Why the Trinity is a False Doctrine

[civilwarbuff]

If the scriptures say that he cannot inhabit his own creation, then rest assured I will believe this.

Where does it say that?

 

[cgaviria]

Why is it sad that it is impossible to deceive? The fact that there is a Father, and there is a Son, and there is a Holy Spirit who are all attributed to being God is entirely Biblical. I have read your discussion and it made me shake my head and blink my eyes and mentally ask, honestly?

I am certainly not denying that there is indeed a Father, and a son, and holy spirit, yet the manner in which the doctrine of the trinity teaches it is false. If you do not wish to accept this, then so be it, carry on in your ways, as all things will come to the light anyways and those who continued believing in false things will be evident in that day.

 

[cgaviria]

Are you saying God breaks his word?

Why would I say that???? Can't you read dude?

 

[cgaviria]

Where does it say that?

It says it here, again, I have to constantly repeat myself to you guys like a parrot because you guys cannot really understand these things for one reason or another,

"But will God really dwell on earth? The heavens, even the highest heaven, cannot contain you. How much less this temple I have built! (1 Kings 8:27 [NIV])

 

[civilwarbuff]

Why would I say that???? Can't you read dude?

I can read "Dude" and here it is:

and he does not take pleasure in breaking his own word concerning himself.

Care to explain it "Dude"?
The way that is phrased you imply He has broken His word....yes or no? Something tells me I won't get a yes/no answer to this question.

 

[Llewelyn Stevenson]

Of course he can do whatever he pleases, and he does not take pleasure in breaking his own word concerning himself. If the scriptures say that he cannot inhabit his own creation, then rest assured I will believe this. You can, however believe whatever you want, because clearly you love understanding your own thing, and not what scriptures like these teach.

I don't think that is a very clever statement. God cannot do as he pleases because he has already stated what he will do. God is not changeable as we are. If he does anything other than what he has already stated he becomes a liar and the one thing I know the Bible says God cannot do is lie.

I missed your quote and reference, where does the Scripture say God cannot inhabit his own creation?

 

[cgaviria]

I don't think that is a very clever statement. God cannot do as he pleases because he has already stated what he will do. God is not changeable as we are. If he does anything other than what he has already stated he becomes a liar and the one thing I know the Bible says God cannot do is lie.

I missed your quote and reference, where does the Scripture say God cannot inhabit his own creation?

God does do as he pleases, which is why he states his will. The scripture referring to God cannot inhabit his own creation is,

"But will God really dwell on earth? The heavens, even the highest heaven, cannot contain you. How much less this temple I have built! (1 Kings 8:27 [NIV])

 

[Llewelyn Stevenson]

It says it here, again, I have to constantly repeat myself to you guys like a parrot because you guys cannot really understand these things for one reason or another,

Wow, you took a man's prayer request and turned it into a doctrine? Unbelievable.

 

[cgaviria]

Wow, you took a man's prayer request and turned it into a doctrine? Unbelievable.

So are you then suggesting this prayer is false? It is either true or false. I am saying that it is true, because it was spoken by a man having the wisdom of God. Yet you will say it is false because it is merely said in a prayer by this man?

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

To be begotten means to be created. You do not even know what you're saying. "The son who is eternally begotten" is nonsensical. The teaching of the trinity was not the original teaching of Jesus, nor even of the apostles, which is why there was even a group named the "Arians" from within the catholic church itself, that opposed this new teaching of the trinity that was promulgated and officialized at the council of Nicaea. And since then, there are known forgeries made onto the scriptures, which includes the Matthew 28:19 verse, which contradicts 7 other scriptures that baptisms are performed in the name of Jesus only, not the trinity, and then the existence of the 1 John 5:7 verse that exists in only a few 10th century manuscripts out of hundreds. The teaching of the trinity is indeed a false doctrine of the catholic church by which most of the world is deceived into believing.

Matthew 28:19 isn't a forgery. I don't think any scholar has ever argued that it was. There are variations in 1 John 5:7-8 which differ from other ancient manuscripts. While the Johannine Comma was most probably not in the original of 1 John it does appear known to some in the early Church, there is some evidence that Origen of Alexandria has alluded to the verse in his Scholium on Psalm 123. If your approach to the Bible is to simply disregard the parts that don't fit Arianism then that's your lens through which you see the text.

 

[civilwarbuff]

God has never broken his word, and he will never break his word

That is, I believe, the 1st straight up answer I have ever received from you....thank you for that.

hence why I said he does not take pleasure in breaking his word.

Wait....this seems to be a qualification....if he won't break his word why should he not take pleasure in breaking his word?....WOW....Is God contradicting Himself....or is cgaviria contradicting himself?

 

[cgaviria]

Matthew 28:19 isn't a forgery. I don't think any scholar has ever argued that it was. There are variations in 1 John 5:7-8 which differ from other ancient manuscripts. While the Johannine Comma was most probably not in the original of 1 John it does appear known to some in the early Church, there is some evidence that Origen of Alexandria has alluded to the verse in his Scholium on Psalm 123. If your approach to the Bible is to simply disregard the parts that don't fit Arianism then that's your lens through which you see the text.

I have not arrived at the conclusion of the trinity being a false teaching because of these spurious verses. The trinity teaching is clearly a false doctrine for other doctrinal reasons that I have already explained in this thread. I go into detail concerning the manuscript evidence, so that people like you, who are hard sold on the trinity, can see for yourselves, that even from an analytical and scholarly perspective, these two trinity verses are without a doubt spurious, even the Matthew 28:19 verse, which contradicts 7 other scriptures.

 

[cgaviria]

That is, I believe, the 1st straight up answer I have ever received from you....thank you for that.

Wait....this seems to be a qualification....if he won't break his word why should he not take pleasure in breaking his word?....WOW....Is God contradicting Himself....or is cgaviria contradicting himself?

How am I contradicting myself? God does not break his word. If you cannot understand the other statement, which it seems like you cannot as you are hung up on it as if somehow I contradicted myself with, then accept this statement as a replacement of that statement.

 

[Llewelyn Stevenson]

May I suggest you go and look at the Exodus where God told Moses, I won't go with you but I will send an angel.

Exo 33:1 And the LORD said unto Moses, Depart, and go up hence, thou and the people which thou hast brought up out of the land of Egypt, unto the land which I sware unto Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, saying, Unto thy seed will I give it:

Exo 33:2 And I will send an angel before thee; and I will drive out the Canaanite, the Amorite, and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, the Hivite, and the Jebusite:

Exo 33:3 Unto a land flowing with milk and honey: for I will not go up in the midst of thee; for thou art a stiffnecked people: lest I consume thee in the way.

Then Moses pleaded with him saying, if you won't go, I won't go. So God relented and said, "I will go."

Exo 33:12 And Moses said unto the LORD, See, thou sayest unto me, Bring up this people: and thou hast not let me know whom thou wilt send with me. Yet thou hast said, I know thee by name, and thou hast also found grace in my sight.

Exo 33:13 Now therefore, I pray thee, if I have found grace in thy sight, shew me now thy way, that I may know thee, that I may find grace in thy sight: and consider that this nation is thy people.

Exo 33:14 And he said, My presence shall go with thee, and I will give thee rest.

Exo 33:15 And he said unto him, If thy presence go not with me, carry us not up hence.

Exo 33:16 For wherein shall it be known here that I and thy people have found grace in thy sight? is it not in that thou goest with us? so shall we be separated, I and thy people, from all the people that are upon the face of the earth.

Exo 33:17 And the LORD said unto Moses, I will do this thing also that thou hast spoken: for thou hast found grace in my sight, and I know thee by name.

The point I wish to make here is that the prayer you quoted is not referring to God's inability to possess, for if he puts a part of him inside it is still God on the inside. I don't think you can establish a sound doctrine on that text alone. You will have to have something more substantial.

 

[civilwarbuff]

God has never broken his word, and he will never break his word, hence why I said he does not take pleasure in breaking his word.

This is present tense, not past. So, where do you get this from? I agree that He has never broken His word and never will but your statement implies otherwise....

 

[Llewelyn Stevenson]

So are you then suggesting this prayer is false? It is either true or false. I am saying that it is true, because it was spoken by a man having the wisdom of God. Yet you will say it is false because it is merely said in a prayer by this man?

No. I am saying you need to look further than his request.

Here... if Jesus said that he and the Father will make their abode IN US, then how can he not inhabit his own creation John 14:23?

 

[cgaviria]

May I suggest you go and look at the Exodus where God told Moses, I won't go with you but I will send an angel.

Exo 33:1 And the LORD said unto Moses, Depart, and go up hence, thou and the people which thou hast brought up out of the land of Egypt, unto the land which I sware unto Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, saying, Unto thy seed will I give it:

Exo 33:2 And I will send an angel before thee; and I will drive out the Canaanite, the Amorite, and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, the Hivite, and the Jebusite:

Exo 33:3 Unto a land flowing with milk and honey: for I will not go up in the midst of thee; for thou art a stiffnecked people: lest I consume thee in the way.

Then Moses pleaded with him saying, if you won't go, I won't go. So God relented and said, "I will go."

Exo 33:12 And Moses said unto the LORD, See, thou sayest unto me, Bring up this people: and thou hast not let me know whom thou wilt send with me. Yet thou hast said, I know thee by name, and thou hast also found grace in my sight.

Exo 33:13 Now therefore, I pray thee, if I have found grace in thy sight, shew me now thy way, that I may know thee, that I may find grace in thy sight: and consider that this nation is thy people.

Exo 33:14 And he said, My presence shall go with thee, and I will give thee rest.

Exo 33:15 And he said unto him, If thy presence go not with me, carry us not up hence.

Exo 33:16 For wherein shall it be known here that I and thy people have found grace in thy sight? is it not in that thou goest with us? so shall we be separated, I and thy people, from all the people that are upon the face of the earth.

Exo 33:17 And the LORD said unto Moses, I will do this thing also that thou hast spoken: for thou hast found grace in my sight, and I know thee by name.

The point I wish to make here is that the prayer you quoted is not referring to God's inability to possess, for if he puts a part of him inside it is still God on the inside. I don't think you can establish a sound doctrine on that text alone. You will have to have something more substantial.

How does this verse concerning the angel prove that God can indeed inhabit his own creation? No scripture contradicts another scripture. This prayer that this man having the wisdom of God is indeed a true saying, God cannot inhabit what he has created. It's like saying that a man that made a little pot, can somehow fit himself in this little pot. The Father is incredibly higher than anything that is created, which is why he even says, "my ways are higher than your ways", and it is even said, "even the hairs on your very head are numbered". Does any being that is created know the number of hairs of every human being? The Father is unfathomably higher, which is why it is also said, that he cannot inhabit even the heaven of the heavens, or even a temple that was built for him. If indeed the glory of God was visible, it would merely just be an expression of the Father, but not the Father himself.

 

[civilwarbuff]

How does this verse concerning the angel prove that God can indeed inhabit his own creation?

Are you putting limits on what God can do? Yes or no?

 

[cgaviria]

No. I am saying you need to look further than his request.

Here... if Jesus said that he and the Father will make their abode IN US, then how can he not inhabit his own creation John 14:23?

He makes his abode in by giving his holy spirit into us. But even holy spirit is not the Father himself, but is rather, sent by the Father to inhabit our bodies, and thus the Father spiritually resides in us.

 

[cgaviria]

Are you putting limits on what God can do? Yes or no?

I am not putting limits on God, I am merely quoting scripture concerning the ways of God. So it is in fact not my words, but the scriptures. There is a scripture that says even the heaven of the heavens cannot contain God, which I have quoted several times to you people. Will you not accept this scripture on the basis of your own understanding?