Why the Trinity is a False Doctrine

[Llewelyn Stevenson]

It doesn't just say, will God indeed dwell on the earth, the scripture is also saying, even the highest heaven cannot contain you. What do you suppose that means? If indeed the Father does have a form that could abide in his creation, I am willing to accept it, since to me this topic is indeed a mystery, but I do not see how he could inhabit his own creation since he cannot even inhabit the heaven. And indeed, for God to be able to have a form that can inhabit earth, would imply he is finite. How can an infinite being have a form of a body that is finite? Therefore, I am inclined to harmonize this scripture in 1 Kings, with the Revelation scripture, to mean that whatever tabernacle of God inhabiting the earth and the God dwelling on the earth in the new heaven and new earth, to mean that it will be an image and representation of the Father that will cohabit with us.

Once again the reference suggests the statement is more hyperbole rather than actual. Let us see if we can come up with something more substantial that suggests the highest heavens cannot contain him, and yet be the very place he exists. these are the questions you must answer. Where is God now? Did he create the place wherein he dwells?

You see God can dwell any place he pleases, and it is the wonder of this chorus

How big is God?
How big and wide his vast domain?
To begin to tell these lips can only start.
He's big enough to fill this mighty universe,
Yet small enough to live within my heart.

That is a mighty God indeed.

Remember, that which is spirit, is spirit John 3:6; and God is Spirit John 4:23 & 24.

In truth what can contain a spirit that cannot be inhibited by walls but may pass in and out as it pleases though there are no doors. Since God created the heavens and the earth he may pass in and out of them at will and the Highest heaven cannot contain him should he decide to come to earth and vice versa.

Since spirit is breath, wind, or air; can it not permeate every place and yet overflow all of them? If the container is filled and overflows with God, is God still not contained within it?

Your argument cannot stand against the revelation of the Scriptures and is therefore falsified.

 

[cgaviria]

Once again the reference suggests the statement is more hyperbole rather than actual. Let us see if we can come up with something more substantial that suggests the highest heavens cannot contain him, and yet be the very place he exists. these are the questions you must answer. Where is God now? Did he create the place wherein he dwells?

You see God can dwell any place he pleases, and it is the wonder of this chorus

How big is God?
How big and wide his vast domain?
To begin to tell these lips can only start.
He's big enough to fill this mighty universe,
Yet small enough to live within my heart.

That is a mighty God indeed.

Remember, that which is spirit, is spirit John 3:6; and God is Spirit John 4:23 & 24.

In truth what can contain a spirit that cannot be inhibited by walls but may pass in and out as it pleases though there are no doors. Since God created the heavens and the earth he may pass in and out of them at will and the Highest heaven cannot contain him should he decide to come to earth and vice versa.

Since spirit is breath, wind, or air; can it not permeate every place and yet overflow all of them? If the container is filled and overflows with God, is God still not contained within it?

Your argument cannot stand against the revelation of the Scriptures and is therefore falsified.

You may regard that scripture as a hyperbole, but I regard it as literal. Are you an infinite being or are you a finite being? Can your brain possess unlimited knowledge, or finite knowledge? Whatever is created is finite, therefore, how can something finite contain an infinite God? How can a cup of water, contain the entire ocean? How can a bodily form, the size of you and I, contain the Father, an infinite being? This is why this scripture truly says, even the heaven of the heavens cannot contain you. Because the Father truly is a being that cannot be contained by anything created. Therefore, whatever thing exists in the new heaven and earth, must therefore be a representation of the Father.

 

[Llewelyn Stevenson]

Let me not keep you up, my friend. I can always come back to reply to your post. Sleep well and I will reply in time.

 

[Llewelyn Stevenson]

Because the Father truly is a being that cannot be contained by anything created. Therefore, whatever thing exists in the new heaven and earth, must therefore be a representation of the Father.

My difficulty with that statement is that it makes the Scripture lie since it tells me the Father is there and you are saying it is not the Father. It is true that the ocean cannot be contained in a glass, but if I dip the glass into the ocean it is full of ocean, which happens to consist mostly of water and other substances contained in the ocean. I am not wrong in saying that the ocean is in the glass and it is not a mere representation of the ocean but the ocean itself because that is where it comes from.
There is no reason that whatever exists in the new heaven and the new earth cannot be the Father himself since God is like the ocean. You may say it is only a part of him, but it is still him and not a representation of him.

If we were to be asked what is in the glass we would most likely answer water, or sea water, and we would be mostly correct but we cannot deny that the ocean is in the glass since we obtained it from the ocean. Is it all the ocean? No the glass is too small to contain the whole ocean, but it is more than a representation of the ocean that may have been created in a science lab. A picture on the other hand would contain a representation of the ocean, since the particles in the paint are not from the ocean. That is why I can contain God the Father and Jesus his Son whilst I cannot contain you. Its just not possible.

 

[Wgw]

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.

The amusing thing on this point is that @cgaviria seems unaware that Arius did not even base his arguments on these verses. So @cgaviria destroys his credibility by seeking to discredit a verse, against manuscript evidence, that Arius regarded as broadly compatible with his own Christological scheme.

This verse is present, by the way, in the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, which might well be specimens of the Bibles produced by Eusebius of Caesarea, an Arian sympathizer.

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?

Ss. Matthew and John had the Wisdom of God, yet apparently this does not preclude @cgaviria from rubbishing their expressions.

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,

In this post, @cgaviria once again displays, with customary intemperance, his lack of understanding of the doctrine of the Incarnation and of the idea of hypostatic union. Since we do not say the Divine Essence was contained.

 

[Wgw]

God does not sin and to suggest that is beyond foolish. He kills because he is creator, not because he is a man, that is told to not kill. There are indeed things God cannot do, he cannot become evil, he cannot become created. You need to understand these things, and your statement earlier is simply not true.

When you say God cannot do things, you imply dualism, becsuse you imply external constraints acting upon the uncreated divine nature. Thus, take note, beloved brethren, of the error we see in this post and similiar posts by @Imagican: in their zeal to say that God cannot be our Lord, rhey pur God in an uncreated box.

This uncreated box can itself be philosophically regarded as a higher order God or meta-God, in that it exists with enough potency to constrain the actions of God. It is also unscriptural; "almighty" can be literally translated as all-powerful or omnipotent.

 

[Wgw]

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.

As has been pointed out ad nauseum, Matthew 28:19 is attested in all Greek manuscripts. If furthermore we say that we can reject a verse as spurious if it apparently contradicts other verses if read in a certain way, then we would have to reject, for example, much of Isaiah 1.

The first way is that he cannot inhabit his own creation, which is what that scripture I quoted is saying. This is the topic at hand we are now discussing, which you people cannot accept. Let me ask you something in return, seeing this scripture I quoted, can the Father inhabit his own creation, yes or no?

The answer to this question is of course "yes," although it is also a red herring, since the creation was inhabited by the incarnate, uncreated Son, who took into hypostatic union with Himself the created human nature from the Virgin Mary.

Based on the text you used? Yes I do believe the Father can inhabit his creation.

1Ki 8:27 But will God indeed dwell on the earth? behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have builded?

Here's why, because the question raised is rhetorical, it is a statement made in humility. Will God indeed dwell on earth? The answer is in the Revelation, Behold the tabernacle of God is with men. It tells us that both the Father and the Son will be there: The Lord and his Christ.

Consider that God's hands made his dwelling place.

Exo 15:17 Thou shalt bring them in, and plant them in the mountain of thine inheritance, in the place, O LORD, which thou hast made for thee to dwell in, in the Sanctuary, O Lord, which thy hands have established.

Not only can God inhabit his creation, the Bible says he does.

The tabernacle is a typological prophecy both of the Incarnation and of the Theotokos.

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.

It is extremely important that pious Nicene members use caution in responding to this sort of post, in that @cgaviria uses "Father" to refer variously to what corresponds to God, the Godhead and the uncreated divine essence of God, and thus in responding to posts like this, one first has to correct the terminology he uses in order to avoid falling into a trap.

 

[Wgw]

So you say. But you say it's scriptural but are unable to produce one line of scripture that defines 'trinity'.

On the contrary, in another thread we provided so many verses in support of this doctrine that it was possible to show non-Trinitarianism to be unscriptural.

Yet I can show many that utterly refute the very 'idea' of 'trinity'. I can show clearly where the Son is not equal to the Father. Plenty that show that the Son is 'not' eternally begotten. He was begotten 'once' like everything else that has ever been begotten. I can show that the Son Himself was abandoned by God while hanging upon the cross.

Yet you cannot offer a single line of the Bible that defines 'trinity'.

Blessings,

MEC

You say you can show it, but you have not done so in this post, nor indeed elsewhere on this thread, so begging your oardon, it is difficult not to regard this as idle bluster on your part.

What defines a 'Christian'? A man made set of laws? Or someone that professes to believe in Christ and treats their neighbors as themselves?

See, you are trying to say that men can define what a Christian is according to their own beliefs. Yet I have found this to be the same manner in which one group finds another to be 'lesser humans' than themselves. You know, like Hitler insisting that his 'race' was better than all others and because of this, all other races should be their 'slaves'.

Note that invoking Hitler here is an irrelevant red herring. The word Christian can hypothetically be involed by any who choose to use it, and I do not dispute that, although I myself regard the Nicene Creed as defintive for the norms of what should be regarded as mainstream Christian belief.

I have never found that particular teaching in the Bible. What I have found is Christ stating, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone".

Maybe instead of taking the stance, "We know the truth and everyone else is lost", you may find it more beneficial to pay attention to those others so that you may learn from them as well.

Indeed; I would say the same to you.

And it is this I have stated over and over that most attempt to deny: Denominationalism does this very thing: it insists that 'it' is the only correct path and all others are 'lost'. While they won't openly state it in public like has been offered here where two have actually accused others of being 'non Christian' because of their differences in belief, it is the only logical conclusion. Why else would there be 'more than one denomination' if it weren't for 'each' believing their 'way' is correct and everyone else's path is 'wrong'?

The major denominations of Christianity all agree on the divinity of our Lord. Most agree at least in a general way that the others are at least somewhat soteriologically efficacious.

So in essence, denominationalism does more to 'separate' than it does to unite. And it's like a virus that once it takes hold, it's almost impossible to get rid of. Raise someone in a particular denomination and they will often separate themselves from their families or friends than abandon their denomination.

Schism is worse than heresy, but this is not the same as anathematizing those who preach a diffreent doctrine, which St. Paul demands we do in Galatians 1:8.

And the example we have here: One group labeling another 'non Christian' simply because the other group doesn't follow their 'man made theology'. What a shame. Treating the 'children of God' in a vicious manner simply because one group doesn't follow the same 'men' as themselves.

Blessings,

MEC

So shall we not label Muslims non-Christian then? Because that is the implied consequence of your ill-conceived argument.

 

[Wgw]

And that's what the focus should be on. God through Christ. instead of 'making up' what we want to believe, there is enough offered in scripture to keep us busy for a lifetime without trying to interject our own personal interpretation. Most is simply read and simply understood.

Thus, we should emphatically reject most of what you write, which consists of personal interpretation and commentary on your personal interpretation as well as vague commentary on the theological process and issues of ontology.

Christ is the Son of God and not a single person who truly believes in Christ can argue the point. There is only one true God. That is without dispute as well. So why would someone interject an 'idea' that is so confusing no one can even understand it?

Nearly all members of cf.com understand it quite well.

It's so simple a child can understand it: God is the Father of Christ. So the Father IS God. Christ is the Son of God. So He is God's Son. Nothing complicated here.

However, the Bible also clearly says that our Lord is God, and one with the Father, so your appeal to ignorance collapses.

But the idea that God is triune in nature???? Show us this 'triune' nature offered in the Bible. Show us where a single apostle noted this 'triune' nature. Show us where Christ alluded to this 'triune' nature. Just one line.

"I and the Father are one."

Since it cannot be confirmed through the Bible, why have so many allowed it to become 'so important' in their belief system? Certainly not from a Biblical perspective. So that only leaves their 'churches' to blame. And the 'idea' that it is 'so important' to so many that they would go the extreme and start insisting that those that don't believe as they do are 'not Christian'?????? Absurd.

Blessings,

MEC

The font of all heresy is the refusal to recognize the idea that God became man in order to show us how to be human. It is very difficult for people to swallow in their pride, the idea that an infinite being would take pity on His finite creatures and condescend to put on their finite nature in order to deify them. However, by embracing this doctrine, we attain to true metanoia, true repentence, the basis for Theosis. Because if God becomes human, the human nature itself can become divine and sacred, as a holy icon of God, but we must repent in order to remove the tarnish from ourselves caused through sin. This is very difficult for people to accept; people do not want to repent, and feel threatened by the concept. So threatened that Islamist terrorists commit unspeakable acts of violence to adhere to an obviously false religion created around the premise that Jesus is not God, and murder Christian children, lest they be infected by this idea the find so abhorrent, contained in the sacred teachings of our Lord.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Thus, we should emphatically reject most of what you write, which consists of personal interpretation and commentary on your personal interpretation as well as vague commentary on the theological process and issues of ontology.



Nearly all members of cf.com understand it quite well.



However, the Bible also clearly says that our Lord is God, and one with the Father, so your appeal to ignorance collapses.



"I and the Father are one."



The font of all heresy is the refusal to recognize the idea that God became man in order to show us how to be human. It is very difficult for people to swallow in their pride, the idea that an infinite being would take pity on His finite creatures and condescend to put on their finite nature in order to deify them. However, by embracing this doctrine, we attain to true metanoia, true repentence, the basis for Theosis. Because if God becomes human, the human nature itself can become divine and sacred, as a holy icon of God, but we must repent in order to remove the tarnish from ourselves caused through sin. This is very difficult for people to accept; people do not want to repent, and feel threatened by the concept. So threatened that Islamist terrorists commit unspeakable acts of violence to adhere to an obviously false religion created around the premise that Jesus is not God, and murder Christian children, lest they be infected by this idea the find so abhorrent, contained in the sacred teachings of our Lord.

Well said. If we toss His Divinity we also toss the inheritance He gained/made possible for mankind.

 

[Wgw]

Well said. If we toss His Divinity we also toss the inheritance He gained/made possible for mankind.

Indeed so. The rejection of the doctrine of the Trinity destroys the idea of glorification and the premise of Christian soteriology.

 

[Strong in Him]

On what basis, your own interpretations? I have given you the scriptures clearly indicating that YHWH is the name of an angel.

Yahweh is the name of the Lord God. Jehovah is the same name - I think it's Greek, Yahweh is Hebrew.

 

[Strong in Him]

What links that I posted say "Jehovah God"? Jehovah is not the name of YHWH and nothing I have posted affirms this.

Jehovah and Yahweh are the same name.

 

[Strong in Him]

God is not the name of the Father. "God" is a title, not a name. If I call you a "person", that is what you are, but that is not your name. God the Father does not have a name, which is why he is referred to as I AM. The Jehovah's witnesses teach that Jehovah is the name of the Father, which is not true.

However, Jesus was indeed created, hence why he is even called a son of God, a son is birthed, and does not precede a father in existence, nor does a son come at the same time as a father, and since the Father has always existed, therefore the next natural order of sonship is that Jesus did indeed begin, yet he began in the beginning, which is why he was in the beginning, and is called "only son", because he was the only being created directly by the Father, and then all life came through Jesus.

Jesus was the human name given to God when he became incarnate. The Logos, the eternal Word, the one through whom all things were created was with God in the beginning - which means the beginning of creation not HIS beginning. As John says in his Gospel, he was WITH God and WAS God. This is who became flesh, (John 1:14); God.

There is nothing in Scripture which says that God decided to create a Son for himself and then after he had made him, he was able to create the universe through him. Scripture does not say that God, Jesus the Son or the Spirit were created, or how they existed and came into being, only that before the universe, time and any kind of life came into being, God was already there.

 

[Strong in Him]

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,

This is the prayer that Solomon offered on completing the temple. He was worshipping God; lost in wonder of the fact that God was so great and awesome that if the heavens themselves weren't able to contain him, then the enormous building that he had just completed would not be able to do so either. God is far too "big", awesome, powerful and majestic to be shut up, i.e contained, in a building.

However, just because man cannot shut up, or contain, the Lord our God, that doesn't mean that God himself cannot choose to do just that for our sake. That verse does not say that God will never inhabit his creation because he is not able to do so. And in fact many hundreds of years later he did just that, in the person of Jesus. You, yourself, have said that Jesus is God and yet he was created. Scripture also says that the word became flesh.

So God quite clearly DID inhabit his creation; which shows that the verse that you have picked out from Solomon's prayer, does not prove that he can't.

 

[cgaviria]

Jehovah and Yahweh are the same name.

They are different pronunciations for one name that was given, so therefore they are not the same. It is the Jehovah's witness claim that the name of God is spelled as "Jehovah", which in analyzing the tetragrammaton and learning from actual Hebrew experts that know their own language, it becomes obvious it is not.

 

[cgaviria]

Jesus was the human name given to God when he became incarnate. The Logos, the eternal Word, the one through whom all things were created was with God in the beginning - which means the beginning of creation not HIS beginning. As John says in his Gospel, he was WITH God and WAS God. This is who became flesh, (John 1:14); God.

There is nothing in Scripture which says that God decided to create a Son for himself and then after he had made him, he was able to create the universe through him. Scripture does not say that God, Jesus the Son or the Spirit were created, or how they existed and came into being, only that before the universe, time and any kind of life came into being, God was already there.

The scripture does not say that Jesus existed before the beginning of creation. It says that he existed in the beginning of creation. And not only him, but even water as well, and air. Do you suppose that water and air have always existed too? No, all these things were created by the Father first, then Jesus began speaking things into existence.

 

[cgaviria]

This is the prayer that Solomon offered on completing the temple. He was worshipping God; lost in wonder of the fact that God was so great and awesome that if the heavens themselves weren't able to contain him, then the enormous building that he had just completed would not be able to do so either. God is far too "big", awesome, powerful and majestic to be shut up, i.e contained, in a building.

However, just because man cannot shut up, or contain, the Lord our God, that doesn't mean that God himself cannot choose to do just that for our sake. That verse does not say that God will never inhabit his creation because he is not able to do so. And in fact many hundreds of years later he did just that, in the person of Jesus. You, yourself, have said that Jesus is God and yet he was created. Scripture also says that the word became flesh.

So God quite clearly DID inhabit his creation; which shows that the verse that you have picked out from Solomon's prayer, does not prove that he can't.

Jesus is not the Father, he is an image of the Father. So yes, spiritually the Father inhabited his creation by having Jesus live on earth, but not literally. This prayer of Solomon is a true saying, as he was one of the wisest men to exist, if not the wisest, so therefore, ought you not think that what he prayed was indeed truth? Did he not write the Proverbs and even Ecclesiastes from which we also draw deep wisdom? The saying that the Father cannot inhabit his own creation is a very wise saying, as how can an infinite being reside in a finite body? This is why there is even a Jesus, so that through Jesus we may commune with the Father.

 

[Berean777]

Calling some of you people out for not knowing things is insulting? Did Paul not call the high priest a whitewashed wall in the book of Acts? Trust me, if it were in person, I would have even stronger words against you people. But even so, calling someone satan is a bit much, so if you agree with this guy, that somehow I am the devil, then I also prefer not to talk to you either, as that is a ridiculous statement to make.

Jesus is indeed the image of the Father and him being created does not take away his deity. The father chose to make Jesus God, and make him Lord over all his creation. Jesus is also the full image of the Father, and him being created also does not take this away. Was man not also made as the image of God, and he too was created? The Father is not an image in himself, an image is something that is greater that reflects something greater. And Jesus is indeed lesser than the Father, as he also said, "the Father is greater than I". This is the true teaching of the gospel and the apostles, and the world is completely deceived by the doctrine of the trinity, and no one believing such heresies will inherit the kingdom of God. I urge you guys to unlearn these doctrines created by man, as they skew the true understanding of God.

There is a problem with God making another created God. It flies in the face of this statement, I am one Lord and beside me there is no other God. (Isaiah 45:5)

It would also break commandment number 1.....

Exodus 20:3-4
3Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

4Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above

So we cannot entertain your statement below, because creating an image of the Father in Heaven and projecting it to another created God would be deemed a graven image, especially when Jesus was worshiped as God and Jesus claimed to be the God of their fathers.

Jesus is indeed the image of the Father and him being created does not take away his deity. The father chose to make Jesus God, and make him Lord over all his creation.

 

[Imagican]

Thus, we should emphatically reject most of what you write, which consists of personal interpretation and commentary on your personal interpretation as well as vague commentary on the theological process and issues of ontology.

If that's how you see it, by all means. Better to follow men intent upon philosophy and their own wisdom who basically created a 'god' of their own design.

Nearly all members of cf.com understand it quite well.

Funny, but nearly every member that has commented has offered a 'different understanding'.

Over the years i have heard 'trinity' compared to 'water', to the human creation, to Godhead, to so many 'different things' that it has led me to the conclusion that it is quite confusing even to those that profess to believe in and follow it.

However, the Bible also clearly says that our Lord is God, and one with the Father, so your appeal to ignorance collapses.

The Bible also tells us that Christ's greatest wish is that we too become 'one' with The Father as they are 'one' with each other. Does that mean that we too can become God?

My appeal is to common sense, not ignorance. I don't need to learn phrases or words created by men in order to know and love God through His Son. For not a single man alive can offer me what God has offered through His Son.

"I and the Father are one."

John 17:

20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;


21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one

23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

So we see here that the oneness you speak of is possible for us to partake in as well. If we become one with the Father and Son, does that mean 'we too are God'?

For to me, that is exactly what you are offering. Father and Son are 'one'. That means that the Son is God. So if we too become 'one' with Father and Son, we too will become God.

The font of all heresy is the refusal to recognize the idea that God became man in order to show us how to be human. It is very difficult for people to swallow in their pride, the idea that an infinite being would take pity on His finite creatures and condescend to put on their finite nature in order to deify them. However, by embracing this doctrine, we attain to true metanoia, true repentence, the basis for Theosis. Because if God becomes human, the human nature itself can become divine and sacred, as a holy icon of God, but we must repent in order to remove the tarnish from ourselves caused through sin. This is very difficult for people to accept; people do not want to repent, and feel threatened by the concept. So threatened that Islamist terrorists commit unspeakable acts of violence to adhere to an obviously false religion created around the premise that Jesus is not God, and murder Christian children, lest they be infected by this idea the find so abhorrent, contained in the sacred teachings of our Lord.

No, what the Bible offers through the words of the Son Himself is that the Son was 'sent' by the Father. It's not 'pride' that holds tight to this belief. It's a matter of accepting and believing in the words of Christ Himself.

If humans are incapable of even seeing God and remaining 'alive', the idea that God could 'be' a man is ludicrous. If 'seeing' God would cause a man to 'die', then certainly a 'body' or 'man' cannot 'contain' God within his body.

Perhaps you err. Perhaps the reason God beget a 'Son' was because it was impossible for God to dwell in the flesh Himself. So that's 'why' He sent His Son to do what He could not do Himself.

If God could 'take up the flesh', why did He never do so throughout the entire Bible? Why reveal to 'men' what messages He chose to deliver? Why not just 'take on the flesh' and deliver the messages Himself?

Yet we see messengers 'sent' by God over and over again. Imagine how much more effective it would have been for God Himself to 'take on the flesh' and deliver the messages with POWER as well as words.

The answer I believe is obvious: Perhaps God cannot 'take on the flesh'. Perhaps the 'flesh' is abhorrent to God to the point that it's impossible for God to dwell within the 'flesh' of man.

Jesus clearly states that He was 'sent' by God. He never once states that He sent Himself or came of His own accord.

And we are given Christ's last words upon the cross: "My God, my God, why hath thou forsaken me?" Obviously at that moment, Jesus could 'not' have been God. For 'trinity' to be 'truth', Jesus would have had to be 'God' always. Even when 'fully God/fully man', He would of a necessity have been 'fully God' at 'all times'. Otherwise, He would have been God 'sometimes' and at other times 'merely a man'. This is not what is taught in 'trinity'. For 'trinity' insists that the Son was 'equal' to God in all ways at all times. That God could not exist without all 'three of the persons' that 'trinity' defines.

When Jesus was in the garden before being betrayed, who was He praying to? Himself? No. He was praying to His Father: God.

Romans 15:6
That ye may with one mind and one mouth glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

1 Corinthians 8:6
But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

2 Corinthians 11:31
The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is blessed for evermore, knoweth that I lie not.

Galatians 1:1
Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead

Ephesians 1:3
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ

Ephesians 1:17
That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him

Philippians 2:11
And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

1 Peter 1:3
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead

2 John 1:3
Grace be with you, mercy, and peace, from God the Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love.

I believe that these scriptures plainly show the difference between God and His Son. Plainly illustrate that God is the Father. The Father is God. And Christ is the Son of God. The Son of the Father.

Is it through ignorance that I accept these words as offered? Or should I trust in 'your church' that teaches contrary to these words?

Blessings,

MEC