Why the Trinity is a False Doctrine

[DrBubbaLove]

We worship God the Son, Jesus, who is the exact image of God the Father, and in worshiping Jesus, a distinct being from the Father, we worship the Father. Have you no understanding of these distinctions, yet the Father is greatest of all in whom the son is even in subjection to?

Did not ask about distinctions, but my question did assume these distinctions (between Father and Son) were being made. And since they are made, this view has more than one god. Clarifying the view by suggesting the multiple god thing does not matter because only one god is worshiped directly does not change the fact that the view has multiple gods. Sayying we worship the Son (one god) and through him we worship another god (the Father) still has us worshiping multiple gods.

Am aware of no Christian faith that allows for multiple gods. In fact along with Judaism, when Christianity was founded those two faiths were unique in having only one God. This view has somethings in common with Mormonism.

So is the position that it should be ok to have multiple gods as long as we only worship one directly?

 

[7xlightray]

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.

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,​

Lord does not mean God, for God made Jesus both lord and Christ...

Acts 2:36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.​

If He made him Christ then He made him lord. If he became Christ, then he became lord, therefore there was a time he became lord, and a time he was not lord. This agrees with scripture.

Acts 10:38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.​

This does not say Jesus was God and went about doing good, and healing.
It says God was with him.


Would you like to answer this... a passage that states who is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob?

 

[Fireinfolding]

Heres a few, the question as it pertains to the one who ascended and descended asking,

Jesus showing the ascension and David calling the son of God (who is the Christ) Lord

 

[7xlightray]

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.

Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.​

Why does scripture say Jesus shall be called the everlasting father, not man, but scripture?

Isaiah explains it himself, in both chapter 9 and 22...

Isaiah 22:20 And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliakim [Jesus] the son of Hilkiah: 21 And I will clothe him with thy robe, and strengthen him with thy girdle, and I will commit thy government into his hand: and he shall be a father [Jesus is a father, as Adam and Abraham are a father, but towards a new creation] to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. 22 And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open [what did Jesus say in Rev. 3?].​

Jesus became a father, because the government was put into his hands. You got that part right, it is future!

Not because he is God, but because the government would be put into his hands. Clear, and easy for anyone to understand, only have to be willing.

I am using scripture to back up what I say.

 

[Fireinfolding]

He is called eternal life that was with the Father also

Its likely the way it says eternal life which was with the Father, or that they might know the true God and Jesus whom thou has sent. Showing separate yet together in that same, since coming to the Father is by Jesus Christ and Christ reveals the Father (to us).

 

[7xlightray]

We must be able to use all scripture, and come to a correct understanding.

Isaiah 45:1 Thus saith the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus [Jesus Isaiah 44:28], whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him; and I will loose the loins of kings[to put all his enemies under him], to open before him the two leaved gates; and the gates shall not be shut; 2 I will go before thee, and make the crooked places straight[this speaks of the Father's Spirit in John the Baptist to prepare the people for the coming of Himself in His Christ, and the Christ. If we use the same reasoning many use for the reason Jesus is God, then John the Baptist is also God, because God says, He is the one who goes before him and makes the crooked places straight, Isaiah 40:4; Luke 3:2-6]. . .4 For Jacob my servant's sake, and Israel mine elect, I have even called thee by thy name[Luke 1:31]: I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me [Jesus did not know the Father before he was born, before he came into existence]. 5 I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me [Jesus did not exist before he was born. Jesus could not have been an angel, nor God, nor the Father, nor anyone, or anything else that would qualify him as a person before he came into existence]:​

This passage makes it clear, the Father speaking and states, there is no God beside me, there is none else, just the LORD alone.
And that Jesus did not know God before his birth, before God named him Jesus in Luke 1:31.

As it is stated in another way...
Psalm 22:9 which we should all be familiar with, Jesus speaking...

I was cast upon You from birth. From my mother’s womb You have been my God.​

 

[DrBubbaLove]

There is only one God, the Father, even if someone is called a god, it is merely to describe a great authority they have been granted, but it does not mean they themselves are God the Father, who alone is infinite and only he predetermines all things, but rather, a little god, such as Jesus Christ himself. He is a little god, because he himself is not God the Father, that predetermines all things, but rather, an expression of the Father, and thus he acts with the full authority granted to him by the Father to be God and Lord over creation. These are biblical teachings, hence all the scriptures I quoted. And Jesus Christ was not the only son the Father has engendered, he has brought forth more sons, so they too, are considered little gods, below the authority of Jesus Christ.

I understood that this view has one supreme God and many other "lessor" gods. I guess am asking how we distinguish such a view from pagan Rome or Greece or Joseph Smith's idea of gods.

Am not sure how labeling one individual god a "lessor" god helps avoid the problem of having a view that clearly has more than one god. It simply creates a hierarchy of gods, and in this case puts what is called God the Father above many other "lessor" gods. The pagan gods of Greece and Rome had similar hierarchy and like this view of the OP, one god was consider supreme over all others.

I do not agree that history or the Bible support any Christian faith having a view that includes multiple gods. In fact both the Bible and Christian history have always stood against the notion of multiple gods. Am happy that I understand the view presented, which that there is one 'God the Father' and many lessor gods. Most people call this polytheism. I can accept that the OP does not see it that way claiming we should worship the Son (a lessor god) and through him the supreme God, the Father.

The statement was made that this "lessor god" called the Son is an image of the Father. I wonder what an Image of a Perfect Divine Being would look like in this view as clearly that Image is seen as inferior. Why would the reflection of the Father be inferior?

 

[Job8]

There is only one God, the Father...

Correction. There is only One God, eternally existent as three Persons, Father, Son (the Word), and Holy Spirit. If that boggles your mind, it should. But that does not mean you can change God's truths into Satan's lies.

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. (1 Jn 5:7 KJV Protestant).

And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one. (1 Jn 5:7 Douay-Rheims Catholic).

 

[nomadictheist]

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,​

Lord does not mean God, for God made Jesus both lord and Christ...

Then why did you stop there? The verse continues: "one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [some translations say "through whom"] are all things, and we exist through Him."

If we carry out your interpretation, then this verse contradicts itself. Because it says that "all things" are "of God" and all things are "by Christ." If we take the first "all things" to include Jesus, then we must take the second "all things" to include God.

If, however, you take this to be reconciled with the rest of scripture, that God created all things by Jesus -who was the Word - who was God - then it makes perfect sense (shocking, I know).

Similarly, if we take the "one God" to mean that Jesus cannot be God, then we must also take the "one Lord" to mean that God cannot be Lord. But, of course, just as taking "one God" to mean that Jesus is not in fact God, taking "one Lord" to mean that God is not in fact Lord contradicts many other scriptures.

Acts 2:36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.​

If He made him Christ then He made him lord. If he became Christ, then he became lord, therefore there was a time he became lord, and a time he was not lord. This agrees with scripture.

Yes. God made Him both Christ and Lord, because He humbled Himself first by becoming flesh and a servant of all. How does this mean that He is not God?

Acts 10:38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.​

This does not say Jesus was God and went about doing good, and healing.
It says God was with him.

Indeed. It also says in John that the Word was with God and the Word was God. So why would you assume it would not be possible for God to be with the Word unless the Word were not God?

Would you like to answer this... a passage that states who is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob?

“I am the Lord, and there is no other;
Besides Me there is no God.
I will gird you, though you have not known Me;
6 That men may know from the rising to the setting of the sun
That there is no one besides Me.
I am the Lord, and there is no other,
7 The One forming light and creating darkness,
Causing well-being and creating calamity;
I am the Lord who does all these.


Thus says the Lord,

“The products of Egypt and the merchandise of Cush
And the Sabeans, men of stature,
Will come over to you and will be yours;
They will walk behind you, they will come over in chains
And will bow down to you;
They will make supplication to you:
Surely,God is with you, and there is none else,
No other God.’”
15 Truly, You are a God who hides Himself,
O God of Israel, Savior!
16 They will be put to shame and even humiliated, all of them;
The manufacturers of idols will go away together in humiliation.
17 Israel has been saved by the Lord
With an everlasting salvation;
You will not be put to shame or humiliated
To all eternity.

“Declare and set forth your case;
Indeed, let them consult together.
Who has announced this from of old?
Who has long since declared it?
Is it not I, the Lord?
And there is no other God besides Me,
A righteous God and a Savior;
There is none except Me.
22 “Turn to Me and be saved, all the ends of the earth;
For I am God, and there is no other.
…to Me every knee will bow, every tongue will swear allegiance.”

Now let's turn to the NT...
"That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."

 

[cgaviria]

I understood that this view has one supreme God and many other "lessor" gods. I guess am asking how we distinguish such a view from pagan Rome or Greece or Joseph Smith's idea of gods.

Am not sure how labeling one individual god a "lessor" god helps avoid the problem of having a view that clearly has more than one god. It simply creates a hierarchy of gods, and in this case puts what is called God the Father above many other "lessor" gods. The pagan gods of Greece and Rome had similar hierarchy and like this view of the OP, one god was consider supreme over all others.

I do not agree that history or the Bible support any Christian faith having a view that includes multiple gods. In fact both the Bible and Christian history have always stood against the notion of multiple gods. Am happy that I understand the view presented, which that there is one 'God the Father' and many lessor gods. Most people call this polytheism. I can accept that the OP does not see it that way claiming we should worship the Son (a lessor god) and through him the supreme God, the Father.

The statement was made that this "lessor god" called the Son is an image of the Father. I wonder what an Image of a Perfect Divine Being would look like in this view as clearly that Image is seen as inferior. Why would the reflection of the Father be inferior?

I don't care about other people's views. This is the teaching of scripture. I have proven it with scripture. Believe it or not. Simple.

 

[btomov]

Are you allowed to even post anti trinity stuff on this forum?

 

[Strong in Him]

I don't quite understand the position that some are putting forward.

The view seems to be that there is one God AND the Lord Jesus Christ.
O.k. but who then is Jesus?
If he is God, yet these people deny the Trinity, then there must be two Gods .Even if Jesus is a " lesser" God, if he is divine then there are two Gods - God the Father and the God, Jesus. The only way for the Father to be God and Jesus to be God and there be only one God, is for them to be one - which is what Jesus said.
If Jesus was only a man, however, then the person who died on the cross was ONLY human, and had no more power to take away our sins and grant eternal life than anyone else.

So if he was only a human being - even a highly anointed one - I don't believe he can be my Saviour, or can truly set me free and give me the abundant life that he promised, and I don't think I want to know.
But if he was God, the one who created me, against whom I sinned and even though he had every right to destroy and disown me, he instead stepped in to take MY punishment for MY sin, suffering anguish and agony for me; to allow me to be reconciled to him and become his child - then that is the most amazing act of love ever, and I want to know, love and follow this awesome God.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but as far as I can see, those are the only two choices; Jesus either was God or he wasn't. Yes I know that's difficult and leads to many questions, but the alternative is even worse.

 

[Strong in Him]

I don't care about other people's views. This is the teaching of scripture. I have proven it with scripture. Believe it or not. Simple.

You've proven it to your satisfaction, that is to say you've put together isolated Scriptures and interpreted them in a particular way. That doesn't mean that you've proved your case. You still haven't addressed any of the Scriptures that I quoted.

 

[cgaviria]

I don't quite understand the position that some are putting forward.

The view seems to be that there is one God AND the Lord Jesus Christ.
O.k. but who then is Jesus?
If he is God, yet these people deny the Trinity, then there must be two Gods .Even if Jesus is a " lesser" God, if he is divine then there are two Gods - God the Father and the God, Jesus. The only way for the Father to be God and Jesus to be God and there be only one God, is for them to be one - which is what Jesus said.
If Jesus was only a man, however, then the person who died on the cross was ONLY human, and had no more power to take away our sins and grant eternal life than anyone else.

So if he was only a human being - even a highly anointed one - I don't believe he can be my Saviour, or can truly set me free and give me the abundant life that he promised, and I don't think I want to know.
But if he was God, the one who created me, against whom I sinned and even though he had every right to destroy and disown me, he instead stepped in to take MY punishment for MY sin, suffering anguish and agony for me; to allow me to be reconciled to him and become his child - then that is the most amazing act of love ever, and I want to know, love and follow this awesome God.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but as far as I can see, those are the only two choices; Jesus either was God or he wasn't. Yes I know that's difficult and leads to many questions, but the alternative is even worse.

They are two gods because they are two distinct beings, yet they act as one, because one does the will of the other, and one has been appointed by the other. Yet in this distinction, there is only really one God, the Father, by whom all draw authority from, even Jesus Christ, and the authority of Jesus Christ will indeed end when this heaven and earth are done away with, and all authority will be given back to the Father, the one God,

Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For “God has put all things in subjection under his feet.” But when it says, “all things are put in subjection,” it is plain that he is excepted who put all things in subjection under him. When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all.(1 Corinthians 15:24 [ESV])

 

[Strong in Him]

Well, if you take cgaviria viewpoint christianity has a heirarchy of gods.....There is God the Father.....then lesser gods....that is a pagan viewpoint if I ever read one.

That's what I thought he was saying.

 

[Fireinfolding]

I dont understand all the dancing around is about with "the greater and the lesser then's". Jesus did say the Father is greater than him right? So wouldnt it be calling Jesus a liar disagreeing with him on that? And given Jesus was sent by the Father and Jesus said to them that he that is sent is not greater than he that sendeth him that could also be shown accordingly. I dont understand how that is sometimes supposed to be of some inferior quality, that just seems like people wanting to demonize you for agreeing with Jesus words in that because they dont know how to agree with his words. I just dont understand people doing that. As even Jesus said, the disciple is not above his master but everyone that is perfect shall be as his Master (theres the not above, but the like). As the Father is so was Christ in the world as I regard it, especially given Jesus said he that sees him sees the Father as he is the image of the invisble God (even his expressed person).

There are different measures, of greater than's, what is equal (or like) lower than, and made much better then, etc.

So on the one hand, Jesus was sent, and he that is sent (Jesus said) is not greater then He that sendeth him (even as the Father did send the Son (who also said the Father is greater then I). Whereas the Word was made flesh (and so in that way) He was "made lower then" the angels (but for a specific purpose) for "the suffering of" death. But when they saw/knew Jesus Christ (even in his expressed person) they saw the Father (Jesus being the image of the invisible God) in that way.

I dont understand why that at any time someone confirms Jesus words (concerning the Father being greater, or the head of Christ being God) that that needs to be railed against (or even pitted against) or strawed up with something implied there that is not even there. Im lost there.

 

[cgaviria]

I dont understand all the dancing around is about with "the greater and the lesser then's". Jesus did say the Father is greater than him right? So wouldnt it be calling Jesus a liar disagreeing with him on that? And given Jesus was sent by the Father and Jesus said to them that he that is sent is not greater than the one who sendeth him that could also be shown accordingly. I dont understand how that is sometimes supposed to be of some inferior quality, that just seems people wanting to demonize you for agreeing with Jesus words in that because they dont know how to agree with his words. I just dont understand people doing that. As even Jesus said, the disciple is not above his master but everyone that is perfect shall be as his Master (theres the not above, but the like). As the Father is so was Christ in the world as I regard it, especially given Jesus said he that sees him sees the Father as he is the image of the invisble God (even his expressed person).

There are different measures, of greater than's, what is equal or like, lower than, made much better then etc.

So on the one hand, Jesus was sent, and he that is sent (Jesus said) is not greater then He that sendeth him (even as the Father did send the Son (who also said the Father is greater then I). Whereas the Word was made flesh (and so in that way) He was "made lower then" the angels (but for a specific purpose) for "the suffering of" death. But when they saw/knew Jesus Christ (even in his expressed person) they saw the Father (Jesus being the image of the invisible God) in that way.

I dont understand why that at any time someone confirms Jesus words (concerning the Father being greater, or the head of Christ being God) that that needs to be railed against (or even pitted against) or strawed up with something implied there that is not even there. Im lost there.

Its because there are many who equate Jesus Christ as an exact copy of the Father, which is absolutely not true. He is an image of the Father, an expression, granted authority by the Father, lesser than the Father, yet the very representation of Father, and thus is God because the Father has made him God and Lord over all creation. Very simple concept, and scriptural.

 

[cgaviria]

This entire post is hilarious....do you write for a comedy show in your spare time?...if not you should consider it....

Will I get career advise from whom this scripture refers to?

“Do not give dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you. (Matthew 7:6 [ESV])

 

[Berean777]

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,​

Lord does not mean God, for God made Jesus both lord and Christ...

Acts 2:36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.​

If He made him Christ then He made him lord. If he became Christ, then he became lord, therefore there was a time he became lord, and a time he was not lord. This agrees with scripture.

Acts 10:38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.​

This does not say Jesus was God and went about doing good, and healing.
It says God was with him.


Would you like to answer this... a passage that states who is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob?

This is simply not true, because it diametrically opposes the internal consistency of the Bible, by bringing in dis-harmony to the Word of God.

Your statement below highlighted is in error. I give you the opportunity to correct it.......

therefore there was a time he became lord, and a time he was not lord. This agrees with scripture.

John 17:4-5
4I have brought you glory on earth by finishing the work you gave me to do. 5And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.

and........your statements continue in error........

Lord does not mean God

Philippians 2:6
Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;

As far as Jesus is concerned Nature and Equality with God the Father is a given, before even the incarnation as John 17:4-5 declares.

Your statements of denying Christ's nature as the God of the Bible continue......

This does not say Jesus was God

I have thus far counted denial of Christ's Godhood nature thrice within the one post of yours.

Matthew 10:33
But whoever disowns me before others, I will disown before my Father in heaven.

Jesus is the Living Word existing before being made flesh in the incarnation. scripture testifies of this.......

Philippians 2:7
but emptied Himself, having taken the form of a servant, having been made in the likeness of men.

Jesus before the incarnation is the the Living Word, existing coequally and co-eternally with the Father.

John 3:31-34
31The one who comes from above is above all; the one who is from the earth belongs to the earth, and speaks as one from the earth. The one who comes from heaven is above all. 32He testifies to what he has seen and heard, but no one accepts his testimony. 33Whoever has accepted it has certified that God is truthful. 34For the one whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for God gives the Spirit without limit.

God is Holy, Holy and Holy Spirit (John 4:24). The Christ who speaks the Words of the Father, is the one to one designated interpreter of God himself on earth, as the Living Word made flesh. Notice the Living Word is the same Holy Spirit made flesh, who walked among men as the Emmanuel. The fact that Jesus said that the Holy Ghost cannot come on Pentecost, unless he goes, is highlighting the pinion point that the Holy Spirit was in him without limit, when he walked on earth as the man Jesus of Nazareth. The only way the Holy Spirit could be poured, required the Lord to go and to send him. John 14:23 has the Father and the Son dwelling in the believers within the context of the Holy Ghost given on Pentecost.

John 14:23
Jesus replied, "Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them.

As Jesus would say...On that day (Pentecost) you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you. (John 14:20)

This is where John writes.....

John 1:1-2
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2The same was in the beginning with God.

The SAME was in the beginning with God the Father, points to having the very nature of God himself (Philippians 2:6). How could your following statements not be denying the Lord his Godhood, as the God of the Bible.

therefore there was a time he became lord, and a time he was not lord. This agrees with scripture.
Lord does not mean God
This does not say Jesus was God

Just how many true Gods are there in your scheme of things?
Just how many names are there to be revered and worshiped in the Scheme of things?

Philippians 2:9-11
9Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: 10That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; 11And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

In conclusion it is self evident that the glory of the Father is solely dependent on the Lord Jesus Christ, that is to say that it is because of the Son that the Father has glory. His one to one designated representative, the LOGOS, is the express image of the Father and his person. So it would be understandable that the name of Jesus is above every name, because that one name stands as the only name and from that name, the Father receives his glory.

How could a created being that the Father created hold a name that is required, in order for the Father to receive his glory. There is no name transfer here, rather the glory that the Living Word had with the Father before the world was created by him (John 17:4-5), is the one nature (substance), that is pointing to the one God. When we talk of natures, we have many humans having the same nature, but when talking of God, there is only one nature that is UN-replicated (UN-created), hence one God.

The Living Word is UN-replicated (UN-created) and is Co-Equal and Co-Eternal with the Father being of that same substance (nature).

There is no begat from a human nature (natural) contextual model that can be applied to God, because he is ONE (E-KHAD).

 

[DrBubbaLove]

I don't care about other people's views. This is the teaching of scripture. I have proven it with scripture. Believe it or not. Simple.

I did not ask anyone to care about other people's views. Making a claim is easy, proving it is another matter. The point is, and it was never denied, this view has a supreme god and also lessor gods and this was freely admitted - so it really does not matter what anyone thinks they "proved" from Scripture -this alternate view to the supposedly false Trinity Doctrine is polytheistic.

I would think that if scripture were meant to be understood as promoting polytheism then we would have to rewrite a lot of history and also renounce Christianity's link to Judaism, which was monotheistic long before Jesus.

The question about how the image of God the Father could be imperfect goes unanswered as well.