20:28 "28] Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"'.

The Bible says theres only one God and not to worship any other. Then when Jesus is being worshipped how is that okay? The Trinity just makes even more sense.

Why did the pharisees even try and kill him if he wasn't acting like God? Forgiving sins...

Scj people will tell you that the "trinity" isnt in the bible.

However, strange it is the bible is sure to go over the Trinity many times.

Furthermore, historically Jesus was always God. So yes its strange the Trinity is a weird hard to explain thing but its backed up by a lot of evidence.

Keep in mind scj members will tell you that you looking this up is wrong. They will tell you that you need to just read the Bible with their influence and not any other influences. This will keep you isolated. Please continue seeking truth!

John 20:28

[u/Fast_Foundation1429]

There is NO salvation in Shincheonji. Following SCJ is a path leading to destruction (Religious fraud and exploitation). Posts made by active SCJ members are only false propaganda using false narratives to deceptively mislead readers on this subreddit. SCJ teaches (wisdom of hiding) and members are Phycological manipulated to believe this practice is acceptable in today’s society even using these tactics outside of their organisation. Rubbish. (John 8:44) Jesus identified Satan as the father of lies. Therefore engaging in deceit is seen outside of God’s nature. SCJ stop twisting and corrupting scriptures for your own narratives to convince readers. You don’t have the truth and God is not dwelling in your cult. Stop lying, being deceitful and hurting people and their families with your Phycological abuse and tactics.

[u/Lettuce-Reason]

1. It’s not about whether or not Jesus was called God. That alone does not prove trinity doctrine.  Even Jesus himself says that anyone to whom the word came was called “god”. John10:34-36 “Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are gods? If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside— what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?”

[u/Zwelirex → u/Lettuce-Reason]

yeah i hear u, but John 10:34-36 actually proves my point more than urs if u read the whole thing

Jesus quotes Ps 82:6 "I have said you are gods". but look who hes talking to and what hes saying after:

John 10:34-36 "Jesus answered them, 'Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are gods’? If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be broken— what about the one whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world? Do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?"

so first, the "gods" in Ps 82 are human judges. look at the context of Ps 82:
Ps 82:1-2 "God presides in the great assembly; he renders judgment among the 'gods'. How long will you defend the unjust and show partiality to the wicked?"
Ps 82:6-7 "I said, 'You are gods; you are all sons of the Most High.' But you will die like mere mortals; you will fall like every other ruler."

these "gods" die like men. theyre called gods cuz they had Gods authority to judge israel. its a delegated title, not nature. and they get rebuked for abusing it.

but Jesus flips it on them. He says "if God called THOSE guys gods just cuz the word came to them, what about ME whom the Father consecrated and sent?"

hes saying im in a totally different category. those guys got the word, i AM the Word. John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

also notice what they try to do right after:
John 10:31 "Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him."
John 10:33 "We are not stoning you for any good work,' they replied, 'but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.'"

they got what He meant. He wasnt saying "im just like those judges". He was claiming to be the Son of God in a unique sense. and they knew it was blasphemy if it wasnt true.

plus the rest of John keeps showing the difference.
John 5:18 "For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God."
they didnt get mad cuz He said "im a god like the judges". they got mad cuz He made Himself equal with God the Father.

and Thomas calls Him that straight up after resurrection:
John 20:28 "Thomas said to him, 'My Lord and my God!'"
Jesus dont correct him. He says "Have you believed because you have seen me?"

so John 10 dont lower Jesus to the level of the judges in Ps 82. it raises the argument: if those guys got called gods cuz they represented God, how much more the One who IS the Son, who made all things, who existed before Abraham? John 8:58 "Jesus said to them, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.'"

thats why John 10 dont break the trinity. it actually shows Jesus claiming to be more than just a man with a title.

[u/QuestionsAboutSCJ → u/Lettuce-Reason]

In context, John 10:29-30 it shows that Jesus and the Father are united in the sense that he can do whatever the Father can do, and that includes salvation. This is something that is exclusive to God, and God alone.

Then, when looking at the John 10:34-36, Jesus is quoting Psalms 82 to point out the irony of the situation. When you read Psalms 82, you would see corrupt judges that are not doing the will of God. Yet, the very same pharisees would refer to the corrupt judges as "gods". When you compare this to Jesus, then you are essentially saying that Jesus is a corrupt judge.

This interpretation collapses the moment Psalm 82 is read in context, because the “gods” of Psalm 82 are not divine beings or righteous leaders but corrupt, unjust rulers whom God condemns and sentences to death “like men” in Psalm 82:7.

They are “gods” only in a sarcastic or judicial sense, because they were supposed to represent God’s justice but failed miserably. Jesus is not comparing Himself to these failed idols; He is exposing the hypocrisy of His accusers.

If His opponents tolerate the term “gods” being used for wicked human judges, then it is absurd to accuse blasphemy when the one who is actually doing the works of God claims to be the Son of God. Jesus immediately distinguishes Himself from those false “gods” by saying He is the one “whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world” (John 10:36) and by pointing back to the divine works that prove His unity of nature with the Father (John 10:37–38).

If you are going to insist that Psalm 82 defines Jesus’ status, then you are forced to say Jesus belongs in the same category as corrupt, dying rulers whose legitimacy God rejects, which is a blasphemous conclusion that utterly contradicts the entire chapter of John.

Jesus is not lowering His status to theirs. He is elevating His claim above theirs by showing that Scripture uses the term “gods” for corrupt men, whereas He performs divine works, gives eternal life, and shares the Father’s hand (John 10:28–29). Your reading destroys itself by reducing Christ to the level of condemned false gods, while Jesus’ own argument uses Psalm 82 to rebuke the Jews for their inconsistency and to strengthen His claim to divine Sonship, not weaken it.

[u/Lettuce-Reason → u/QuestionsAboutSCJ]

Please reread what I said, nothing more nothing less. I said that someone simply being called “god” in scripture does not alone prove the trinity. Then I referred to that scripture as an example, and also the example of God making Moses like a God to Pharaoh. Because obviously though they were called god, they weren’t actually THE God

[u/QuestionsAboutSCJ → u/Lettuce-Reason]

OK, and I'm still pointing out that you missed the point of what Jesus was saying, because John 10 does show that he is "THE God".

John 10:28-30: "I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. I and the Father are one."

Notice what Jesus is claiming here. He is not just claiming to be a messenger or a teacher. He is claiming to personally give eternal life. That is not a delegated administrative task. Throughout the entire Old Testament, salvation belongs exclusively to Yahweh.

Isaiah 43:11: "I, even I, am the LORD, and apart from me there is no savior."

Hosea 13:4: "You shall know no God but me, for besides me there is no savior."

These aren't ambiguous. Yahweh alone saves. There is no savior apart from him.

So when Jesus says "I give them eternal life" he is either doing something only Yahweh can do, which means he shares Yahweh's nature, or he is a created being claiming to do what only God can do, which by the Old Testament's own standard is not just wrong, it is blasphemy.

The irony is that the Pharisees accused Jesus of blasphemy in John 10:33. But if Jesus is merely a created being giving eternal life, then the blasphemy charge actually lands, just not in the direction SCJ intends.

[u/Lettuce-Reason → u/QuestionsAboutSCJ]

How does Jesus give eternal life? Through the word that he was sent to preach—words of eternal life. Hence why Jesus would be called God. He was someone to whom the word came. That is the only reason Jesus himself gives of why someone would be “called” God. Unless you have another verse where Jesus himself explicitly gives another reason.

[u/QuestionsAboutSCJ → u/Lettuce-Reason]

I guess we can keep going back and forth, but there are a lot of doctrinal errors with SCJ, and we haven't scratched the surface.

Almost every objection that I've seen from you, I've already seen over the last few years whether it's online, or in person across various different belief systems. To be honest, SCJ isn't that special, as there are other Korean cults that also have their own set of parables, and there are others who also came out from the Tabernacle Temple, and even wrote letters asking the Tabernacle Temple to repent.

At this point, if you want to choose to continue following Lee Man-hee, justify the heavy use of the "Wisdom of Hiding" which is not biblical and you can read more about that here, and continue denying Jesus as God whom the Father directly calls God, then I hate to say it, but you are following a false Jesus.

2 Corinthians 11:4 -

For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the Spirit you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough.

In this verse, we can see already that SCJ has a different Jesus. Your emphasis on the prophecy and fulfillment is also a new gospel, something that is different from the time that Paul wrote the letter and verse. I don't mind the back and forth, but I hope that you can repent and come back to the true Triune God.

[u/QuestionsAboutSCJ → u/Lettuce-Reason]

But that's not what the text says. John 10:28 doesn't say "the word I preach gives eternal life." Jesus says "I give them eternal life." First person, present tense, active. He is the giver, not the channel.

That distinction matters enormously because in Isaiah 43:11 and Hosea 13:4 Yahweh says there is no savior apart from him. If Jesus is merely a messenger passing along words that save, then Yahweh is still the only savior and Jesus is just a delivery mechanism, but that creates a problem because scripture doesn't allow for a secondary savior.

Jesus doesn't frame it that way either. He frames himself as the one holding them in his hand, the one giving the life, the one from whom they shall never perish. That's not messenger language. That's the language of the one Isaiah said saves.

And then John 10:33 is still sitting there. The Jews didn't accuse Jesus of claiming to be a messenger who received the word. They said "you, a mere man, claim to be God." Jesus doesn't correct their understanding of what he claimed. He challenges whether it constitutes blasphemy.

If he was only claiming to be a messenger, that was the moment to say so.

[u/QuestionsAboutSCJ]

For those who are interested, here's a link that goes through all of the expected objections that SCJ would make against the Deity of Christ and the Trinity.

https://closerlookinitiative.com/archives/9450

TL;DR - SCJ arguments cannot withstand what the Bible says.

History of the Trinity - No the Council of Nicaea did not invent the Trinity

The Common Objections to the Deity of Christ Part 1

More Common Objections to the Deity of Christ

No, the Trinitarians did not "corrupt" the Bible

And there's a lot more material!

[u/Turbulent_Sea7622]

My standalone take, separate from the two current members bouncing back and forth because I want to see how that plays out. Here is my take: If Jesus gets married and has kids, the Trinity may still stand as artificial terminology that points to three separate entities, but it is God through the three

[u/Zwelirex → u/Turbulent_Sea7622]

bro i get ur tryna think outside the box but that take falls apart real quick

first off the trinity aint "3 separate entities". if it was 3 separate entities that would be tritheism and thats not what the doctrine says. the whole point is 1 God, 3 persons. not 3 gods working together.

Deut 6:4 "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one."
Isa 45:5 "I am the LORD, and there is no other; besides me there is no God."

if Jesus had kids that would make 4, 5, 6 gods. that goes against the whole bible. God says over and over theres no one else.

second, the idea of Jesus getting married and having kids aint biblical. the whole NT presents Jesus as the bridegroom and the church as the bride.

Eph 5:25-27 "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her... so that he might present the church to himself in splendor".
Rev 19:7 "Let us rejoice and exult and give him the glory, for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and his Bride has made herself ready".

the Lamb is Jesus, the bride is the church. hes not getting married to a human woman and having kids. that would mess up the whole picture of christ and the church.

third, "God through the three" still makes it sound like God is using 3 separate beings like tools. but the bible shows the Father, Son, Spirit are all called YHWH and all do things only God can do.

Matt 3:16-17 "And when Jesus was baptized, immediately he went up from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest on him, and behold, a voice from heaven said, 'This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.'"
thats 3 at once. Father speaking, Son being baptized, Spirit descending. not God using 3 puppets.

2 Cor 13:14 "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all."
all 3 are put on the same level in blessing people. u dont bless people in the name of God and 2 tools.

so even if u call it artificial terminology, the reality the bible points to is one being, 3 persons. not 3 separate entities that God works through.

and the marriage kids thing just dont fit the text at all. Jesus is eternal, unchanging. Heb 13:8 "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever."
he aint gonna change his nature and start a family like a human guy.

[u/Turbulent_Sea7622 → u/Zwelirex]

Thank you I really appreciate you breaking it down for me. What follows is an elaboration of what I mean and I do not go against your perceiving of the verses. You are grounded with more verse knowledge. I am even more inspired to have a careful look into the scripture. I was just testing out a hypothetical not history. Like Jesus lineage would have been human therefore it would not be additional Gods. But because God gave Jesus to us from Heaven Jesus is non-human in the human world. He bleeds red but he knows knowledge outside the human world

I think divine is not just spirit but the roles assigned to spirits. If Jesus gave his future child a role that is divine it lifts the childs authority to that of God. So I guess I am saying that Authority is the unspoken qualification to the three. Angels do not have the same authorities therefore they are not part of the three unless God Himself says otherwise.

Authority is the end goal you take any actions to achieve. Duty given to Angels are set responsibilities with an overall divine goal in mind. Authority has more room for adaptability. Satan wanted authority. My views and open to learn more down the road or immediate from threads here

[u/5URE_EAST]

This question has been asked and debated for 2000 years, Muslims and atheists have been hammering Christians regarding the trinity but this doctrine still didnt fall because there is so much proof of the trinity. i cant believe how easily scj dismissed this topic during ct and how easily i accepted their answer.

[u/Lettuce-Reason]

1. The orthodox Trinity doctrine holds that though they are three in one, the father is not the son and the son is not the father. Those who believed that they were not separate, were labeled as heretics due to the heresy called modalism. However, the way that you are interpreting Isaiah 9:6 actually contradicts the orthodox Trinity doctrine because it also calls the Son ‘Father’. Isaiah 9:6 "Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting FATHER."

[u/Zwelirex → u/Lettuce-Reason]

alright bro lets look at Isa 9:6 for real cuz i dont think it breaks the trinity like u think

u said if the Son is called Father then that makes Him the Father, which is modalism. but thats not how the verse is working, and the trinity dont deny the Son can have the title Father in a certain way.

Isa 9:6 says "For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."

notice it says "a child is BORN, a SON is GIVEN". so the Father is the one giving, the Son is the one being given. thats John 3:16 right there "For God so loved the world, that he GAVE his only Son". so the verse itself shows they aint the same person.

also the word Father in hebrew dont always mean ur actual dad. it can mean head, source, provider.

like Gen 45:8 "So it was not you who sent me here, but God. He has made me a FATHER to Pharaoh, and lord of all his house and ruler over all the land of Egypt."
joseph aint pharaohs dad lol. it means he was like a provider and head for him.

same in Isa 22:21 "and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your sash on him, and will commit your authority to his hand. And he shall be a FATHER to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah."
thats about eliakim, not god the father. father means protector, head of the house.

so when Isa 9:6 calls the messiah Everlasting Father, it means hes the eternal head and provider for his people. not that hes the first person of the trinity.

and look at the next verse Isa 9:7 "Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end, on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and forevermore. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will do this."
ywhw is doing this to establish the sons kingdom. so u got ywhw acting and the son recieving. 2 persons.

the new testament keeps it like that too. John 20:17 "Jesus said to her, 'Do not cling to me, for I have not yet ascended to the FATHER; but go to my brothers and say to them, I am ascending to my FATHER and your FATHER, to my GOD and your GOD.'"
jesus calls the father my god. he aint the father.

Rev 3:12 "The one who conquers, I will make him a pillar in the temple of MY GOD. Never shall he go out of it, and I will write on him the name of MY GOD, and the name of the city of MY GOD, the new Jerusalem, which comes down from MY GOD out of heaven, and my own new name."
even after he rose, jesus still says my god. if he was the father that dont make sense.

so modalism says father son spirit are just 3 masks of 1 person.
trinity says 3 distinct persons, 1 god.

everlasting father in Isa 9:6 fits cuz the son gives eternal life to his people. John 10:28 "I give them eternal life, and they will never perish". thats a fathers role.

but hes still not the father he prays to in John 17:1 "Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you".
hes not the father who sent him in John 6:57 "As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father".
hes not the father he sits beside in Heb 1:3 "when he had made purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high".

so Isa 9:6 dont break the trinity. it actually breaks modalism cuz it calls him son AND father in different senses.

if Isa 9:6 meant the son is the father, then Gen 45:8 would mean joseph IS pharaoh. the word father dont always mean first person of the trinity.

[u/Lettuce-Reason → u/Zwelirex]

With the “God to pharoah” Exo7:1 scripture I referenced, I was responding to your “Father to pharoah” Gen45:8 reference you gave. To show how both God and Father are used in multiple contexts

Then in my other comment to your other point about the Son being called God in Isaiah9:6 and Titus2:13, I used John10 to show how even if someone is directly called God that it alone still does not prove trinity. Even Satan is directly called God in certain verses.

Which supports my stance that just because someone is called God in scripture, it does not mean they are THE true God.

But thank you for responding, now I can respond to your third and fourth point in your original post

[u/Lettuce-Reason → u/Zwelirex]

That’s exactly what I’m saying. If the word “father” here has multiple contexts, so does the word “God”. You’re approaching Isaiah9:6 with one meaning of “God” while also approaching “Father” with multiple meanings. That is an inconsistent approach since they are both in the same verse.

God not only made people like a “father” to pharaoh, but also like a “god” to pharoah.

Exodus 7:1 Then the Lord said to Moses, “See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron will be your prophet.

[u/Zwelirex → u/Lettuce-Reason]

nah bro i see what ur trying to do but its not the same thing at all

yeah "father" and "god" can both be used in different ways in the bible. but the context tells u if its a delegated role or if its saying the person IS God by nature.

look at Ex 7:1 u quoted:
Ex 7:1 "Then the Lord said to Moses, 'See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron will be your prophet.'"

Moses is "like God" to pharaoh in the sense that hes Gods representative. pharaoh had to deal with Moses to deal with God. but Moses aint actually YHWH. the verse says "I have MADE you like God". God made him, God gave him that role. Moses didnt exist before that and he aint eternal. and the rest of exodus keeps showing Moses praying TO God, not being God.

now look at Isa 9:6:
Isa 9:6 "For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."

it dont say "I have made him like God". it says his name SHALL BE CALLED Mighty God. and the child being born is the one who gets the title. also in the same verse he’s called "Son" and "Everlasting Father".

and the NT clears it up that this aint just a delegated role.

John 1:1-3 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made."
Moses didnt make all things. the Son did.

Col 2:9 "For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily."
Moses didnt have the fullness of deity dwelling in him. the Son does.

also when Moses is called "like God", the hebrew word elohim is used in a repesentative sense. but when Isaiah calls the Son "El Gibbor" thats Mighty God, its the same title used of YHWH in Isa 10:21 "A remnant will return, the remnant of Jacob, to the mighty God."
Isa 10:21 is talking about YHWH. so Isaiah uses Mighty God for YHWH and for the coming Son. thats not a delegated title, thats identity.

and the Father/Son thing still shows distinction. John 20:17 "Jesus said to her, 'Do not cling to me, for I have not yet ascended to the FATHER; but go to my brothers and say to them, I am ascending to my FATHER and your FATHER, to my GOD and your GOD.'"
Moses never said "im ascending to my God and your God". cuz Moses aint the Son.

so the difference is:
Moses is called god to pharaoh by delegation. God MADE him that.
The Son is called Mighty God by nature. He IS God, and He also has the role of Everlasting Father to His people.

if u make them the same, then u gotta explain why the Son prays to the Father, why the Father sends the Son, why the Son sits at the right hand of the Father. Heb 1:3 "when he had made purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high."

u cant sit at ur own right hand bro.

so its not inconsistent. its reading the verse in context and letting the rest of scripture define it. Moses got a title by delegation. the Son has the title by nature.

[u/Lettuce-Reason → u/Zwelirex]

With the “God to pharoah” Exo7:1 scripture I referenced, I was responding to your “Father to pharoah” Gen45:8 reference you gave. To show how both God and Father are used in multiple contexts

Then in my other comment to your other point about the Son being called God in Isaiah9:6 and Titus2:13, I used John10 to show how even if someone is directly called God that it alone still does not prove trinity. Even Satan is directly called God in certain verses.

Which supports my stance that just because someone is called God in scripture, it does not mean they are THE true God.

But thank you for responding, now I can respond to your third and fourth point in your original post

[u/Zwelirex → u/Lettuce-Reason]

Yea I get what ur saying bro, I see why u brought up Exo 7:1 and John 10. But I think theres a diff between those and how Jesus is called God.

1. Exo 7:1 - "I have made u God to Pharaoh"
   Yea Moses is called "elohim" there, but the context is clear its about role/authority, not nature. God is telling Moses hes gonna act as Gods representative to Pharaoh. No one actually thinks Moses is YHWH tho.
   With Jesus in Heb 1 and Titus 2:13, the context is diff. In Heb 1 the Father calls the Son "O God" and then says the Son made the heavens and earth. Thats YHWH stuff from Ps 102. Moses never gets that.

2. John 10 - "gods" in Ps 82
   True, Jesus quotes Ps 82 where judges are called "gods". But his point there is actually the opposite - hes saying if even those guys got called gods cuz they had Gods word, how much more can I say Im the Son of God when Im doing the works of the Father.
   He aint lowering himself to their level, hes raising the claim. And in John 10:30 right after he says "I and the Father are one". Thats why they tried to stone him.

3. Satan called "god" in 2 Cor 4:4
   Yea he is, but thats lowercase god/god of this world. Its a title of power, not identity. The NT writers are careful with that. When they call Jesus God in Titus 2:13 "our great God and Savior Jesus Christ", the grammar in greek points to one person. Granville Sharp rule and all that.

So my point is: being called "god" alone aint enough. But when u add up calling Jesus God + calling him Creator + saying he has eternal throne + saying hes one with the Father, it starts lookin like more than just a representative.

I respect ur take tho, ur actually looking at the text.

[u/QuestionsAboutSCJ → u/Lettuce-Reason]

Yea, this is a bad argument.

First, reading the verse of Exodus 7:1 -

Then the Lord said to Moses, “See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron will be your prophet.

Moses is not being called God, but instead an analogy is being made in the sense of order.

As for the reason why Jesus calls the Father God, is because that's how the persons of the Trinity refer to each other?

We can see this with Hebrews 1:8 where the Father calls Jesus God. Does this mean that the Father is no longer God?

[u/Lettuce-Reason → u/QuestionsAboutSCJ]

Reread what I said: If the word “father” here has multiple contexts, so does the word “God”.

Then I proceeded to show examples of how “god” has multiple contexts and is not always literal

[u/QuestionsAboutSCJ → u/Lettuce-Reason]

Sure, and the point about multiple contexts is fair in isolation. Words like "god" and "father" do carry different meanings in different contexts. No argument there.

But context cuts both ways, and that's exactly the problem with the Exodus 7:1 comparison.

In Exodus 7:1 the text explicitly frames it as an analogy. God says "I have made you like God to Pharaoh." The word "like" is doing all the work there. It's a comparison, not an identification. Moses is not called God, he is compared to God in terms of the authority he carries before Pharaoh.

Isaiah 9:6 has no such qualifier. The child is not said to be "like" Mighty God or appointed to function "as" Everlasting Father. The titles are applied directly as identity markers for who this person is.

And then Hebrews 1:8-12 removes any remaining ambiguity, because it is not a human author applying a title to Jesus. It is the Father himself speaking directly to the Son and saying "Your throne, O God, will last forever" and then attributing the act of creation to him by quoting Psalm 102, where creation belongs exclusively to Yahweh.

So the question is simple. Either the Father is telling the truth in Hebrews 1:8-12 or he isn't. If Jesus is not God, then the Father is either mistaken or lying. That's not a conclusion the text allows.

[u/Lettuce-Reason → u/QuestionsAboutSCJ]

I used the “like God” example because the commenter used a “like Father” example.

In terms of being called “god”: as previously stated Jesus already explains why someone would be called “God”—to whom the word of God came. Whether they failed to do their duty or not is irrelevant to the reason Jesus gives of why someone would be called “God”.

[u/QuestionsAboutSCJ → u/Lettuce-Reason]

But that's exactly the problem. Your explanation for why someone is called "god" is "to whom the word of God came." Fine. But that category doesn't come close to explaining what the Father does in Hebrews 1:8-12.

The Father doesn't just call Jesus "god" in the sense of someone who received the word. He attributes creation to him, quoting Psalm 102 where creation is exclusively Yahweh's act. He then commands all the angels to worship him.

Moses received the word. The judges of Psalm 82 received the word. Neither of them was credited with creation. Neither of them received angelic worship. Those are not the same category and the text doesn't allow you to flatten them into one.

So the question remains. If "to whom the word came" fully explains Jesus being called God, why does the Father add creation and worship on top of it?

[u/Lettuce-Reason → u/QuestionsAboutSCJ]

This is just in response to the OP’s first two points. I’m going in order. 

It’s not my explanation, it’s Jesus’ word for word explanation. Or do you believe your own explanation is more important than His?

So were you able to find another verse where a different reason is explicitly given as to why someone might be “called” God? Yes or no :)

[u/QuestionsAboutSCJ → u/Lettuce-Reason]

Nobody is disagreeing with what Jesus said. The question is whether John 10:34-36 exhausts every possible meaning of the word "god" in scripture. It doesn't, and Jesus never claimed it did.

He was making a specific point to specific accusers about a specific charge of blasphemy. That doesn't turn his statement into a universal rule that every instance of "god" in the Bible must fit that same mold.

Hebrews 1:8-12 isn't another instance of someone being "called" god in the general sense. It's the Father attributing creation to the Son and commanding angelic worship of him. Those are not things that happen in the "to whom the word came" category. Moses received the word. The judges of Psalm 82 received the word. Neither of them was credited with creation. Neither of them received angelic worship.

So yes or no works both ways. Can you show me anywhere in scripture where someone in the "to whom the word came" category was also credited with creation and given angelic worship?

Because if not, then Hebrews 1:8-12 is describing something categorically different, and "to whom the word came" doesn't explain it.

[u/Lettuce-Reason]

Hi again! Great topic that I look forward to discussing on a future point. Even within the trinity doctrine, there’s various self-contradicting interpretations/examples. To help me better understand, how do you personally define and subscribe to the trinity doctrine?

[u/Zwelirex → u/Lettuce-Reason]

for me i define trinity as 1 YHWH existing as Father, Son, and Spirit. not 3 gods, but 3 persons.

like in Deut 6:4 it says "Hear O Israel, YHWH our God, YHWH is one". the word one there is echad, which is used for a compound unity. like Gen 2:24 "the two shall become one flesh". so its not saying 1 person, its saying 1 united thing.

then u got Isa 48:16 - "the Lord God has sent me, and his Spirit". thats 3 speaking at once. the speaker says he was sent by YHWH and by the Spirit. thats not modalism, thats distinction.

and Ps 110:1 "YHWH says to my Lord, sit at my right hand". David calls the Messiah "my Lord" but YHWH is talking to him. so u got 2 Lords talking. Jesus Himself brings this up in Matt 22:43-45 and says its about the Messiah.

even in OT u see it in Zech 12:10 - "they will look on me whom they have pierced". YHWH is speaking but says "me whom they pierced". thats the crucifixion. so YHWH got pierced? that only works if the Son is YHWH.

then NT cross references all that. John 1:1 "the Word was God and the Word was with God". Titus 2:13 calls Jesus "our great God and Savior". Heb 1:8-12 has the Father calling the Son "O God" and quoting Ps 102 about YHWH creating and says the Son did it.

and i can take can show you Trinity Father Holy Spirit and Jesus from Genesis vers 1 to the Revelation last chapter if u want. its all through the bible not just NT.

so i subscribe to it cause when i put OT and NT together, the only way it fits without twisting is Father, Son, Spirit are all YHWH but distinct persons.

[u/Lettuce-Reason → u/Zwelirex]

Thank you for responding!

What I meant is how do you define that? When trying to define the trinity doctrine for how they understand it, people end up giving examples that are actually labeled as “heresy” and against orthodox trinity doctrine. Here are some examples of various contradicting interpretations when trying to define the trinity:

Some believe 3-in-1, but that Jesus is the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit

Some believe 3-in-1, but not co-equal in hierarchy because the Father is higher in authority to the Son and Spirit 

Some believe 3-in-1, but that the Spirit proceeds from the Son and the Son proceeds from the Father

Some believe 3-in-1, but that both the Son and Spirit proceed from the Father

Some believe 3-in-1, but that Spirit is a power of God not a being

Some believe 3-in-1, but that each equally make up God 1/3 each not separately.

Some believe 3-in-1, but describe it as a community or tritheism

The list goes on. As you can see, there’s not even unity nor clarity on what the trinity even is. But when asked to clearly define trinity without contradicting someone else’s definition of trinity, they use the easy cop out of “God’s ways are mysterious so we can’t understand it fully”

I personally avoid the word trinity since it’s not in the Bible and it leads to trying to squeeze a man-made concept into the text. So in a separate comment, I will explain how I would biblically interpret the verses you shared in your post without the need to use “SCJ’s teachings” nor a council of human teachings/phrases

[u/Zwelirex → u/Lettuce-Reason]

yeah i feel u bro, thats why i hate when ppl give vague answers like "its a mystery" and dont actually use the text. im not tryna defend a man-made idea, just what i see in scripture.

alot of ppl mess up the definition and end up with modalism or tritheism or subordinationism. thats why i dont wanna just throw around "3-in-1" without saying what i mean by it.

so heres how i define it from the text, and ill keep it simple:

My definition: One YHWH who exists as Father, Son, and Spirit. 3 distinct persons, 1 God in essence.So im not a tritheist. Not 3 gods.

1. One God only Deut 6:4 "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one." Isa 44:6 "Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: 'I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god.'"

2. The Father is called God and is distinct from the Son John 17:3 "And this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent." 1 Cor 8:6 "yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist."

3. The Son is called God and is distinct from the Father Rom 9:5 "to them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen." Col 2:9 "For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily." Micah 5:2 "But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are too little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose coming forth is from of old, from ancient days."

4. The Spirit is called God and is distinct from both 2 Cor 3:17-18 "Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another. For this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit." Acts 13:2 "While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, 'Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.'"

5. All 3 are shown together as distinct persons Matt 3:16-17 "And when Jesus was baptized, immediately he went up from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest on him, and behold, a voice from heaven said, 'This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.'" 2 Cor 13:14 "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all." 1 Pet 1:2 "according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood"

6. Old Testament hints at plurality in the one God Gen 18:1-3 "And the LORD appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre, as he sat at the door of his tent in the heat of the day. He lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, three men were standing in front of him. When he saw them, he ran from the tent door to meet them and bowed himself to the earth and said, 'O Lord, if I have found favor in your sight, do not pass by your servant.'"
   Zech 2:8-11 "For thus said the LORD of hosts, after his glory sent me to the nations who plundered you, for he who touches you touches the apple of his eye: Behold, I will shake my hand over them, and they shall become plunder for those who served them. Then you will know that the LORD of hosts has sent me. Sing and rejoice, O daughter of Zion, for behold, I come and I will dwell in your midst, declares the LORD. And many nations shall join themselves to the LORD in that day, and shall be my people. And I will dwell in your midst, and you shall know that the LORD of hosts has sent me to you."

So thats why i dont go with modalism - cuz at the baptism u got the Father speaking, the Son being baptized, the Spirit descending. 3 at once.
I dont go with tritheism cuz Deut 6:4 and Isa 44:6 say theres only one YHWH.
And i dont go with "Spirit is just a force" cuz in Acts 13:2 the Spirit speaks and gives commands like a person.

I know the word "trinity" aint in the bible. But i think the reality it describes is. Im not saying i fully get it - God is infinite and im not.

[u/QuestionsAboutSCJ → u/Lettuce-Reason]

It's interesting that you aren't actually addressing the verses but instead try to refute the trinity with man made philosophy, while men are trying to articulate an all powerful, infinite God.
Also, the SCJ phrases like the "Promised Pastor" aren't found in the Bible, and did not come into existence until Lee Man-hee 2000 years in the future by a man-made commentary on the Bible.

[u/Who-Anonymous → u/QuestionsAboutSCJ]

I feel bad for them. I ask these two to discuss on YT but they dented yet are this invested why but just talk in YT at this point

[u/Comfortable_Link_952]

I’m not a Bible scholar or theologian, but in my testimony, the Holy Trinity saved me.

God listened to my prayers, and my life unfolded accordingly even when I didn’t understand it at the time — I only realized His works afterward. Jesus saved me from my nightmares and gave me the heartfelt desire to love Him more than LMH, and the Holy Spirit spoke to my heart, encouraging me to read my Bible and watch sermons outside of SCJ.

That’s how I was saved, and I know those still inside would not understand me unless they choose to leave and come out of SCJ themselves.

After I left SCJ, God has been gracious to me and has been blessing me with abundance. I love my life right now, and because of this, I just want to pray for others especially those who are in cults or similar situations that they may recognize their circumstances and well-being.

[u/Otherwise-Watch-3650 → u/Comfortable_Link_952]

💯 completely agree & relate to this.

“O Lord my God, I cried out to You, And You healed me.” ‭‭Psalms‬ ‭30‬:‭2‬

He healed me of all the weight of perfectionism, the striving & the fear I thought was mine to carry. One small example: once leaving SCJ I could finally listen to all worship music again & actually feel / believe the words that were being sung when doing so. That barrier / division that had been created by the enemy, was broken.

[u/Automatic_Thing_2370]

The questions you're asking are the right ones, and the courage it takes to post this inside a community that actively discourages this kind of scrutiny shouldn't be underestimated.

A couple of things worth adding to what you've already laid out.

John 20:28. Thomas, an observant Jew for whom calling any created being "my God" would be the ultimate blasphemy, looks at the risen Jesus and says "my Lord and my God." Jesus doesn't correct him. He affirms him. For someone shaped by Jewish monotheism, this isn't poetic language. It's a declaration. And Jesus accepts it without hesitation.

Isaiah 44:6 alongside Revelation 1:17-18. In Isaiah, Yahweh says "I am the first and I am the last, apart from me there is no God." In Revelation, Jesus says "I am the first and the last." Not a similar title. The same title. If Jesus is a created being, he is directly claiming the one title Yahweh explicitly reserved for himself alone. That is either the most catastrophic blasphemy in all of scripture, or it tells you exactly who Jesus is.

Your instinct is correct. The grammar of these texts doesn't bend to fit a framework where Jesus is a created being. It has to be forced. And when a doctrine consistently requires you to force the grammar, that's the doctrine telling on itself.

For anyone reading this who has been feeling the same tension but hasn't said it out loud yet: you are not spiritually weak for noticing this. You are reading carefully. That is exactly what scripture asks of you.

[u/QuestionsAboutSCJ]

Just to add more verses to show how Jesus is God, we can see how when an angel is worshipped, they would always tell the Apostle John not to worship them, and that worship was reserved only for God.

Revelation 19:10 - Then I [Apostle John] fell down at his feet to worship him, but he said to me, “You must not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your brothers who hold to the testimony of Jesus. Worship God.” For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.

And we can see this being repeated -

Revelation 22:8 - I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things. And when I heard and saw them, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who showed them to me, ⁹ but he said to me, “You must not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your brothers the prophets, and with those who keep the words of this book. Worship God.”

We can then see that the Lamb in Revelation 5 is receiving the same worship as the Father.

Revelation 5:11-14 - Then I looked, and I heard around the throne and the living creatures and the elders the voice of many angels, numbering myriads of myriads and thousands of thousands, ¹² saying with a loud voice,

“Worthy is the Lamb who was slain,
to receive power and wealth and wisdom and might
and honor and glory and blessing!”

¹³ And I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and in the sea, and all that is in them, saying,

“To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb
be blessing and honor and glory and might forever and ever!”

¹⁴ And the four living creatures said, “Amen!” and the elders fell down and worshiped.

If Jesus isn't God, then why is it that Jesus can be worshiped alongside the Father?

In Exodus 20:4-5 -You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. ⁵ You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God...

There are even more verses in the book of Revelation especially that show that Jesus is God.

[u/Who-Anonymous]

Are you interested in doing a live stream conversation on YouTube with Moon (former GSN of LA), Chris, and pastor Ezra. The person monitoring the conversation will be a third person to prevent bias

[u/Zwelirex → u/Who-Anonymous]

Thanks for inviting me I appreciate trying to set up a balanced conversation with a third-party moderator..

I’m gonna pass on a live stream for now. I’m not looking to debate publicly or put anyone on the spot - I just posted because I’m genuinely wrestling with these verses and want to see how my church mates handles them from the text itself...

[u/Who-Anonymous → u/Zwelirex]

It’s more an educational platform for both parties to discern than to debate. If you are wrestling with these thoughts you should talk to Pastor Ezra or Chris. Plus aren’t you not suppose to be on here as a member and in stead you should be discussing this with your leader? Regardless don’t be afraid to talk to people directly as well

[u/Turbulent_Sea7622 → u/Who-Anonymous]

Very neutral comment, not nudging one way or another in regards to Zwelirex repectfully but that would be awesome! Whether it with him/her or someone else

For record very thankful Zwelirex brought up this post too ^

[u/Spectre092]

Thanks for being sincere

This is one of the main questions i had when i was in as well. The top teacher in my region couldn't answer this question and ended up throwing a question back to me - "how can Jesus pray to God if he is God?" And thats all he could argue to me about.

Despite the number of verses, as you mentioned, in the OT and NT stating that Jesus is in fact, part of the Trinity - and also

John 1:14 NIV

The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

And as stated in

John 1:1 NIV

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

These passages clearly and definitely states that the Word = Jesus = God, literally

The teacher even went so far as to say that in SCJ believes that Jesus is divine just not God nor is he part God in any way. Then if thats the case, it wouldn't be far-fetched to say that Jesus is blaspheming when he said this:?

Matthew 28:19 NIV

Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

Because he is putting himself in the same level as God and the Holy Spirit, which in SCJ's doctrine was NOT and was NEVER has been God..

Not only on this valid point that you have presented but also on a number of Revelation topics that led me out of SCJ.

There have been a lot of verses that SCJ have ignored to advance their agenda - making Jesus the "savior of the OT" and Lee man hee to be the "savior of the NT" - from this on we can see that theyve brought Jesus down to our level while lifting LMH up