Why the Trinity is a False Doctrine

[cgaviria]

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.

You may call it polytheistic, the scriptures calls it being sons of God. To be a son of God is to share in the divine nature of the Father, and to also be granted authority by the Father as Jesus Christ was granted authority,

Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. (1 John 3:2 [KJV])

for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. (Galatians 3:26 [ESV])

by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire. (2 Peter 1:4 [ESV])

The one who conquers and who keeps my works until the end, to him I will give authority over the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron, as when earthen pots are broken in pieces, even as I myself have received authority from my Father. (Revelation 2:26 [ESV])

You lack understanding in these matters because your perception on the distinction between the Father and the Son is way off, so if you can't understand that, you also cannot understand how the sons of God can be appointed to be "little gods" in the kingdom of Iesou Christou.

 

[Berean777]

You may call it polytheistic, the scriptures calls it being sons of God. To be a son of God is to share in the divine nature of the Father, and to also be granted authority by the Father as Jesus Christ was granted authority,






You lack understanding in these matters because your perception on the distinction between the Father and the Son is way off, so if you can't understand that, you also cannot understand how the sons of God can be appointed to be "little gods" in the kingdom of Iesou Christou.

God is a term used to be identified as the Creator and by which it mandates the creatures worship him as their creator.

Little gods also suggests some form of worship to lesser authorities.

Are you saying that one day you will be worshipped as a Son of God?

 

[Fireinfolding]

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.

Hey cgaviria,
You know, I believe a "copy" is something which is similar or identical to another. I might not understand your protest in respects to the use of that particular word there( but then again I know folks can be word sensitive around these particular things) which can sometimes drives me nuts so probably best to stay with how scripture words something (which I see you try to do for the most part). And that (for me) actually helps to catch where someone is making their particular connections (or missing them) or where I might be doing the same. Regardless, they really do help to make things more clear (especially in respects to how someone lays something out). So, even though I might not use the word "copy" either as it might pertain to Jesus Christ (in relation to the Father) I'm often okay with getting the gist of how someone might mean a thing without making someone an offender for a word.

We know he come out from God, as the Word was made flesh. And that Jesus is the image of the invisible God. And by that, I do not agree that it is speaking of His image (an in his external appearance per se') but His inner likeness (His person, as expressed). He is (in that sense) the image (or likeness of) the invisible God ( Col 1:15)

Or His "expressed image" (according to the definition) would mean the exact expression/ the image of any given person or thing, (in this case the Father) having "the marked likeness" or the precise reproduction in every respect. Which also sounds a little like a copy (at least in the reproduction sense of it). And that ofcourse that definition coming from Heb 1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image G5481 of his person...

I don't see any reason to disagree with you on how you reason the latter part given God did put all things under him, He himself being excepted 1 Cr 15:27 Who said, Isaiah 55:4 Behold, I have given him for a witness to the people, a leader and commander to the people, even as Jesus said, John 8:18 I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me. These along with various confirmations in Psalm 110:1, Acts 2:34, Acts 2:36, Acts 13:33, Psalm 2:6, 2:12, Psalm 110:5, and elsewhere. Sounds about right to me in these things.

 

[cgaviria]

God is a term used to be identified as the Creator and by which it mandates the creatures worship him as their creator.

Little gods also suggests some form of worship to lesser authorities.

Are you saying that one day you will be worshipped as a Son of God?

No, because all worship is to be directed to God the Father only, as we even see evident in this scripture where John attempted to bow to an angel, who was indeed worthy of honor, but not this type of worship,

I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things. And when I heard and saw them, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who showed them to me, but he said to me, “You must not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your brothers the prophets, and with those who keep the words of this book. Worship God.” (Revelation 22:8 [ESV])

And the only way to direct this type of worship to the Father is through Jesus Christ, because he is the exact representation of the Father, so every knee will indeed bow to Jesus Christ to whom alone is this type of worship for, and thus in doing that will also bow to the Father as well,

for it is written, “As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.” (Romans 14:11 [ESV])

Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Philippians 2:9 [ESV])

So if even angels will bow to him that exist in the heaven, those elect will also bow to him and thus worship the Father. So although the elect themselves will not be worshiped in this manner that alone belongs to Jesus Christ and the Father, the elect will indeed still receive a great measure of honor and will rule over those who remain alive on the earth, and will also be granted authority to judge the wicked on the earth.

 

[cgaviria]

Hey cgaviria,
You know, I believe a "copy" is something which is similar or identical to another. I might not understand your protest in respects to the use of that particular word there( but then again I know folks can be word sensitive around these particular things) which can sometimes drives me nuts so probably best to stay with how scripture words something (which I see you try to do for the most part). And that (for me) actually helps to catch where someone is making their particular connections (or missing them) or where I might be doing the same. Regardless, they really do help to make things more clear (especially in respects to how someone lays something out). So, even though I might not use the word "copy" either as it might pertain to Jesus Christ (in relation to the Father) I'm often okay with getting the gist of how someone might mean a thing without making someone an offender for a word.

We know he come out from God, as the Word was made flesh. And that Jesus is the image of the invisible God. And by that, I do not agree that it is speaking of His image (an in his external appearance per se') but His inner likeness (His person, as expressed). He is (in that sense) the image (or likeness of) the invisible God ( Col 1:15)

Or His "expressed image" (according to the definition) would mean the exact expression/ the image of any given person or thing, (in this case the Father) having "the marked likeness" or the precise reproduction in every respect. Which also sounds a little like a copy (at least in the reproduction sense of it). And that ofcourse that definition coming from Heb 1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image G5481 of his person...

I don't see any reason to disagree with you on how you reason the latter part given God did put all things under him, He himself being excepted 1 Cr 15:27 Who said, Isaiah 55:4 Behold, I have given him for a witness to the people, a leader and commander to the people, even as Jesus said, John 8:18 I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me. These along with various confirmations in Psalm 110:1, Acts 2:34, Acts 2:36, Acts 13:33, Psalm 2:6, 2:12, Psalm 110:5, and elsewhere. Sounds about right to me in these things.

Apparently I am crazy for sticking to scripture exactly as it teaches. . May God bless you.

 

[Der Alte]

You call me a pagan yet you yourself teach the doctrine of the trinity which is originally a pagan teaching itself? How intelligent of you to surmise this.

This is a totally false accusation which is copy/pasted all over the internet. There was no society or culture with a Trinity or even a clearly defined triad of deities which could have influenced early Christianity. Every attempt to describe a pagan trinity/triad, I have ever seen was an arbitrary eenie-meenie-mine-moe listing of 3 deities from a pagan pantheon. What I have never seen is any credible, verifiable, historical evidence for a trinity/triad. That would be a writing from the late 1st century BC to the early 1st century AD, by a participant or eye witness. Randy Random's blog, saying everybody knows, etc. does not qualify as credible evidence.

 

[Fireinfolding]

Apparently I am crazy for sticking to scripture exactly as it teaches. . May God bless you.

God bless you as well cgaviria, even as we all grow in our understanding.

Very rarely is scripture used so much, that is what I look for (workmanship) whether the same is fully correct at every point I have no clue yet as I havent read everything, but your zeal, your laboring in the word and the way you respond speaks well of you if nothing else.

We might not see eye to eye on everything but you are certainly not crazy for sticking to the scripture, if anything that is the most sane thing one can do. And because if we are ever wrong about something and we have respect unto Him and His words above all else (knowing He can make any given thing clearer to us) it will eventually prove out to be a safegard for us in our own correction.

Peace to you and God bless you and yours

 

[cgaviria]

This is a totally false accusation which is copy/pasted all over the internet. There was no society or culture with a Trinity or even a clearly defined triad of deities which could have influenced early Christianity. Every attempt to describe a pagan trinity/triad, I have ever seen was an arbitrary eenie-meenie-mine-moe listing of 3 deities from a pagan pantheon. What I have never seen is any credible, verifiable, historical evidence for a trinity/triad. That would be a writing from the late 1st century BC to the early 1st century AD, by a participant or eye witness. Randy Random's blog, saying everybody knows, etc. does not qualify as credible evidence.

Call it as you may, whether it is "pagan" or not, I am not here to argue about the origins of doctrines of false doctrines and whence they came from, it is still a false doctrine. Done.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

You may call it polytheistic, the scriptures calls it being sons of God. To be a son of God is to share in the divine nature of the Father, and to also be granted authority by the Father as Jesus Christ was granted authority,






You lack understanding in these matters because your perception on the distinction between the Father and the Son is way off, so if you can't understand that, you also cannot understand how the sons of God can be appointed to be "little gods" in the kingdom of Iesou Christou.

Why are we talking about my perception? Why are we bringing up sons of God? Our sonship is an inheritance through Him BTW not a birthright and does not make us "lessor gods". In Christianity, as was Judaism before it there is only one God, no lessor gods.

The view here was clearly stated, much as those who once idolized Zeus, Jupiter or Thor, it was said there is a god the Father and then lessor gods of which the Father son is put one. In such a construct there is little difference between it and Greek, Roman or Viking mythology.

Why does the previous statement that the son is an imperfect Image of the Father not get addressed?
How is an exact representation of Perfect not perfect?

 

[cgaviria]

Why are we talking about my perception? Why are we bringing up sons of God? Our sonship is an inheritance through Him BTW not a birthright and does not make us "lessor gods". In Christianity, as was Judaism before it there is only one God, no lessor gods.

The view here was clearly stated, much as those who once idolized Zeus, Jupiter or Thor, it was said there is a god the Father and then lessor gods of which the Father son is put one. In such a construct there is little difference between it and Greek, Roman or Viking mythology.

Why does the previous statement that the son is an imperfect Image of the Father not get addressed?

Because "son of God" relates to being "lesser god", yet each son of God receives a different measure of authority in the kingdom of Christ. Is this so difficult for you to get through your head? It has nothing to do with idolotry, it has to do with authority granted to all who are partakers in the inheritance of Christ, and thus it can be said, these the elect will be "tiny gods", because these will exist on the earth as beings who are immortal, new bodies that are glorified to radiate light, rule over those that remain alive, and even have authority to judge. Surely you can perceive that all these that will exist on the earth in this manner will surely be perceived as gods by those who remain alive and mortal.

When have I ever said Jesus Christ is an imperfect image? Boy do you people love inventing things I have never said.

 

[Berean777]

No, because all worship is to be directed to God the Father only, as we even see evident in this scripture where John attempted to bow to an angel, who was indeed worthy of honor, but not this type of worship,


And the only way to direct this type of worship to the Father is through Jesus Christ, because he is the exact representation of the Father, so every knee will indeed bow to Jesus Christ to whom alone is this type of worship for, and thus in doing that will also bow to the Father as well,



So if even angels will bow to him that exist in the heaven, those elect will also bow to him and thus worship the Father. So although the elect themselves will not be worshiped in this manner that alone belongs to Jesus Christ and the Father, the elect will indeed still receive a great measure of honor and will rule over those who remain alive on the earth, and will also be granted authority to judge the wicked on the earth.

True what you said, that the Father is worshiped, through worshipping his Christ/Son.

Your last post indicated smaller gods, by which you classified the Lord as one of them, albeit authorised by the Father to be worshipped by all.

Based on that particular post, you can't imply others gods, otherwise it would break the 1st commandment....

Deu 6:13
Fear the LORD your God, serve him only and take your oaths in his name.

What part of serve him ONLY does one not understand?

Scripture fortunately elaborates on the meaning of serving only one God.

Deu 6:14
14Do not follow other gods, the gods of the peoples around you;

Jesus was a real person right?

Yes. In that case he is according to your interpretation a god of the peoples around you.

We know that a lesser god cannot be worshipped, for God's efficacy prevents him from contradicting his own word, regardless.

This means that a created being cannot be worshipped in place of God. So in this respect, the reason to why Jesus is worshipped in place of the Father, is because he is of the same nature and who holds the same name. Two beings carry two names, yet the Christ is the same being who of the indivisible and infinite Holy Spirit. (John 4:24)

Jesus even spells it out.

Luke 4:8
Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Worship the Lord your God and serve him only.'"

Jesus must be the one true God of the Bible and because the Father receives hi glory from him, then him becomes him, the I Am.

 

[cgaviria]

True what you said, that the Father is worshiped, through worshipping his Christ/Son.

Your last post indicated smaller gods, by which you classified the Lord as one of them, albeit authorised by the Father to be worshipped by all.

Based on that particular post, you can't imply others gods, otherwise it would break the 1st commandment....



What part of serve him ONLY does one not understand?

Scripture fortunately elaborates on the meaning of serving only one God.



Jesus was a real person right?

Yes. In that case he is according to your interpretation a god of the peoples around you.

We know that a lesser god cannot be worshipped, for God's efficacy prevents him from contradicting his own word, regardless.

This means that a created being cannot be worshipped in place of God. So in this respect, the reason to why Jesus is worshipped in place of the Father, is because he is of the same nature and who holds the same name. Two beings carry two names, yet the Christ is the same being who of the indivisible and infinite Holy Spirit. (John 4:24)

Jesus even spells it out.



Jesus must be the one true God of the Bible and because the Father receives hi glory from him, then him becomes him, the I Am.

The 1st commandment has nothing to do with the existence of other gods, and even so, Jesus Christ is himself a God that is distinct from the Father, who is the one true God that grants Jesus Christ authority to be a God. And even in worshiping this distinct being that is not the Father it is not considered idolatry nor breaking the 1st commandment, and it is because the Father chose him to be worshiped. The Father has ordained worship of him by worshiping his image, which is the God Jesus Christ. If you don't understand these distinctions you can't possibly understand other things and how the elect are also granted authority over the earth as "tiny gods", but are not themselves objects of worship, but rather, also representations and images of the Father just as Jesus Christ is a representation and image of the Father.

 

[Fireinfolding]

How would one count that the LORD said this also

Isaiah 43:11
I, even I, am the LORD;
and beside me there is no saviour H3467


Hosea 13:4 Yet I am the LORD thy God from the land of Egypt,
and thou shalt know no god but me: for there is no saviour H3467 beside me.

And yet in

Oba 1:21 And saviours H3467 shall come up on mount Zion to judge the mount of Esau;
and the kingdom shall be the LORD'S.

He will say no saviour besides me even as no other God, then we see saviours in that one verse also right?

 

[cgaviria]

How would one count that the LORD said this also

Isaiah 43:11
I, even I, am the LORD;
and beside me there is no saviour H3467


Hosea 13:4 Yet I am the LORD thy God from the land of Egypt,
and thou shalt know no god but me: for there is no saviour H3467 beside me.

And yet in

Oba 1:21 And saviours H3467 shall come up on mount Zion to judge the mount of Esau;
and the kingdom shall be the LORD'S.

He will say no saviour besides me even as no other God, then we see saviours in that one verse also right?

That's a very interesting prophecy in Obadiah you just quoted. I will need to chew on it for a while and let it digest before I form an opinion, but I love it. Thank you for quoting it . May I ask what "denomination" you affiliate yourself with, if you do claim one?

 

[rjs330]

I'm actually going to quit this. Philippians really explains this whole deal. Jesus has the very nature of God, humbled himself. Hebrews and Isaiah all call,him God along with John. He claims Alpha and Omega. He created all things as God. The fundamental lack of understanding is unbelievable. Yes there is plenty of scripture indicating the differences in roles of the trinity. Jesus humbled himself. He chose t o humble himself. He didn't have to but he did. His humbling really is the entire explanation. He cannot be Alpha and Omega the Almighty God and the Everlasting Father if he is not. The lack of understanding is entirely based upon the lack of understanding of Jesus becoming,man and the messiah. I'm no longer going to participate in this conversation. I know it's no skin off anyone's nose if I quit, but the stubborness exhibited here is prideful. The refusal to adhere to the entirety of scripture is a matter of a,prideful heart. The Bible does NOT contradict itself. Jesus cannot be Alpha and Omega and not. The scriptures call him God they state he has the nature of God, he does,things only God can do, yet there are scriptures indicating he is begotten first born etc. How can this be? It's because Jesus humbled himself and became flesh. God humbled himself. Anything else is false doctrine. I have now chastised those that believe Jesus is not God as teachers of a false doctrine. It is not my place to further argue this. It is now between them and God.

 

[Fireinfolding]

That's a very interesting prophecy in Obadiah you just quoted. I will need to chew on it for a while and let it digest before I form an opinion, but I love it. Thank you for quoting it . May I ask what "denomination" you affiliate yourself with, if you do claim one?

I just thought if the problem is "no other God", or "no other Saviour" besides me, and then we see saviors (in the plural) it doesnt necessarily rule out that there are others. These would appear to me to be the elect.

And you know what cgaviria, I dont really affiliate myself with any church in particular in the moment to be quite honest with you. As to who I identify with on some level? I have no clue. I grew up in a RC home, drawn to Jesus Christ outside of that. Sought Him on my own first. Not knowing too much of other churches, and setting out my feelers I ended up in with the baptist church for awhile. Then I tried more of a pentacostal, after that I did the gathering in homes church thing (which was much more up my alley) was involved with a couple of those. Then we moved out of our home state and into a very rural setting, and also had a couple of events happen here on our side of things under which I hadnt really sought out a church here. In the last few months I have thought to take that up once more given another change in situation. Now most folks might know who they feel more at home with (when it comes to a particular church) but I still dont know this yet.

I thought to take the mind to belong to no one in particular but to the Lord (and to all of them) and just to make the most out of wherever I might be led to.

Probably a lot more information then you were looking for (I apologize) but I never know quite how to answer that, maybe I should just shorten things up in the future by saying that I am non denominal, even if I ended up sitting in a denominal church, I would just be unsure if thats how I should answer even in the context of that situation.

Why do you ask? Let me ask you, what denomination do you affliate yourself with?

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Because "son of God" relates to being "lesser god", yet each son of God receives a different measure of authority in the kingdom of Christ. Is this so difficult for you to get through your head? It has nothing to do with idolotry, it has to do with authority granted to all who are partakers in the inheritance of Christ, and thus it can be said, these the elect will be "tiny gods", because these will exist on the earth as beings who are immortal, new bodies that are glorified to radiate light, rule over those that remain alive, and even have authority to judge. Surely you can perceive that all these that will exist on the earth in this manner will surely be perceived as gods by those who remain alive and mortal.

When have I ever said Jesus Christ is an imperfect image? Boy do you people love inventing things I have never said.

Finally addressing the image part. Good.

It follows from the denial that Jesus is the One God. The statement was Jesus is the "exact image" of 'the Father' but then claiming Jesus is inferior to, a lessor god than the Father (like Mormons have a god that created this world who is the offspring of other gods and so on). If the "express image" of Perfection is "lessor" then it follows that the image being talked about is imperfect, otherwise that image would also be Perfect (and so God). In Christianity Jesus is a Perfect (exact) Image of the Father, which is why Christians can say He is God because the exact Image of the Father can only be God. The Father is God - so then is His exact Image, the Son is God and They are One God.

To say the exact image of the Father is a "lessor god" can only mean one is speaking of a imperfect image. Perhaps a different word besides "exact" should be used if one is going to maintain Jesus is inferior to the Father. Just a suggestion.

 

[Berean777]

The 1st commandment has nothing to do with the existence of other gods, and even so, Jesus Christ is himself a God that is distinct from the Father, who is the one true God that grants Jesus Christ authority to be a God. And even in worshiping this distinct being that is not the Father it is not considered idolatry nor breaking the 1st commandment, and it is because the Father chose him to be worshiped. The Father has ordained worship of him by worshiping his image, which is the God Jesus Christ. If you don't understand these distinctions you can't possibly understand other things and how the elect are also granted authority over the earth as "tiny gods", but are not themselves objects of worship, but rather, also representations and images of the Father just as Jesus Christ is a representation and image of the Father.

Show us throughout scripture, in both the old and new testaments, the concept of a god being worshipped, beside the Almighty God who is one (Deu 6:4).

Might I ask you, who do you believe to be the elect?

Also, please elaborate how the elect are also granted authority over the earth as "tiny gods"? (Chapter and verse please)

Show us from scripture the testimony of two or more apostolic witnesses that corroborate with one another, in regards to your statement that the elect are also representations and images of the Father just as Jesus Christ is a representation and image of the Father?

 

[Berean777]

Finally addressing the image part. Good.

It follows from the denial that Jesus is the One God. The statement was Jesus is the "exact image" of 'the Father' but then claiming Jesus is inferior to, a lessor god than the Father (like Mormons have a god that created this world who is the offspring of other gods and so on). If the "express image" of Perfection is "lessor" then it follows that the image being talked about is imperfect, otherwise that image would also be Perfect (and so God). In Christianity Jesus is a Perfect (exact) Image of the Father, which is why Christians can say He is God because the exact Image of the Father can only be God. The Father is God - so then is His exact Image, the Son is God and They are One God.

To say the exact image of the Father is a "lessor god" can only mean one is speaking of a imperfect image. Perhaps a different word besides "exact" should be used if one is going to maintain Jesus is inferior to the Father. Just a suggestion.

You are correct in your analysis. The problem that this gentlemen has is that he imposes his interpretation of a lesser god having the authority of the Almighty God and at the same time denies that both have the same nature. It is clear that to this gentlemen the natures are not equal, where he asserts that one is greater, whilst the other lesser.

 

[Strong in Him]

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,

No, if there are two gods then there are two gods.
It doesn't matter if you think that Jesus is a "lesser" god, a created god or even a temporary god; if he is divine, he is god.

Yet the Bible is quite clear that there is only ONE God, and the Jews certainly believed this.
Read the first commandment - "you shall have no other gods before me", Exodus 20:3. Read the OT - why were Israel punished and eventually sent into exile? Because they worshipped other gods. Some of the kings married foreign women who had their own gods, e.g 1 Kings 11:4. And they were criticised and punished for allowing these gods, and false beliefs, to lead Israel away from the truth; see Judges 6:25-26; 1 Kings 14:9;1 Kings 18:18; Amos 2:4. The Shema is "Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is ONE," Deuteronomy 6:4.

Either there is ONE God - Father, Son and Holy Spirit - or there are 3 gods; the Father is the true, or chief, God and the Son and Spirit are false gods/heavenly beings/angels or whatever. The only way for the Son, and Spirit, to be GOD and yet there only to be ONE God, is if they are one. One and three and three in one - Tri-unity; Trinity.