Why the Trinity is a False Doctrine

[7xlightray]

This has nothing to do with the doctrine of the Trinity.

Of course it does...

Mark 13:32 (KJV) But of that day and that hour knoweth no man (this is the word G3762 - oudeis – no one, nothing, not the word G444 – anthrōpos – human being, man), no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.

Zechariah 14:7 (KJV) But it shall be one day which shall be known to the LORD(God – Yhvh is not sharing when this day is. Jesus made sure those that have ears to hear, heard).

Jesus cannot be the Yhvh if he does not know the day, unless you show O/T scripture as to why Yhvh the Son did not know, or anyone in that day could have said to Jesus, you can't be God then if you don't know. Jesus whould have to have an answer to that.

 

[7xlightray]

The knowledge is available to Him as God; however, since He is also fully Man, it is not part of the sum of human knowledge.

I don't want mans explanation, I want scripture.
Jesus would have needed O/T scripture to explain this away, or he would not have had a leg to stand on, if he was stating he was God - Yhvh.

 

[nomadictheist]

On the other hand, we can't think of something and then speak it into being. God can.

God breathed into Adam the breath of life. That breath of life came from God, and that same breath will return to Him, because it is His, Yet Adam is not God. That breath of life was with God, and was God, then He gave it to Adam. Adam died, and that breath of life returned to God.

When God made Christ, God made him to be the fullness of Himself. Himself manifested in flesh, but that does not make Jesus God. Jesus is the image of God. If you are the image of something, you cant be that something, else you would be that something, not an image of it. We will be made in the image of Christ. Does that mean we will be Christ? No, that is not what that means. It means we will be just like him. Jesus was just like God, but he is not God.

Else, Jesus would have said, We are the only true God, instead of You are the only true God.

Not true. Jesus was affirming the Oneness of God when He said that. Scripture must be interpreted as a whole.

The first hint that God, though One God, is more than one person is in the creation, where God said "let us make man in our own image." And then created man in his own image.

Tell me, how can a being be all the fullness of a being and not be that same being, or another of the same status? All the fullness literally means the entirety of the existence of.

For the rest, I don't really need to go back and repeat all the verses I've already cited that show that Jesus is God. I believe the Bible, and will not accept a human idea conceived to make God's revealed truth more palatable to our finite understanding. I can accept that there are things that are beyond my understanding. Such as God's thoughts and God's ways (God's thoughts are higher than our thoughts and His ways are higher than our ways). And the nature of God.

And of course, as we've covered before, Jesus Himself took the claim "before Abraham was, I AM."

 

[nomadictheist]

I think you are confusing things. I was in no way trying to suggest that if you think of a sun you are a sun, that would be a bit ridiculous. Only just a bit. Your getting way to literal. You don't actually plant a seed in the ground when you share the Gospel do you? No, of course not! ...right? We wont get anywhere, if we start reasoning and arguing in this fashion.

If your thoughts are not you, then how could you be judged for even what you think?

Because your thoughts are an expression of what's in your heart. It is by the heart that we are judged, as Christ Himself says. It is the heart that makes us unclean.

Now, you've constructed an entire theology out of the idea that Jesus is nothing more than a word from God's mouth. You've constructed this based on your notion that "the word" became a tree, the earth, the sun, the moon, and whatever else was created. There is no biblical foundation for this. In fact, to the contrary, the Bible says that "through Him all things were made, and without Him nothing was made that was made." If the word were indeed becoming everything that God commanded to appear, then the Word would be the earth, the sun, the moon, the stars, every beast of the earth, every plant of the ground, and every man that ever lived. But the word did become one thing: the word became flesh and dwelt among us.

The word was God. God doesn't change, and that includes becoming a tree, the earth, the sun, the moon, the stars, or anything else besides God. God's thoughts are not God. God's word is not God. God's words are not God. But the Word is God.

"I tell you the truth, before Abraham was, I AM."

 

[Hoghead1]

I am a little puzzled where some of this thinking here is coming from. Yes, your thoughts are definitely you. They were created by you, are in you, and are part of you. If they are not "you," then I have no die what they are. Perhaps part of the problem here is hanging with the old substance-attribute dichotomy inherited b from Hellenic philosophy, especially Aristotle. The "real thing," the real you," is an underlying ,unchanging substratum and therefore different from the attributes, which are continually changing. Many philosophers, however, have dropped this notion. I don't think it applicable to the Bible. Also, the not9ion that God doesn't change is not biblical. In the Bible, there are about 100 passages that speak of God as changing. For example, Gen. 6:6, Hosea 11:9, etc. The notion of God as wholly immutable came from the influx of Hellenic philosophy, not Scripture.

 

[Harfelugan]

I would not put to much faith in our fathers [2 Timothy 1:15...all they which are in Asia be turned away from me]. O/T scriptural reasons of the Church for this as well, which I wont get into right now.

Paul is writing to Timothy in Ephesus, which is in Asia. Apparently you have mistranslated another verse. Paul is speaking of those who were with him in Asia when he was arrested. They turned away from him as the disciples turned away from Christ at his arrest. And look how well the disciples turned out.

1 John 2:18

(KJV) Little children, it is the last time (G5610 - hōra - hour): and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time (G5610 - hōra – hour (it is the last hour now and has been since John wrote this letter)).

The said antichrists are to : Deny the incarnation,(4:2)
: Deny that Jesus is the divine Christ,(2:22) This is where you fall.
: They are liars,(2:22)
: They deny the Father,(2:22)
: They don't have the Father,(2:23)
: They left the Church because they had nothing in common with believers,(2:19)
These were the early Gnostics, not recognized as the Church and irrelevant to this thread.​

And all the disciples warning that men already have started bring in false doctrines, and Judes warning verses 3,4, that those that the apostle warned about verses 17,18 are here. Notice Jude states it is the last time in verse 18. How quickly do you think it would have gotten worse, after they passed on.

The false teachers were denying Christ as Lord and bringing in immorality. Yes these are false teachings and they were not long identified as remaining in the Church. Looks like the apostles and brothers of Christ had things well under control, teaching the second generation of believers how to handle false doctrines. Since that time the Church has been ferreting out false teachers and doctrines ever since.

Now, to put this into perspective, after the first 60 years, after the times apostles, add another 60 years, then another 60 years, then another 60 years, then add another 60 years, which brings us to about 330 AD. How bad do you think it would have gotten by then? Especially during the first 60 years of the apostles, things were already threatening. That really starts to put things into perspective.

Yes it does, the Church had been fending off false teachers and doctrines all that time and about 330 A.D. they rejected the false teaching and teachers of the Arians. Looks like the Church was doing what it was told by the apostles and Paul.

 

[Harfelugan]

They are simply questions. You can answer them, or not.

All things came from God. The earth came from God. Is the earth God? No! Yet, it existed in the mind of God at one time. Christ existed in the mind of God, and came forth.

Your selection of words is poorly chosen, (came forth, "begotten). "Were created by", better fits what I think you're trying to imply. Let me know if I'm wrong. The created things originated in the mind of God as you said though. Christ is never said to have been in the mind of God as created things were. The Word was with God, the Word was God. Word, logos, is accurately translated "logic". More like the thought of God being expressed by creating those things that were created.

 

[Hoghead1]

It is generally assumed that the scant biblical references to the Antichrist, as in I Jn., referred to a group of early Christians who denied the humanity of Christ. The Arians denied the Deity of Christ. The Gnostics did also.

 

[nomadictheist]

I am a little puzzled where some of this thinking here is coming from. Yes, your thoughts are definitely you. They were created by you, are in you, and are part of you. If they are not "you," then I have no die what they are. Perhaps part of the problem here is hanging with the old substance-attribute dichotomy inherited b from Hellenic philosophy, especially Aristotle. The "real thing," the real you," is an underlying ,unchanging substratum and therefore different from the attributes, which are continually changing. Many philosophers, however, have dropped this notion. I don't think it applicable to the Bible. Also, the not9ion that God doesn't change is not biblical. In the Bible, there are about 100 passages that speak of God as changing. For example, Gen. 6:6, Hosea 11:9, etc. The notion of God as wholly immutable came from the influx of Hellenic philosophy, not Scripture.

While God may change the way that He works in the world, the Bible does say that God Himself does not change:

""For I, the LORD, do not change; therefore you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed."" (Malachi 3:6)

""Of old You founded the earth, And the heavens are the work of Your hands. "Even they will perish, but You endure; And all of them will wear out like a garment; Like clothing You will change them and they will be changed. "But You are the same, And Your years will not come to an end."" (Psalm 102:25-27)


Furthermore, the idea that your thoughts are you is not biblical at all. Any reference to the "true self" in the Bible refers to the "heart," see, for example, Mark 7:21:
"For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery,"

This is one of many verses in the Bible, including the Old Testament, that point to the heart (not in a scientific, physical sense, but in the sense that "heart" was the word used to describe the core of the human being in the Bible) as the essence of mankind. I believe what is written in the Bible.

So I am my heart - that is the core of my being. I am not a physical body - I know that this will be discarded when I die, or when Christ returns, whichever occurs first. I am not my thoughts - I know from the Bible that these proceed from my heart, just as words, both good and evil, proceed from my heart.

 

[7xlightray]

Paul is writing to Timothy in Ephesus, which is in Asia. Apparently you have mistranslated another verse. Paul is speaking of those who were with him in Asia when he was arrested. They turned away from him as the disciples turned away from Christ at his arrest. And look how well the disciples turned out.

Mistranslated another verse? No, I was quoting and stating scripture 2 Timothy 1:15 This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me.

Sometimes “all” in scripture does not necessarily mean every single person. I can't interpret every single word in every single verse, these post are long enough.

Nor do I believe it was every single believer, nor every single elder either. In fact I am absolutely certain of it, the Bible tells us how they were doing shortly after, which I will get to in my next post.

 

[7xlightray]

They turned away from him as the disciples turned away from Christ at his arrest. And look how well the disciples turned out.

The false teachers were denying Christ as Lord and bringing in immorality. Yes these are false teachings and they were not long identified as remaining in the Church. Looks like the apostles and brothers of Christ had things well under control, teaching the second generation of believers how to handle false doctrines. Since that time the Church has been ferreting out false teachers and doctrines ever since.

Yes it does, the Church had been fending off false teachers and doctrines all that time and about 330 A.D. they rejected the false teaching and teachers of the Arians. Looks like the Church was doing what it was told by the apostles and Paul.

What picture does scripture give of how it was going for Asia, after Paul?

First, Paul called for and warned the Ephesian elders Acts 20:17,18,29,30, saying that he knows, that after his departing shall grievous wolves enter in among them, not sparing the flock. Also of their own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Notice it is not maybe, or your going to get it straightened out, he does not offer them that hope, instead it's certain, it's going to happen. If the elders go off into false doctrine, where does that leave the congregation? If the elders leave the way, that has a major impact on the church. This seems to be the reason Paul is writing to Timothy, in fear Timothy my be swaying as well, and trying to encourage him.

So, did it all turn out rosy as you state for those in Asia, or did Paul know what he was talking about? Did they turn it around and get it right, after Pauls warning?

The answer to that is in Revelation ch.2, 3, to the seven churches in Asia. Does not sound so rosy to me, in fact sounds rather dire after only a short time. Depending on your dating of these letters 2 Timothy, and Revelation, could be between a few years to about 30 years. I do want to point this out though, doctrine of Balaam, and Jezebel, to eat things sacrificed to idols (nothing wrong with eating things sacrificed to idols, as long as it does not cause our brother to stumble). I would suggest turning to Jezebels table and see what she's serving in 1 Kings 18:19-21, to see what this is all about, for those that have understanding.

I absolutely will have to disagree, that the truth won out, from what scripture has to teach, both from N/T and O/T. Not to mention history itself.

 

[Commander Xenophon]

I am a little puzzled where some of this thinking here is coming from. Yes, your thoughts are definitely you. They were created by you, are in you, and are part of you. If they are not "you," then I have no die what they are. Perhaps part of the problem here is hanging with the old substance-attribute dichotomy inherited b from Hellenic philosophy, especially Aristotle. The "real thing," the real you," is an underlying ,unchanging substratum and therefore different from the attributes, which are continually changing. Many philosophers, however, have dropped this notion. I don't think it applicable to the Bible. Also, the not9ion that God doesn't change is not biblical. In the Bible, there are about 100 passages that speak of God as changing. For example, Gen. 6:6, Hosea 11:9, etc. The notion of God as wholly immutable came from the influx of Hellenic philosophy, not Scripture.

"God is the same, yesterday, today and tomorrow." Sounds immutable to me.

 

[7xlightray]

Proverbs 23:7 KJV “For as he thinks in his heart, so is he.”
Proverbs 23:7 ASV For as he thinketh within himself, so is he: Eat and drink, saith he to thee; But his heart is not with thee.

In other words the real you is inside, what we think.


Where else but in your mind, would you reason?
Where else but in your mind, would you say to yourself my lord delayeth?

Matthew 24:48 But and if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming
Mark 2:6 But there was certain of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts
Mark 7:21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries,

Same word in all three verses G2588 – kardias - the heart; mind, character, inner self, will, intention, center.

 

[Harfelugan]

Mistranslated another verse? No, I was quoting and stating scripture 2 Timothy 1:15 This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me.

Sometimes “all” in scripture does not necessarily mean every single person. I can't interpret every single word in every single verse, these post are long enough.

Nor do I believe it was every single believer, nor every single elder either. In fact I am absolutely certain of it, the Bible tells us how they were doing shortly after, which I will get to in my next post.

Please accept my apology then. The verses and what you wrote below it caused me to think the thoughts were connected.

 

[Harfelugan]

What picture does scripture give of how it was going for Asia, after Paul?

Actually anytime a church is being chastised in the N.T. the trouble makers are a small minority within the church. John and Paul both accuse individuals or sub-groups within a church. To take what they say as an implication of a corrupted church is an exaggeration.

First, Paul called for and warned the Ephesian elders Acts 20:17,18,29,30, saying that he knows, that after his departing shall grievous wolves enter in among them, not sparing the flock. Also of their own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Notice it is not maybe, or your going to get it straightened out, he does not offer them that hope, instead it's certain, it's going to happen. If the elders go off into false doctrine, where does that leave the congregation? If the elders leave the way, that has a major impact on the church. This seems to be the reason Paul is writing to Timothy, in fear Timothy my be swaying as well, and trying to encourage him.

Paul could give that same prophetic word to any church past or present. These dangers have always been imminent. This doesn't mean the churches will themselves fall into false doctrines. Only that they will be ravaged by them, and it continues to this day. And Ephesus fought it's way through it.

So, did it all turn out rosy as you state for those in Asia, or did Paul know what he was talking about? Did they turn it around and get it right, after Pauls warning?

The answer to that is in Revelation ch.2, 3, to the seven churches in Asia. Does not sound so rosy to me, in fact sounds rather dire after only a short time. Depending on your dating of these letters 2 Timothy, and Revelation, could be between a few years to about 30 years. I do want to point this out though, doctrine of Balaam, and Jezebel, to eat things sacrificed to idols (nothing wrong with eating things sacrificed to idols, as long as it does not cause our brother to stumble). I would suggest turning to Jezebels table and see what she's serving in 1 Kings 18:19-21, to see what this is all about, for those that have understanding.

Things went very well for the churches of Asia after Paul. So well that we refer to these churches as the Johanian community. The Apostle John is said to have lived out his last days there, writing his Gospel from there in 93 A.D.. Disciples of John from this area were placed like Timothy over these churches.

I absolutely will have to disagree, that the truth won out, from what scripture has to teach, both from N/T and O/T. Not to mention history itself.

Yet the scriptures you have presented are refutable or can be interpreted either way, so they provide no definitive proof. The best you can do is to suggest that if viewed from your perspective these verses could mean this. Your entire argument, such as it is, rests on 2 propositions. That there is no word Trinity found within scripture. And that since the Nicean council ratified the doctrine of the trinity at the beginning of the 4th. century it must have been originated in it's ratified form around the same time. And you have only given speculations on history that no one can reference to. There is no record of any of your accusations actually happening. Kind of like those lost cities in America the Mormons speak about.

You are earnest and sincere, but you will need something more than you have given to make a legitimate defensible argument.

 

[7xlightray]

Your selection of words is poorly chosen, (came forth, "begotten). "Were created by", better fits what I think you're trying to imply. Let me know if I'm wrong.

What I meant, was in the sense of He came forth from God and was sent. Came forth from God at his conception, and was sent after his baptism. John 8:42; John 17:8.

Christ is never said to have been in the mind of God as created things were.

Sure he was, a few passage I can think of off bat is...

1 Peter 1:20 Who verily was foreordained [which means: I know beforehand, foreknow] before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you.

And the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world Revelation 13:8.​

Even John 17:24. And then, we have the whole O/T written about Him, obviously God spent much time thinking about Christ.

The Word was with God, the Word was God. Word, logos, is accurately translated "logic". More like the thought of God being expressed by creating those things that were created.

Romans 1:20 - Creation reveals something about Him.

Maybe these will help also...

2 Peter 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word [logos] of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

John 10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word [logos] of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;​

What God thinks is God, and life (how God is, as in truth, love, and in how we are to live), and that became flesh, and dwelt in Christ. For it is our thoughts and desires that lead us to sin. God needed someone with His character to overcome sin. You don't have to be God to do that, you just need to be like Him, an image of Him, as those that will inherit eternal life; and sin and death forever done away with.

Gods word (Bible) reveals Him, what God the Father is like. Jesus is the word that reveals God the Father, what He is like, but in flesh.

 

[Hoghead1]

True, the Bible has many passages that speak of God as immutable. However, as I pointed out, it has many where God is understood to be changing, such as Gen. 6:6 and Hosea 11:9. Sometimes, these passages go together. Malachi 3 is a prime example. "I. the Lord, change not" means that God persists in fixity of purpose, and in that fixity will not vary. However, rather than denying al change in God, such a fixity requires change;for if we change in such-and-such a direction, then God will likewise change ("Return to me, that I might return to you."). Also, I still believe your thoughts are you. They are in you, they constitute your being, they are from you. I don't see anything more "you" than that. When I look at your rationale, it dos seem as though you are arguing the real "you" is some kind of permanent essence or substance underlying the changing world of thoughts and which is otherwise than they are. That, however, is largely Hellenic philosophy, not Scripture. there is no concept of substance or essence in Scripture.

 

[Harfelugan]

It is generally assumed that the scant biblical references to the Antichrist, as in I Jn., referred to a group of early Christians who denied the humanity of Christ. The Arians denied the Deity of Christ. The Gnostics did also.

The Gnostics professed the deity of Christ in a polytheistic sense. They despised the flesh of all life and refused to believe a deity would consent to corruption. See the gospel of Judas.

 

[Hoghead1]

Generally, the Gnostics had more or less of a totem pole of divinities, with the One, God, strictly speaking, at the top. Jesus and the Spirit are just lesser deities or divine beings, on of them being the OT God and creator. Jesus is seen as a kind shape changer, can appear any way he wants, and therefore is not at all understood to be human. Jesus is a God in a man suit.

 

[nomadictheist]

Proverbs 23:7 KJV “For as he thinks in his heart, so is he.”
Proverbs 23:7 ASV For as he thinketh within himself, so is he: Eat and drink, saith he to thee; But his heart is not with thee.

In other words the real you is inside, what we think.


Where else but in your mind, would you reason?
Where else but in your mind, would you say to yourself my lord delayeth?

Matthew 24:48 But and if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming
Mark 2:6 But there was certain of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts
Mark 7:21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries,

Same word in all three verses G2588 – kardias - the heart; mind, character, inner self, will, intention, center.

Exactly. As he thinks in his heart, so he is.

"Mind" is a poor understanding of the word "heart" as it is used throughout the Bible. Your "mind" is what you reason with, yes. But your heart goes deeper than reason. Your heart is the core of your emotions. Your desires, your wants, your will. That is why all things - including thoughts - proceed from the heart.

If you need to go outside the Bible for confirmation of this, just ask anybody who's ever done marketing. It's a marketing axiom. Capture the emotions, and the mind will follow. You don't make a sale based on logic. You make an emotional sale, and then give the consumer enough reasons to justify the purchase with logic.

The real you is inside. Yes. From the real you comes what you think. That's why the apostle Paul says he takes "every thought captive..."

But if you look deeper into the verses you can see the truth. As a man thinks... As a man purposes... It doesn't say a man is his thoughts or even that a man is what the thoughts of his heart are.

Let's look at some examples.

A man who invites you into his house and says "come, eat and drink," but says in his heart "this is encroaching on my valuable time" is selfish. He's more concerned about his time than about your needs. A man who gives money to the poor, but says in his heart "they are in that state because of their own sin" is proud. A man who takes a needy woman into his house, but thinks in his heart "when I have provided for her needs, I will have my way with her" is sexually immoral. As he thinks in his heart, so he is.

So we can plainly see the purpose of these verses. Men can do all kinds of "good deeds," but that doesn't make them a "good person." If their motivation - their desire, purpose, intent - behind the deeds is evil, then they are evil.