Featured The Trinity

Can you really die that Christ stands as the representative of man in regards to Atonement?

This statement is a little vague, so I apologize if you are not saying He was not.

"Multitudinous Son of Man?"

It is the Alpha and Omega, Trevor, the First and the Last...that speaks in both.

It is God speaking.

Here we see Him speak again:


Revelation 22:10-13

King James Version (KJV)

10 And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand.

11 He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.

12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.

13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.


Who is coming, Trevor?

Agreed, God is Eternal, He cannot die.

Unless He manifests in physical, human flesh for that purpose.


Philippians 2:5-8

King James Version (KJV)


4 Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others.

5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:

6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

Now you correct me if I am wrong, but I am going to say that your view forces you to view this as Christ in physical form only, meaning that the Mind of Christ in looking on the things of others applies to after He was born.

Am I right?

But it is clear that this Mind was prior to the Incarnation, because Christ did not think it was robbery to be equal with God after He was born.

Christ did not make Himself of no reputation after He was born.

Christ did not take upon Himself the form of a servant after He was born.

Christ was not made in the likeness of men after He was born.

Christ was not found in fashion as a man after He was born.


We could make an application and say "Sure Christ made Himself of no reputation after He was born, and we might even stretch He took upon Himself the form of a servant after He was born, but it will not explain the rest of the statement.

This show's the pre-existence of Christ, my friend.

The writer of Hebrews quotes this Psalm with an application to Christ:


Hebrews 2:6-9

King James Version (KJV)

6 But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man that thou visitest him?

7 Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:

8 Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him.

9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.


And just as I said in an earlier post...we have to recognize the Incarnation in this discussion. If that is left out, then both sides will make an error that will hinder the discussion. No-one denies that Christ has a point in time when He came into the world. The point to discuss is...

...His pre-existence prior to the Incarnation. And we see that in numerous places, Scripture identifying Him as the Creator Himself.

We see that in Hebrews as well:


Hebrews 1:7-13

King James Version (KJV)

7 And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.

8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:

11 They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment;

12 And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.

13 But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?


This is a conversation in which the Father speaks unto the Son.

He is the Creator, as we saw in other passages.

Now you have been given many proof-texts as to why we see God as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost (although I don't think much has been said about the Comforter, on my part in this discussion, other than the fact that we see Father, Son, and Holy Ghost all said to come to indwell the believer (which has received no response either)).

Which would you say stands as a better defense of Doctrinal Position?

You basically imply that this has not been something you started studying until later in life, right? Am I remembering that correctly? Would you cede the point that sometime we can embrace a position and then seek to proof-text it? Do you think we are doing that? You?

Or are there valid arguments that should be acknowledged?

As I said, indoctrination is one of the hardest things we will combat in Doctrinal Discussion. It is up to you, if you are going to continue to deny the Deity of Christ, to address the positive presentations, as well as the negative address of the objections. The first step is recognizing the Deity of Christ. Or...

...denying it.

And the arguments you have presented so far, as well as neglect of addressing the "proofs" you feel deny His Deity, have been very weak. Not saying that to offend, my friend, just saying it because that is how I see it.


God bless.

 

Greetings again SovereignGrace,

I am not sure that I would use the term “created”. If we as parents have a child, do we use the term “created” when our child is conceived or born? Nevertheless I believe that Jesus is the Firstborn of the New Creation, not only in his conception, birth and life. A few references that speak of his beginnings, his humanity as God is his father and Mary his mother:
Psalm 8:5 (KJV): For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.
Matthew 1:20-21 (KJV): 20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. 21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
Luke 1:35 (KJV): And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
John 1:14 (KJV): And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

But the term creation and the Firstborn of the New Creation speaks especially of his resurrection as he is now the Immortal Son of God, and all others to be saved will eventually be given life and immortality through Jesus, the Son of God.
Revelation 3:14 (KJV): And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;

Kind regards
Trevor

 

Yep.

 

Hello Trevor, would you define "New Creation" and provide the Scriptural basis to your definition?

Thanks.


God bless.

 

Greetings again Darrell, (Part 1 of 2)

I appreciate your response. I have not yet responded to John 1, Colossians 1:12-17 and Ephesians 3:8-9. Could I suggest that throughout our discussion, whenever Jesus claims some relationship with God the Father or when he claims some Divine attribute or function, then the Trinitarian uses this to claim that Jesus is God, or that Jesus is God the Son. An example: Jesus is the Good Shepherd John 10, Yahweh is my shepherd Psalm 23, and hence Jesus is God.

You have not yet stated who is the Being with the Name Yahweh in the Garden in Genesis 3 and who it is in the similar appearance to Abraham. Correct me if I am wrong, but I assume you are suggesting that both of these appearances is not God the Father who is seated on his throne in heaven, but to your mind must of necessity be God the Son, or the pre-incarnate Jesus in some form of manifestation.

Where we differ here is that the actual title “God” (Elohim) IS used for the Judges who acted on behalf of God. Yes they were in a place of power and some of them abused this responsibility. Yes, I recognise that you refuse to agree with this, because the Trinitarian wants to reserve any Divine title or function in the OT to Jesus only. Hence your questions concerning Genesis 3 and 18.

By calling Judges “God” (Elohim) “does not equate them to God” in the sense that you seem to be saying. Yes, they were men whom God gave a Divine title and a Divine responsibility. You are using the same logic that you apply in many NT passages in an attempt to prove the Trinity. The Psalm actually says:
Psalm82:6 (KJV): I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
The Psalmist alone does not introduce a new way of describing the Judges, neither is it sarcasm. It is recalling the historical record in Exodus, that when the people were to come for judgement, then they were to come before God (Elohim), and thus both this Psalm and Jesus state very clearly that these Judges “were called gods” or “Elohim”. Please note that the word “Elohim” is a plural word, usually translated by the singular word in English “God”. To claim that the Judges could in any way be considered equal with God because of this remarkable title or description placed upon them is ridiculaous. Neither does the use of this title necessitate this deduction. That is a Trinitarian way of thinking.

First of all I cannot accept your view of the Incarnation. It was the Word that became flesh, not the pre-incarnate Jesus or God the Son. Your “conclusion” is not altogether complete or correct, as Jesus is claiming in John 10:30-36 to be “The Son of God”, not “just a man”. Perhaps you may feel that you have answered this, but why did Jesus introduce this example of the Judges as an answer to their assessment and accusation? (If I have overlooked your “valid” answer to this please suggest the Post #).

My own answer is that Jesus uses the example of the Judges to explain his own position, as in some respects they are parallel. He has been specially chosen, he was working God’s miracles, he has been sanctified, that is specially set apart and made holy, and he has been sent, that is to do God’s will and fulfil His purpose of saving mankind.

But Jesus did not simply select a few of the verses in Exodus to discuss the Judges. He selected Psalm 82 where God is about to intervene to judge the Judges because they were wicked. Jesus could have elaborated, but the Sanhedrin had sat, they had sought to arrest Jesus, but the hardened guards had returned and said, “Never man spake like this man”. Nicodemus had spoken against the Sanhedrin’s rejection of Jesus and had been silenced. After the Feast of Tabernacles they went to their own homes, having never kept the feast, while Jesus whose dwelling was continually with God, returned to pray and rest in the garden. Possibly here later in John 10, many of the Sanhedrin would have heard his use of Psalm 82 and realised he was speaking of their impending judgement by God, rousing their anger instead of repentance. While Nicodemus would have taken the final step in his mind of full allegiance to Christ. Notice the double use of “Elohim”, showing its application to the wicked Judges:
Psalm82:1 (KJV): God(Elohim) standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods(Elohim).

Kind regards
Trevor

 

Greetings again Darrell, (Part 1 of 2)

I appreciate your response. I have not yet responded to John 1, Colossians 1:12-17 and Ephesians 3:8-9. Could I suggest that throughout our discussion, whenever Jesus claims some relationship with God the Father or when he claims some Divine attribute or function, then the Trinitarian uses this to claim that Jesus is God, or that Jesus is God the Son. An example: Jesus is the Good Shepherd John 10, Yahweh is my shepherd Psalm 23, and hence Jesus is God.

You have not yet stated who is the Being with the Name Yahweh in the Garden in Genesis 3 and who it is in the similar appearance to Abraham. Correct me if I am wrong, but I assume you are suggesting that both of these appearances is not God the Father who is seated on his throne in heaven, but to your mind must of necessity be God the Son, or the pre-incarnate Jesus in some form of manifestation.

Where we differ here is that the actual title “God” (Elohim) IS used for the Judges who acted on behalf of God. Yes they were in a place of power and some of them abused this responsibility. Yes, I recognise that you refuse to agree with this, because the Trinitarian wants to reserve any Divine title or function in the OT to Jesus only. Hence your questions concerning Genesis 3 and 18.

By calling Judges “God” (Elohim) “does not equate them to God” in the sense that you seem to be saying. Yes, they were men whom God gave a Divine title and a Divine responsibility. You are using the same logic that you apply in many NT passages in an attempt to prove the Trinity. The Psalm actually says:
Psalm82:6 (KJV): I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
The Psalmist alone does not introduce a new way of describing the Judges, neither is it sarcasm. It is recalling the historical record in Exodus, that when the people were to come for judgement, then they were to come before God (Elohim), and thus both this Psalm and Jesus state very clearly that these Judges “were called gods” or “Elohim”. Please note that the word “Elohim” is a plural word, usually translated by the singular word in English “God”. To claim that the Judges could in any way be considered equal with God because of this remarkable title or description placed upon them is ridiculaous. Neither does the use of this title necessitate this deduction. That is a Trinitarian way of thinking.

First of all I cannot accept your view of the Incarnation. It was the Word that became flesh, not the pre-incarnate Jesus or God the Son. Your “conclusion” is not altogether complete or correct, as Jesus is claiming in John 10:30-36 to be “The Son of God”, not “just a man”. Perhaps you may feel that you have answered this, but why did Jesus introduce this example of the Judges as an answer to their assessment and accusation? (If I have overlooked your “valid” answer to this please suggest the Post #).

My own answer is that Jesus uses the example of the Judges to explain his own position, as in some respects they are parallel. He has been specially chosen, he was working God’s miracles, he has been sanctified, that is specially set apart and made holy, and he has been sent, that is to do God’s will and fulfil His purpose of saving mankind.

But Jesus did not simply select a few of the verses in Exodus to discuss the Judges. He selected Psalm 82 where God is about to intervene to judge the Judges because they were wicked. Jesus could have elaborated, but the Sanhedrin had sat, they had sought to arrest Jesus, but the hardened guards had returned and said, “Never man spake like this man”. Nicodemus had spoken against the Sanhedrin’s rejection of Jesus and had been silenced. After the Feast of Tabernacles they went to their own homes, having never kept the feast, while Jesus whose dwelling was continually with God, returned to pray and rest in the garden. Possibly here later in John 10, many of the Sanhedrin would have heard his use of Psalm 82 and realised he was speaking of their impending judgement by God, rousing their anger instead of repentance. While Nicodemus would have taken the final step in his mind of full allegiance to Christ. Notice the double use of “Elohim”, showing its application to the wicked Judges:
Psalm82:1 (KJV): God(Elohim) standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods(Elohim).

Kind regards
Trevor

 

Greetings again Darrell, (Part 2 of 2)

The record does say it was an appearance of Yahweh, but Abraham saw “three men”.
Genesis18:1-2 (KJV): 1 And the LORD appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day; 2 And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground,
Yes, specifically these three are then spoken of as one being with the title or Name Yahweh, and the other two are the two angels that went down to Sodom. But “Yahweh” stays behind and speaks to Abraham about the fate of Sodom.

Notice the progressive distinction between the three “men” and the one Being “Yahweh”:
Genesis18:9-10 (KJV): 9 And they said unto him, Where is Sarah thy wife? And he said, Behold, in the tent. 10 And he said, I will certainly return unto thee according to the time of life; and, lo, Sarah thy wife shall have a son. And Sarah heard it in the tent door, which was behind him.
Here is One Being who speaks and acts as if He were Yahweh Himself. He also negotiates with Abraham over how many “righteous” in the city of Sodom would be sufficient to spare it from destruction.

But could I ask, if this Being who speaks to Abraham is Yahweh Himself, God the Father or God the Son, why does this “Yahweh” rain fire from heaven from another Yahweh?
Genesis19:24 (KJV): Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;

I will give you my answer from another example.
Zechariah3:1-2 (KJV): 1 And he shewed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan standing at his right hand to resist him. 2 And the LORD said unto Satan, The LORD rebuke thee, O Satan; even the LORD that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee: is not this a brand plucked out of the fire?
Jude9 (KJV): Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.
The answer is that in Genesis 18 we have three angels, whose appearance was like men. Abraham realised they were angels and the principal amongst the three was possibly an Arch Angel, perhaps Michael. He had the authority to speak and act on Yahweh’s behalf, and thus the Scriptures attribute the Name Yahweh to him. But in the final outworking of events, it is Yahweh Himself, God the Father, that rained fire on Sodom, and it was Yahweh, God the Father that rebuked Satan with respect to the rebuilding of Jerusalem in the time of Zechariah.

The following is a few other examples where an Angel is spoken of as “God” (Elohim) and the record also uses the Name “Yahweh”.
Exodus3:2-8 (KJV): 2 And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed. 3 And Moses said, I will now turn aside, and see this great sight, why the bush is not burnt. 4 And when the LORD saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses. And he said, Here am I. 5 And he said, Draw not nigh hither: put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground. 6 Moreover he said, I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. And Moses hid his face; for he was afraid to look upon God. 7 And the LORD said, I have surely seen the affliction of my people which are in Egypt, and have heard their cry by reason of their taskmasters; for I know their sorrows; 8 And I am come down to deliver them out of the hand of the Egyptians, and to bring them up out of that land unto a good land and a large, unto a land flowing with milk and honey; unto the place of the Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Amorites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites.

Genesis32:24,30 (KJV): 24 And Jacob was left alone; and there wrestled a man with him until the breaking of the day. 30 And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved
Hosea12:3-5 (KJV): 3 He took his brother by the heel in the womb, and by his strength he had power with God: 4 Yea, he had power over the angel, and prevailed: he wept, and made supplication unto him: he found him in Bethel, and there he spake with us; 5 Even the LORD God of hosts; the LORD is his memorial.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

This is pretty much a reiteration of what has already been discussed, and very little that I said is commented on, so rather than keep this conversation going in circles, I will await your response to the rest of what has been said.


God bless.

 

I will address these two posts in detail once you have addressed the other points made. So far you have addressed only a portion of what has been discussed.

Again, Genesis 18 does not say an Angel was speaking to Abraham, but God Himself.

I will say in regards to this...

...which does not impact who is speaking with Abraham in ch.18 (nor change the fact that it is Jehovah, and that the Angels are clearly identified), that I am not sure why you would see this as relevant to the Lord raining judgment. Not sure how you see that denies God manifesting to Abraham in physical form.

In regards to seeing "men," this is from a temporal perspective, even as this...


Daniel 3:23-25

King James Version (KJV)

23 And these three men, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, fell down bound into the midst of the burning fiery furnace.

24 Then Nebuchadnezzar the king was astonished, and rose up in haste, and spake, and said unto his counsellors, Did not we cast three men bound into the midst of the fire? They answered and said unto the king, True, O king.

25 He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.


...refers to men. Was it four men in there?

Are the two men referred to here...


Luke 24

King James Version (KJV)

24 Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them.

2 And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre.

3 And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus.

4 And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments:

5 And as they were afraid, and bowed down their faces to the earth, they said unto them, Why seek ye the living among the dead?


...two men?

Again, you are being very selective in what you want to address, so I will wait until you begin addressing everything. Until you do that, you make it clear you have no intention of letting the Word of God speak. You say you disagree with my view of the Incarnation, but the truth is that you are disagreeing with Scripture's view. Scripture makes it clear that the Son of God pre-existed the Incarnation, and you have yet to address those points raised in regards to that.

So go back and address the posts in more detail, and I will resume the conversation, I can't keep addressing the same points over and over.


God bless.

 

I will just throw this in for free: It is the Lord, God, Who rained the fire from God, lol. This makes it pretty clear Who does this. It doesn't impact our belief that God is One.

It wouldn't be much different than saying "Trevor explained his doctrine on the forum the doctrine of Trevor."


God bless.

 

γὰρ ἐν αὐτῇ γεννηθὲν, ἐκ Πνεύματός ἐστιν ἁγίου

Could someone translate the above from Matt 1:20 TR and also GNT .

Did, αὐτῇ , contribute anything to what was being, γεννηθὲν,?

ἐστιν ἁγίου , Who is being referenced?

On the Blue Letter Bible web page you have 14 English translations. Of Matt 1:20:
1 ends with, the Holy Ghost
1 ends with, the Ruach HaKodesh.
12 end with, the Holy Spirit

Why is the word, "the," in all those u

 

Greetings again Martin and Darrell,

Welcome back to your thread. I have had some editing problems. Also for some reason I ended up with duplicate Posts #126 and 127.

I am not willing to lightly dismiss your deduction based upon the “the famous Granville Sharp rule”. Have you compared the next verse where Jesus is spoken of as separate from God?
2 Peter 1:2 (KJV): Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord,

Nevertheless, yes Jesus is my Lord and Saviour and he is also my God and Saviour. I can agree with Thomas:
John 20:28 (KJV): And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
For my explanation of the Biblical meaning of the word “God” in Scripture please consider Post # 127. Please note that the title “God” is used for both Angels and Judges.

I understand that the term “The Son of God” in v31 represents a greater status than the word “God” here in v28. As The Son of God, Jesus is higher than both Angels and Judges.
John 20:30-31 (KJV): 30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: 31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

Also if you like I could also show the development of the term “Lord” and “LORD” (Yahweh) in the OT and NT, especially as it is applied firstly to God the Father, and then to our Lord Jesus Christ. There are many passages that show a distinction, especially relevant is Psalm 110:1. I believe the term “Lord” and “LORD” (Yahweh) are applied to Jesus in some contexts.

Why I repeated some material was an attempt to explain John 10:30-36 in greater detail, as we seemed to have different opinions on this. I thought my previous attempts may not have been easy to understand. It appears that this did not improve the situation.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

And if you had actually addressed what I said, rather than try to further your defense of the same argument, you would have not been able to even bring the argument you bring in that post.

You say...

I did:

I went on to say...

There is simply no way you can have considered the post and then ask...

No assumption is needed, Trevor, it is clearly stated several times...

Now address the rest of what I have said, lol.

And when you do, then we can actually progress. It is just like in the other thread where you denied the sacrifices of the Old Testament brought about atonement and remission of sins. You are disagreeing with the view but you will not actually address it. This is a familiar tactic for a lot of people, who instead of addressing that which shows their position weak, go on to present another argument without addressing those which have been given to deny their view. You would need to back up and address what you have left out, and if you would just do that, my friend, you would begin to see the weakness of your position.

Scripture teaches clearly that Christ is God, He is the Creator, and He is the Jehovah God of the Old Testament. He is One, yet we see Him as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. It is an undeniable Bible Doctrine and attempts to remove it from the Books of the Bible always fail.

You are trying to present an argument that Angels and Judges, like Christ, are simply representatives of God. That is true in many cases, however, not one of them are ever called Jehovah God. Not one of them are ever placed in a context as the Son of God is. None of them are ever made equal to God and the Son is. None of them are ever said to have veiled their glory in flesh for the purpose of the prophesied "God with Us."

My time here on the forum is drawing to a close, and as I said before, at this point in time you have displayed an unwillingness to have fruitful discussion. I hope that changes for you, my friend, really. But you are going to have to start dealing with all of the points raised, rather than clinging to a few you think support your view. Until you engage in thorough address of the issues, you will be like the majority, holding to views which have no true Biblical support.


God bless.

 

To deny the trinity is to deny who God is. It is rebellion. The word of God clearly teaches it and if you can't agree with it, it's because you aren't born again. The bible is spiritually discerned. You can't understand it unless you are born of the spirit of God.

 

Much so, thank you.

 

Greetings again Martin,

I am reasonably satisfied with what I have presented on this thread, and the other that you participated in, and an earlier thread on the “Trinity” started by steaver well over a year ago. I presented in that earlier thread over a year ago more detail such as the birth and development of Jesus, and some more aspects on the Yahweh Name and the development and fulfillment of this Yahweh Name in Jesus. Yes I am happy to have a rest from this thread, especially as it is your thread and because you feel so strongly about my failure to accept your view and Darrell’s. To conclude, I believe that there is One God the Father, and that our Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

Kind regards
Trevor