Why the Trinity is a False Doctrine

[7xlightray]

...which pretty much substantiates the thinking of those Christians who interpret this stoning as meaning that they considered his words to be a claim of divinity, wouldn't it?

No.

 

[Berean777]

Me too, I hear you there, I cant agree more, good to know (just seems rare). I look for posters that do, Scriptures are great that way .

Sure, may the word of God be glorified always.

God bless you

Amen!

God bless you and your family.

 

[7xlightray]

Okay, what proof does the New Testament give of who is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, because it tells us? It's there, if anyone can tell me. If you are interested in truth, I can show you.

Here is something else to consider, what is Jesus's new name, that is mentioned in Revelation 3:12, that will also be our name?

 

[nomadictheist]

No, it is the Trinitarian assumption. The context calls for “it.”

No. The context explains that "Logos" is Jesus. I will spell it out once more, clearly, for all to see. Jesus was a "He", not an "it."

John 1, starting in verse 14:

"And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. 15 John testified about Him and cried out, saying, “This was He of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.’” 16 For of His fullness we have all received, and grace upon grace. 17 For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ"

Now let's see who John said this about:
"The next day he *saw Jesus coming to him and *said, “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! 30 This is He on behalf of whom I said, ‘After me comes a Man who ]has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.’ "

So again, Jesus, the Logos, was God, is God, is a He, was always a He.

If you understood the Jewish concept of logos during the time this was written, it would really aid you in understanding why John wrote using this word.

Ya, the man is not a logos.

According to your theology, he was just as much "a logos" as anything else in creation, or do you disbelieve that God has created everything?

Jesus was not "a logos." He was "Logos." He was "the Logos." and "the Logos" was God. Every argument you make rests on this somehow meaning that He was God but not really God. That all this is saying was that Jesus was just some thought in the mind of God. This is completely and utterly unscriptural. There is nothing in the Old Testament to support your view that Jesus is no different than the earth, the sun, the moon, or the stars. Your views are not from the Old Testament, they are derived from the teachings of men who sought to comprehend what is incomprehensible to our finite understanding.

In either case, this was just to show in the same passage that the word is translated based on context. The context, as I've said, is that "Logos" (the word) is Jesus, and that is why Houtos is translated "He." Not because some translator arbitrarily translated it that way.

No, the word became Jesus. It does not say Jesus became Jesus, nor does it say God the Son became Jesus. In fact it does not say God became Jesus, it says the word became Jesus, actually became flesh.

No, it doesn't say the word became Jesus. It says the Word, who already was Jesus, became flesh, as in physical being. You are again superimposing your understanding on the scripture.

It also says the Word was God, so when the Word became flesh that means God became flesh. That's what the scriptures says. You don't agree with it, and that's your choice, but don't tell me that's not what it says.

1 John 1 explains this, the word of life was manifested in the flesh, and this word of life/eternal life was with the Father, and was the Father. And this word is, God the Father is truth, and we must walk in truth, if we are to have this life. Jesus walked in truth.

What John explains is that Jesus was, is, and will always be God the Son. What 1 John 1 is summarizing is exactly the same thing.

 

[7xlightray]

No. The context explains that "Logos" is Jesus. I will spell it out once more, clearly, for all to see. Jesus was a "He", not an "it."

John 1, starting in verse 14:

"And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. 15 John testified about Him and cried out, saying, “This was He of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.’” 16 For of His fullness we have all received, and grace upon grace. 17 For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ"

Now let's see who John said this about:
"The next day he *saw Jesus coming to him and *said, “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! 30 This is He on behalf of whom I said, ‘After me comes a Man who ]has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.’ "

So again, Jesus, the Logos, was God, is God, is a He, was always a He.

If you understood the Jewish concept of logos during the time this was written, it would really aid you in understanding why John wrote using this word.


According to your theology, he was just as much "a logos" as anything else in creation, or do you disbelieve that God has created everything?

Jesus was not "a logos." He was "Logos." He was "the Logos." and "the Logos" was God. Every argument you make rests on this somehow meaning that He was God but not really God. That all this is saying was that Jesus was just some thought in the mind of God. This is completely and utterly unscriptural. There is nothing in the Old Testament to support your view that Jesus is no different than the earth, the sun, the moon, or the stars. Your views are not from the Old Testament, they are derived from the teachings of men who sought to comprehend what is incomprehensible to our finite understanding.

In either case, this was just to show in the same passage that the word is translated based on context. The context, as I've said, is that "Logos" (the word) is Jesus, and that is why Houtos is translated "He." Not because some translator arbitrarily translated it that way.


No, it doesn't say the word became Jesus. It says the Word, who already was Jesus, became flesh, as in physical being. You are again superimposing your understanding on the scripture.

It also says the Word was God, so when the Word became flesh that means God became flesh. That's what the scriptures says. You don't agree with it, and that's your choice, but don't tell me that's not what it says.



What John explains is that Jesus was, is, and will always be God the Son. What 1 John 1 is summarizing is exactly the same thing.

Of course from verse 14 the word becomes a he, because the word became flesh, Jesus. That does not make the Word a “He.”

1 John 1 explains this. It does not say there, that Jesus is God, nor he preexisted. I've shown what it is saying there, it is clear as day. It is speaking of the Father, that the Father is truth, and this truth was manifested in Christ, His Son verse 7. This is the word of life that John is declaring verse 3. We are to walk in the truth, as Jesus walked in the truth, if we don't then we lie.


“It says the Word, who already was Jesus, became flesh”

Where does it say that? It does not say that, you are reading that into that verse, because it clearly does not say that, in anyway, shape, or form. If you choose to believe that that's one thing, but it does not state that.

 

[nomadictheist]

Were going to start arguing from invisible ghosts? In that case there would be no point in believing any part of Gods Word, and to add to that, it was not written in English either.

You should read Exodus 3:14 in the Septuagint then.

I have. Perhaps you've forgotten that the Septuagint was translated approximately 2-3 centuries after the gospel of John was written?

It's not about "invisible ghosts." It's about, as I explained, phrasing, tense change, and reaction.

Abraham saw his day and was glad. Jesus said he was before Abraham, in saying this, he is saying he is greater then Abraham, for he was the one to come. Abraham saw that God would provide the lamb, and bring Christ back to life, and even Abraham himself. Keep the verse in context.

I am. Jesus didn't say "I was before Abraham." He said "before Abraham was, I am."

I've already explained this.

You haven't explained anything, except how you know that what the Bible plainly says isn't true so we have to interpret it in a way that makes no sense with the rest of scripture. I choose to believe the Bible.

That is not exactly what I said, also it is only part of what I not exactly said.

I believed in the trinity for about 25 years, I know the scriptures we used. And they were either taken out of context, or assumed to say something based on belief, not based on all of scripture. I know what it's like to read scripture as a trinitarian, the chapters don't flow naturally. Trinitarians have a few passages which could suggest Jesus is the God, but once one understands the Father is the only God, all throughout scripture it reveals the Father is the only true God, and even states this. I know from scripture I'm standing on solid ground when it comes to this issue.

You said Jesus was "a word" the same way the earth was "a word" (though the Bible never said that). You went to great pains to explain how the Word was God because He existed as a thought, which was in some sense God, but once that thought was spoken and became flesh it was no longer God, just like you say the earth, sun, moon, etc. were created (though this is not anywhere in the Bible). This view makes Jesus equal with all these things.

What I said was, “If you receive the testimony of the Pharisees, then you must also believe Jesus broke the Sabbath and had a demon, and therefore still in your sins.” So, then are you admitting they misunderstood Jesus?

This is another misleading statement. The pharisees accused Jesus of having a demon on the basis that he cast out demons. Not because He made any claims that could reasonably be interpreted to mean He had a demon. They said He "broke the Sabbath" because He broke the laws of the Sabbath. Jesus said He was Lord of the Sabbath, meaning that breaking the Sabbath had no meaning for Him because He was ruler over it.

Can you give scripture from the O/T, cause I can, because this is how we know we have the right understanding.

We could start with...

For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us;
And the government will rest on His shoulders;
And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.
7 There will be no end to the increase of His government or of peace,
On the throne of David and over his kingdom,
To establish it and to uphold it with justice and righteousness
From then on and forevermore.
The zeal of the Lord of hosts will accomplish this.

We are not going to be the God, but we will be like Him partaking of the divine nature 2 Peter 1:4.

The first sin was committed by those who believed they could become like God. I think perhaps you should rethink your interpretation of this verse.

 

[nomadictheist]

Of course from verse 14 the word becomes a he, because the word became flesh, Jesus. That does not make the Word a “He.”

1 John 1 explains this. It does not say there, that Jesus is God, nor he preexisted. I've shown what it is saying there, it is clear as day. It is speaking of the Father, that the Father is truth, and this truth was manifested in Christ, His Son verse 7. This is the word of life that John is declaring verse 3. We are to walk in the truth, as Jesus walked in the truth, if we don't then we lie.

Regardless of how you try to explain this away, John's statement in this section is referring back to "the Word," meaning that the Word was still the Word when He became flesh and dwelt among us. And it is then revealed that the Word is Jesus Christ. No amount of verbal gymnastics on your part will change this.

“It says the Word, who already was Jesus, became flesh”

Where does it say that? It does not say that, you are reading that into that verse, because it clearly does not say that, in anyway, shape, or form. If you choose to believe that that's one thing, but it does not state that.

That is the most straightforward reading of what it says. It doesn't say that the Word changed into something or someone else. It says the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. It continues to reveal that the Word is Jesus. To interpret it differently is to read into it.

 

[7xlightray]

John 1

Would you like to give me a passage that states who is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? Or, answer my post #603? Or, a clear statement as to who is the true God.

...because as we have shown, John 1 is not the best passage to stand on. We need definite statements. I know I have more then just one.

 

[nomadictheist]

This is only true if you take the position that God absolutely CANNOT exist as both the Father and the Son. However, scripture is clear that this is not the case, as has already been shown.

Here is another example of a very direct statement that Jesus is God:

Hebrews 1:8-9
But to the Son He [God] says:

“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever;
A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.
9 You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness;
Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You
With the oil of gladness more than Your companions.”

And here is yet another:

Acts 20:25-31

25 “And indeed, now I know that you all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, will see my face no more. 26 Therefore I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of all men. 27 For I have not shunned to declare to you the whole counsel of God. 28 Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. 29 For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. 30 Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves. 31 Therefore watch, and remember that for three years I did not cease to warn everyone night and day with tears.

(God purchased the church with His own blood... Jesus purchased the church with His blood. Therefore Jesus' blood is God's blood).

Consider also the prophecy of Isaiah 9:

For unto us a Child is born,
Unto us a Son is given;
And the government will be upon His shoulder.
And His name will be called
Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

And then there's this, from John 20:
26 And after eight days His disciples were again inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus came, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, “Peace to you!” 27 Then He said to Thomas, “Reach your finger here, and look at My hands; and reach your handhere, and put it into My side. Do not be unbelieving, but believing.”

28 And Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!”

All these are taken with the evidence already presented in John 1, which specifically says that Jesus is God, as shown and presented before. And there are more in other places in scripture.

John 1

Would you like to give me a passage that states who is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? Or, answer my post #603? Or, a clear statement as to who is the true God.

...because as we have shown, John 1 is not the best passage to stand on. We need definite statements. I know I have more then just one.

Here's yet another deception. I've quoted many other scriptures besides John 1 (see the repost above). And that's not even including other passages I quoted later from Revelation and other epistles. You keep arguing John 1 because for some reason you think your "Jesus was a thought of God and somehow that makes sense to say the Word was God when it was actually just a thought" philosophy answers it.

You have not yet touched on anything else other than to say Thomas was addressing Jesus and God as separate entities in that passage, even though there's nothing in the context to indicate that He was addressing anyone other than Jesus. This idea was, once again, read into the passage by your need to not have a triune God.

I couldn't find the post quickly, but I also showed how in Revelation both Jesus (God the Son) and God the Father claim the title "the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End." And these are just a few of the verses that support the understanding of a triune God.

 

[7xlightray]

I have. Perhaps you've forgotten that the Septuagint was translated approximately 2-3 centuries after the gospel of John was written?

It's not about "invisible ghosts." It's about, as I explained, phrasing, tense change, and reaction.



I am. Jesus didn't say "I was before Abraham." He said "before Abraham was, I am."


You haven't explained anything, except how you know that what the Bible plainly says isn't true so we have to interpret it in a way that makes no sense with the rest of scripture. I choose to believe the Bible.


You said Jesus was "a word" the same way the earth was "a word" (though the Bible never said that). You went to great pains to explain how the Word was God because He existed as a thought, which was in some sense God, but once that thought was spoken and became flesh it was no longer God, just like you say the earth, sun, moon, etc. were created (though this is not anywhere in the Bible). This view makes Jesus equal with all these things.


This is another misleading statement. The pharisees accused Jesus of having a demon on the basis that he cast out demons. Not because He made any claims that could reasonably be interpreted to mean He had a demon. They said He "broke the Sabbath" because He broke the laws of the Sabbath. Jesus said He was Lord of the Sabbath, meaning that breaking the Sabbath had no meaning for Him because He was ruler over it.


We could start with...

For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us;
And the government will rest on His shoulders;
And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.
7 There will be no end to the increase of His government or of peace,
On the throne of David and over his kingdom,
To establish it and to uphold it with justice and righteousness
From then on and forevermore.
The zeal of the Lord of hosts will accomplish this.



The first sin was committed by those who believed they could become like God. I think perhaps you should rethink your interpretation of this verse.

It does not say he IS called. What does it say? It says he WILL be called, or he SHALL be called. He is the father of the new creation. Abraham is the father of faith, Abraham is also our father, this does not make him the God. God has made him as God, as God also made Moses as God. Though Jesus is greater then Moses, for there is no one over Jesus but God. And he has been raised to God's throne as is stated in Genesis 41:40.


I've already shown there is no difference.

John 6:60 (KJV) Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This [G3778 – houtos – Οὗτος: Demonstrative Pronoun, Nominative, Masculine, Singular] is an hard saying [G3056 – logos]; who can hear it [G846 – autou – αὐτοῦ: Personal / Possessive Pronoun, Genitive, Masculine, 3rd Person, Singular]?

John 1:2 (KJV) The same/He [G3778 – houtos – Οὗτος: Demonstrative Pronoun, Nominative, Masculine, Singular] was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him [G846 – autou – αὐτοῦ: Personal / Possessive Pronoun, Genitive, Masculine, 3rd Person, Singular]; and without him [G846 – autou – αὐτοῦ: Personal / Possessive Pronoun, Genitive, Masculine, 3rd Person, Singular] was not any thing made that was made.

I don't want to go over the same things, over and over again. And you are misrepresenting what I have been saying about Jesus pre-existing. And I have explained this many times to you now, but you keep going back to an argument I am not making.

 

[7xlightray]

Here's yet another deception. I've quoted many other scriptures besides John 1 (see the repost above). And that's not even including other passages I quoted later from Revelation and other epistles. You keep arguing John 1 because for some reason you think your "Jesus was a thought of God and somehow that makes sense to say the Word was God when it was actually just a thought" philosophy answers it.

You have not yet touched on anything else other than to say Thomas was addressing Jesus and God as separate entities in that passage, even though there's nothing in the context to indicate that He was addressing anyone other than Jesus. This idea was, once again, read into the passage by your need to not have a triune God.

I couldn't find the post quickly, but I also showed how in Revelation both Jesus (God the Son) and God the Father claim the title "the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End." And these are just a few of the verses that support the understanding of a triune God.

Hebrews 1:8-9 He cannot be the only true God, if he himself has a God. This passage states this god, has a God. As angels, and man are called gods, but they are not the only true God.

Acts 20:25-31 Bit of a controversy as to whether this should read God or Lord, Greek texts reads both God and lord, also some have “with the blood of his Own” (meaning with this own begotten, or with the blood of his own son), obviously God did not die and give His blood, it was the lord that gave his blood, of course Trinitarians preferred God died, and gave His blood, what's the lie again? Romans 1:23,25. God can't die and give His blood. And going by other passages, it certainly could not be the only true God that gave His blood and died.

I've already explained John 20:28.

And just explained Isaiah 9 in my previous post.

 

[nomadictheist]

I don't want to go over the same things, over and over again. And you are misrepresenting what I have been saying about Jesus pre-existing. And I have explained this many times to you now, but you keep going back to an argument I am not making.

I have already stated in this thread John 1:14 ...the word (3056. logos - a word, being the expression of a thought; expressing the thoughts of the Father through the Spirit) became flesh, not a person became flesh. It does not say a person became flesh, it says the word became flesh. When Gods word became a tree, does that mean the tree is God? No!

I will try to make this as simple as I can. The word became the sun and the moon.
Are the sun and moon God?
Did the word, sun, and moon continue to be God?
Did the word stop being God, when the word became the sun and moon?
When God made the angel spirits, did Gods spirit that became the angel spirits stop being God.
Are the angel spirits God?


I showed the O/T teaching of “Word” of John 1 from Isaiah 55:11. Can you show me your teaching of “Word” of John 1 from the O/T?

Expressing the thoughts of the Father through the Spirit, Gods reasoning expressed by words – Is God. Who else is it? It is God. That is the “My word” You really are dragging this out.

...but if you wish. The word “logos” (“it” if you will) became flesh (“he”)

The word was God. It was His thoughts, the expression of Him. The word became flesh, but before this he was God. The word was God, but then the word became flesh. The word was God, but then the word became the earth.

So if Jesus was God, he was a – logos - being the expression of a thought, expressing the thoughts of the Father through the Spirit, reasoning expressed by words.

 

[Goatee]

It amazes me the petty arguments we have on here. Look, we all believe in the same God! We all Love Jesus. He is our Saviour!

Tiny little things that upset the wholes Christian peace!

Millions of people in the world and not everyone is going to have the same views etc. I wish we could all agree instead of this constant tit for tat arguments.

 

[nomadictheist]

Hebrews 1:8-9 He cannot be the only true God, if he himself has a God. This passage states this god, has a God. As angels, and man are called gods, but they are not the only true God.

Acts 20:25-31 Bit of a controversy as to whether this should read God or Lord, Greek texts reads both God and lord, also some have “with the blood of his Own” (meaning with this own begotten, or with the blood of his own son), obviously God did not die and give His blood, it was the lord that gave his blood, of course Trinitarians preferred God died, and gave His blood, what's the lie again? Romans 1:23,25. God can't die and give His blood. And going by other passages, it certainly could not be the only true God that gave His blood and died.

I've already explained John 20:28.

And just explained Isaiah 9 in my previous post.

These are no explanations. Just reiterations of your human ideas that Jesus cannot be the one true God because God the Father is His God. Reiterations of your human idea that Jesus can't be one with God the Father because He is functionally subordinate. It does nothing to "explain" the text. Only tries to interpret it to say something different.

Isaiah 9: I wonder why he would say "will be called." Tell me, did anyone call God "our father (Abba)" in the Old Testament? Did anyone call God "wonderful counselor" or "the Prince of Peace" before Jesus' time? Has it ever occurred to you that this is why the prophecy says "will be called?"

If "will be" is an indication of current non-existence or no Godhood, then what shall we make of Genesis 17:8?
I will give to you and your descendants after you, the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.”

Does this mean God wasn't already their God, but had to become their God? No. It is in the future sense because they had yet to accept Him as their God, just as Isaiah 9:6 is in the future tense because people at that time had yet to call Jesus by those names.

 

[rjs330]

Hebrews 1:8-9 He cannot be the only true God, if he himself has a God. This passage states this god, has a God. As angels, and man are called gods, but they are not the only true God.

Acts 20:25-31 Bit of a controversy as to whether this should read God or Lord, Greek texts reads both God and lord, also some have “with the blood of his Own” (meaning with this own begotten, or with the blood of his own son), obviously God did not die and give His blood, it was the lord that gave his blood, of course Trinitarians preferred God died, and gave His blood, what's the lie again? Romans 1:23,25. God can't die and give His blood. And going by other passages, it certainly could not be the only true God that gave His blood and died.

I've already explained John 20:28.

And just explained Isaiah 9 in my previous post.

Sorry my friend what you are doing is not explaining but twisting. The scriptures are plain and you are using human reasoning to try and comprehend an incomprehensible God. In Hebrews the writer is absolutely explaining the deity of Jesus. Thy throne Oh GOD. He doesn't give angels that. He doesn't give man that. Only of Jesus. Only God is Alpha and Omega, Jesus is Alpha and Omega. Jesus is the one spoken of in Isaiah as the everlasting Father and the Almighty God.

None are,so blind as those who will not see.

 

[Chriliman]

I agree, there is a lot of unnecessary splitting of hairs in these arguments. May we all humbly pray that God would give us all understanding as we know God is not the author of confusion. I will choose to pray, instead of debate the issue.

When God speaks His word of truth has no beginning or end. Jesus is the word of truth. It is very clear and simple and not confusing.

 

[Albion]

Question: If someone regales us with his personal reinterpretation of Scripture, are we dealing with "Controversial Theology" on this forum? Or are we dealing with something that has so little acceptance or basis that it can hardly be called "controversial?" IOW, has there been a controversy?

Or it is merely a dubious interpretation? And what's to discuss? The presenter says that X is the way he wants to read whatever verses he bases his thinking upon, and that's about all there is to the thread.

 

[Goatee]

Everyone is entitled to their own view and to express that, within reason. He does seem to go completely against the 'norm' though!

 

[7xlightray]

#612.

That is the definition of LOGOS, but there is more to it. Like the truth, the word of life, but you keep focusing on the person, and a single thought. You are giving your own meaning to what I'm saying to you, and I have explained to you what I mean, but you keep focusing on the period instead of the sentence. Again, for the last time ...I hope, 1 John 1 helps in understanding what the “Word” is.

 

[7xlightray]

Sorry my friend what you are doing is not explaining but twisting. The scriptures are plain and you are using human reasoning to try and comprehend an incomprehensible God. In Hebrews the writer is absolutely explaining the deity of Jesus. Thy throne Oh GOD. He doesn't give angels that. He doesn't give man that. Only of Jesus. Only God is Alpha and Omega, Jesus is Alpha and Omega. Jesus is the one spoken of in Isaiah as the everlasting Father and the Almighty God.

None are,so blind as those who will not see.

No, I am using the whole Bible for understanding, not just some verses, as is shown by the following verses.
How do we twist this clear statement...

John 17:1,3 Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father...thee the only true God
Hebrews 1:8-9
Acts 20:25-31
John 20:28
Isaiah 9
1 Corinthians 8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father

...now we can come to the correct understanding.


In Heb. 1 he is showing how Jesus BECAME better then the angels, and INHERITED a better name then they.

Seeing as you seem to think that names, and titles, that God also uses for Himself, must mean the one that uses the same names and titles as God, must also be the only true God, what is Jesus new name in Rev. 3:12?