Why the Trinity is a False Doctrine

[cgaviria]

This is your interpretation, which clashes with the rest of scripture, and is therefore, not true.

Shall we look at the context?

It says that Jesus "did not exalt Himself to becoming high priest, but was appointed by Him who said to Him, 'You are my Son. Today I have begotten you."

So the context of this verse shows us that this statement has to do with Jesus becoming a high priest. And how does the scripture tell us that Jesus became a high priest?

"7 In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverence. 8 Although he was a son, he learned obedience through what he suffered.9 And being made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him,10 being designated by God a high priest after the order of Melchizedek."

So I acknowledge that God (the Word, Jesus) becoming flesh and dying on the cross is an unfathomable mystery. This is what we are told by the scriptures. I do not try to explain it after the philosophy of mankind, because I know that God's ways are higher than ours and His thoughts are higher than ours. What He has declared to us in His written word is truth, and no manmade philosophy can change that truth.

As has been shown already, Jesus was already with God in the beginning. That is what the scriptures say. I believe the scriptures when they tell me that every single thing that was created was created through Jesus. I believe the scriptures when they say that Jesus became flesh, and through the process of becoming flesh, suffering, and dying also became mankind's high priest. I won't pretend that I understand it. I am far too simple for that. But what God has revealed, this I believe.

High priest in accordance with the order of Melchizedek means endless life, since we have no genealogy for Melchizedek, therefore this is conveyed as a type for eonial life. Jesus Christ is in fact created, and to say that he isn't is what breaks countless other scriptures. Read and learn.

 

[Chriliman]

2 Timothy 3:1-17
"But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away! For of this sort are those who creep into households and make captives of gullible women loaded down with sins, led away by various lusts, always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth."

 

[cgaviria]

The exact image of Perfection would be Perfection (God). I would agree as would many throughout the history of Christianity that the Son is the exact image of the Father and that exactness also goes to why both Father and Son (and Holy Spirit) are God.
Am unclear how one can claim something is an exact image but not an exact image. Even if one says Jesus has a lot of authority and power, unless that matches the Father then this view cannot claim it sees Jesus as the "exact" image of the Father. Clearly this view has Jesus being less than exact image of God - which is why it is able to call Jesus a lessor god. If something is less than a certain thing then there is no way to call it an "exact" image of that thing. It is by definition something less - and that is captured in this by the label "lessor god". Clearly and repeatedly the position taken in this thread to supposedly debunk the Trinity Doctrine is that the Son is less than an "exact" image of God.

Exact image does not mean exact copy. Hence why Jesus Christ affirmed he was lesser. Exact image means all the attributes and nature of the Father is conveyed in the Son, and to the fullest extent possible in creation. This is why he is more image of God than we are. Its a simple thing to understand, its not a mystery. You just need to unlearn whatever things you've been taught to gain wisdom on this matter.

 

[nomadictheist]

High priest in accordance with the order of Melchizedek means endless life, since we have no genealogy for Melchizedek, therefore this is conveyed as a type for eonial life. Jesus Christ is in fact created, and to say that he isn't is what breaks countless other scriptures. Read and learn.

Nowhere does the scriptures say that Jesus is created. If it did, you would would have quoted where it says that plainly, instead of trying to make inferences from Jesus' title as the "Son of God."

However, the scripture does plainly say that Jesus was in the beginning with God and was God. And that without Him not one thing was made that was made.

This is the plain scripture. Not an inference from human understandings of familial relations. Until you can quote a scripture that plainly says that "Jesus was created by God in the beginning" abandon your claim of scriptural backing.

 

[nomadictheist]

Exact image does not mean exact copy. Hence why Jesus Christ affirmed he was lesser. Exact image means all the attributes and nature of the Father is conveyed in the Son, and to the fullest extent possible in creation. This is why he is more image of God than we are. Its a simple thing to understand, its not a mystery. You just need to unlearn whatever things you've been taught to gain wisdom on this matter.

Let me ask you a plain question, and give me (if you will) a plain answer:

Do you sin, or would you say that you have no sin?

 

[Goatee]

This is your interpretation, which clashes with the rest of scripture, and is therefore, not true.

Shall we look at the context?

It says that Jesus "did not exalt Himself to becoming high priest, but was appointed by Him who said to Him, 'You are my Son. Today I have begotten you."

So the context of this verse shows us that this statement has to do with Jesus becoming a high priest. And how does the scripture tell us that Jesus became a high priest?

"7 In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverence. 8 Although he was a son, he learned obedience through what he suffered.9 And being made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him,10 being designated by God a high priest after the order of Melchizedek."

So I acknowledge that God (the Word, Jesus) becoming flesh and dying on the cross is an unfathomable mystery. This is what we are told by the scriptures. I do not try to explain it after the philosophy of mankind, because I know that God's ways are higher than ours and His thoughts are higher than ours. What He has declared to us in His written word is truth, and no manmade philosophy can change that truth.

As has been shown already, Jesus was already with God in the beginning. That is what the scriptures say. I believe the scriptures when they tell me that every single thing that was created was created through Jesus. I believe the scriptures when they say that Jesus became flesh, and through the process of becoming flesh, suffering, and dying also became mankind's high priest. I won't pretend that I understand it. I am far too simple for that. But what God has revealed, this I believe.

Well said and very much understandable and true

 

[cgaviria]

Nowhere does the scriptures say that Jesus is created. If it did, you would would have quoted where it says that plainly, instead of trying to make inferences from Jesus' title as the "Son of God."

However, the scripture does plainly say that Jesus was in the beginning with God and was God. And that without Him not one thing was made that was made.

This is the plain scripture. Not an inference from human understandings of familial relations. Until you can quote a scripture that plainly says that "Jesus was created by God in the beginning" abandon your claim of scriptural backing.

This is a matter that is understood with wisdom and correct understanding of scripture. You grab a scripture that says he was in the beginning to mean he existed before the beginning, which simply isn't true. If I was sent to construct a building from the time the foundation was established, does that mean that I was always there on site or that I was simply there in the beginning of the construction of the building because that was the time that I arrived there? Only God, as an infinite being, as the only one who knows all things, down to even the quantity of atoms compose every human body, and who only he predetermines all things, is uncreated. Unless you realize the greatness and power of God, and how Jesus Christ relates to him, you cannot understand other matters. Its why even people like you don't understand predestination, because you do not understand the nature of the Father.

 

[Goatee]

Father and Son existed 'Before' 'Everything'. Jesus was not created as we know it!

Again:

John 1
The Word Became Flesh
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.2 He was in the beginning with God; 3 all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made.

John 1:14
14 And the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father’s only son, full of grace and truth.

Isaiah 44:6
6 Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel,
and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts:
I am the first and I am the last;
besides me there is no god.

Revelation 22:13
13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.”

How much clearer can one put it cgaviria ?

 

[Strong in Him]

Alright. If you wish to gain wisdom and see scripturally how I am right about Jesus Christ being birthed into existence, then read my study on it, http://www.wisdomofgod.co/2015/12/1...-also-began-only-the-father-has-no-beginning/ . Learn well.

I might do, though I doubt it.
I was expecting you to be able to provide an answer on this thread, though.

 

[Strong in Him]

Nasty....Another horrible remark when you state you are sin free!

Free from sin?? As in, claiming to be perfect?

 

[cgaviria]

I might do, though I doubt it.
I was expecting you to be able to provide an answer on this thread, though.

I have, but copying and pasting the same scriptures over and over again, especially when they're already part of the original thread is not what I'm here for. The material is there, if you wish to read, then read it, and provide your responses here.

 

[nomadictheist]

This is a matter that is understood with wisdom and correct understanding of scripture. You grab a scripture that says he was in the beginning to mean he existed before the beginning, which simply isn't true. If I was sent to construct a building from the time the foundation was established, does that mean that I was always there on site or that I was simply there in the beginning of the construction of the building because that was the time that I arrived there? Only God, as an infinite being, as the only one who knows all things, down to even the quantity of atoms compose every human body, and who only he predetermines all things, is uncreated. Unless you realize the greatness and power of God, and how Jesus Christ relates to him, you cannot understand other matters. Its why even people like you don't understand predestination, because you do not understand the nature of the Father.

Please understand, I am trying to treat this conversation with as much gentleness and respect as I can. However, it tests my patience when a man continually puts forth his understanding as scripture, uses that understanding to deny scripture, and then tells those that oppose him with scripture that because God's scripture clashes with his understanding they understand the scripture wrong.

You frequently say "gain wisdom" after posting your opinion about a passage. This puts your pride on display for all to see, since you believe that your "wisdom" transcends the scriptures and the "wisdom" given to righteous men of God who have searched and studied the scriptures for a lifetime.

I struggled to get to the point where I could acknowledge I had no understanding. As a straight A+ student in high school and college I really believed that I could understand all kinds of things that biblical scholars and men of God couldn't. And I was in much danger of running off after manmade philosophies. It wasn't until I acknowledged to God that I lacked understanding and that there were some things that I could only believe, not comprehend, that the Lord really opened the scriptures to me.

I understand where you are in your understanding, and know that my mind, wishing to grasp mysteries to deep for our finite comprehension, was long in danger of traveling down that road. In the end, by God's grace, I have chosen to believe what scripture tells me, whether my mind can comprehend it or not. I can only pray that you will do the same.

 

[Strong in Him]

I have, but copying and pasting the same scriptures over and over again, especially when they're already part of the original thread is not what I'm here for. The material is there, if you wish to read, then read it, and provide your responses here.

I have been, but you don't like them.

 

[cgaviria]

I have been, but you don't like them.

Because what you have been saying isn't true. I'll like what you're saying once you start speaking the truth.

 

[Goatee]

Free from sin?? As in, claiming to be perfect?

Yes, cgaviria has said he is sinless.

 

[7xlightray]

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).

He is not referring to creation, he is referring to our liberties. Our liberty is of God through Christ. There would be no reason to bring up creation when referring to our freedom of eating things offered to idols.

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.

God the Father is King, Lord, and ruler over all, including Christ, as it says God is head of Christ. Jesus is second in command, sitting on God's throne. Jesus is lord, ruler, and God made him as God (Exodus 7:1; Exodus 4:15-16) over all, except God Himself, obviously.

Moses said God would send a prophet like him, so we know Moses is a type of Christ who was to come.

Exodus 4:15 And thou [Moses, Jesus] shalt speak unto him [Aaron, disciple], and put the words in his [disciple] mouth: and I [God the Father] will be with thy [Jesus] mouth [John 14:10], and with his [disciple] mouth [Matthew 10:20], and will teach you [Jesus] what ye shall do. 16 And he [disciple] shall be thy [Jesus] spokesman unto the people; and it shall come to pass, that he [disciple] shall be to thee [Jesus] a mouth, and thou [Jesus] shalt be to him [Jesus] as God.​

So, obviously there is nothing wrong with beings as God, if God made Moses as God. It does not mean Moses is God, it is referring to Moses's position. Who was greater then Moses at that time? No one.

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?

Are you saying Lord means God, and then Jesus stopped being Lord, then was Lord again? Anyway, It does not mean, or prove (alone) he is not God, what it means is, we can't say “Lord” when applied to Jesus, means God, because God made him Lord and Christ. So, Lord does not refer to him being God, but the position he has been given. Keep this in mind also, Sara called her husband Abraham lord Genesis 18:12, and the Church is Eve Ephesians 5:30-32, and we are of Christ's flesh, and bones.

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?

The word is His power, and Spirit. His Spirit can leave Him, and return to Him when we die.

“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."

In Isaiah 45 it is the Father speaking to His a anointed (Jesus). What probably gives you problems, is what also gave me problems at first also, until I dwelt on it. And that is that the Father is calling Himself saviour, as well as verse 23 of Isaiah and Philippians 2:10. If the Father is the only true God, then it was God the Father's plan, and He provided the lamb, also it was Him working in Christ reconciling the world, as it even states in these verses...

14...men of stature, shall come over unto thee [Jesus], and they shall be thine [Jesus]: they shall go after thee [Jesus], in chains they shall come over; and they shall fall down unto thee [Jesus], [The Father is now going to saying, this is what they will say about Jesus, and Himself the Father...] they shall make supplication unto thee [Jesus], saying, Surely God [Father] is in thee [Jesus]; and there is none else, there is no God [Father]. 15 Verily thou art a God [Father] that hidest thyself [Father], O God [Father] of Israel, the Saviour [Father].​

The Jews did not recognize it was the Father working in Christ, The Father was hidden from them in Christ, but the disciples eventually understood this.

Jesus always made sure to say, it was the Father in him doing the works, that it was not his words, or his doctrine, but the Father's, for example - John 7:16 (notice verse 17 also).

Notice how verse 14 “they shall fall down to thee” and verse 24 “even to him shall men come” also apply to Jesus in verse 23. Keeping in mind this is after the resurrection, at the judgement. Also keeping in mind that it is the Father in Christ. And it is God and Christ in us, for Christ is the head of the church. Eve was made for Adam, Eve represents the Church, and Adam represents Christ, and they became one flesh, and God head of all - I'm sure your familiar with these passage in the New as well as the Old Testament.

23 I [Father] have sworn by myself [Father], the word is gone out of my [Father] mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me [Father, and as we seen applies to Christ] every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.

24 Surely, shall one say, in the Lord [Father] have I righteousness and strength: even to him [Jesus] shall men come; and all that are incensed against him shall be ashamed.​

After the resurrection, at the judgement.

 

[nomadictheist]

He is not referring to creation, he is referring to our liberties. Our liberty is of God through Christ. There would be no reason to bring up creation when referring to our freedom of eating things offered to idols.



God the Father is King, Lord, and ruler over all, including Christ, as it says God is head of Christ. Jesus is second in command, sitting on God's throne. Jesus is lord, ruler, and God made him as God (Exodus 7:1; Exodus 4:15-16) over all, except God Himself, obviously.

This is entirely your interpretation laid over what is written. No one here is denying that God is the head of Christ, so this does nothing for your argument. As for the rest, as said in John 1:3 and affirmed here, everything that exists was created through Jesus the Messiah.

Moses said God would send a prophet like him, so we know Moses is a type of Christ who was to come.

Exodus 4:15 And thou [Moses, Jesus] shalt speak unto him [Aaron, disciple], and put the words in his [disciple] mouth: and I [God the Father] will be with thy [Jesus] mouth [John 14:10], and with his [disciple] mouth [Matthew 10:20], and will teach you [Jesus] what ye shall do. 16 And he [disciple] shall be thy [Jesus] spokesman unto the people; and it shall come to pass, that he [disciple] shall be to thee [Jesus] a mouth, and thou [Jesus] shalt be to him [Jesus] as God.​

So, obviously there is nothing wrong with beings as God, if God made Moses as God. It does not mean Moses is God, it is referring to Moses's position. Who was greater then Moses at that time? No one.

Putting words in brackets doesn't make them exist in the text. If you don't put that interpretation on it, it looks exactly like what it says it is: God, angry with Moses because Moses is making excuses, taking away all his excuses by giving him a "mouth" to speak for him.

Are you saying Lord means God, and then Jesus stopped being Lord, then was Lord again? Anyway, It does not mean, or prove (alone) he is not God, what it means is, we can't say “Lord” when applied to Jesus, means God, because God made him Lord and Christ. So, Lord does not refer to him being God, but the position he has been given. Keep this in mind also, Sara called her husband Abraham lord Genesis 18:12, and the Church is Eve Ephesians 5:30-32, and we are of Christ's flesh, and bones.

What I'm saying is that your interpretation here is incongruent. Paul says there is "only one Lord (who he names as Jesus)" in the same verse that he says there is "only one God (who he names as the Father)." The trinitarian doctrine is in agreement with both statements. Yours does not, because if God the Father and Jesus are not both the one God then there are necessarily two Lords.

The word is His power, and Spirit. His Spirit can leave Him, and return to Him when we die.

More of your interpretation

In Isaiah 45 it is the Father speaking to His a anointed (Jesus). What probably gives you problems, is what also gave me problems at first also, until I dwelt on it. And that is that the Father is calling Himself saviour, as well as verse 23 of Isaiah and Philippians 2:10. If the Father is the only true God, then it was God the Father's plan, and He provided the lamb, also it was Him working in Christ reconciling the world, as it even states in these verses...

14...men of stature, shall come over unto thee [Jesus], and they shall be thine [Jesus]: they shall go after thee [Jesus], in chains they shall come over; and they shall fall down unto thee [Jesus], [The Father is now going to saying, this is what they will say about Jesus, and Himself the Father...] they shall make supplication unto thee [Jesus], saying, Surely God [Father] is in thee [Jesus]; and there is none else, there is no God [Father]. 15 Verily thou art a God [Father] that hidest thyself [Father], O God [Father] of Israel, the Saviour [Father].​

The Jews did not recognize it was the Father working in Christ, The Father was hidden from them in Christ, but the disciples eventually understood this.

This is an interpretation yet again. You think that by inserting "Jesus" and "Father" wherever convenient into OT texts you can support your doctrine.

Jesus always made sure to say, it was the Father in him doing the works, that it was not his words, or his doctrine, but the Father's, for example - John 7:16 (notice verse 17 also).

I have said before that I do not deny that God is the head of Christ. This is biblical. What's your point?

Notice how verse 14 “they shall fall down to thee” and verse 24 “even to him shall men come” also apply to Jesus in verse 23. Keeping in mind this is after the resurrection, at the judgement. Also keeping in mind that it is the Father in Christ. And it is God and Christ in us, for Christ is the head of the church. Eve was made for Adam, Eve represents the Church, and Adam represents Christ, and they became one flesh, and God head of all - I'm sure your familiar with these passage in the New as well as the Old Testament.

23 I [Father] have sworn by myself [Father], the word is gone out of my [Father] mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me [Father, and as we seen applies to Christ] every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.

24 Surely, shall one say, in the Lord [Father] have I righteousness and strength: even to him [Jesus] shall men come; and all that are incensed against him shall be ashamed.​

After the resurrection, at the judgement.

You put your interpretation again into these verses. But putting "Father" and "Jesus" into various contexts in the OT doesn't counter the scriptures that say that Jesus is God.

I do not presume to insert the name "Jesus" everywhere that it might fit in the OT. Nor do I presume to deny what the Bible says about His deity.

 

[nomadictheist]

Yes, cgaviria has said he is sinless.

Can you point me to the post? I must have missed that somehow

 

[Fireinfolding]

That was the answer I was hoping you'd give. As anyone already claiming any denomination is already in error, hence this saying,


We are all of the flock of Jesus Christ, and that is the only thing we should identify ourselves with, and also our geographical location if we wish to be more specific, such as, I am of the church in Florida, or I am of the church in Missouri, or I am of the church in Chicago, or I am of the church in the household of John Doe in Chicago, etc, just how the believers in the early church identified themselves.

I also do not affiliate myself with any denomination, clearly from my response just now.

Have you been baptized in holy spirit?

I find I am drawn to those who do not boast of a specific affiliations for various reasons I wont say here.

And to your second question concerning being baptized by the Holy Ghost, that would depend on what you might mean by that given your choice of words, because the incoming questions and expected answers to the same shift all the time around here because of the various sects/divisions (and various understandings) and the supposed correct answers. This same being true with being baptized with the Holy Spirit. If you are asking if I have the Holy Spirit yes, but thats my own saying so, I wouldnt ask you back, because I dont really ask that question of others (as if I should rely too heavily on a persons answer in relation to the same). Given the section we are in, if your asking about the baptism of the Holy Spirit in respects to some of the things they float around on forums as such (experiencially speaking) much of that is what I call nuts, that is not my own experience with the Holy Spirit.

I would also be a little more hesitent to discuss certain things in the unorthodox section because you can really get dragged into nutsville. I typically pick the questions I wish to get involved in per the OP and leave off of those I dont wish to really go into having been here for quite awhile and seeing where they typically head off to.

God bless you

 

[cgaviria]

I find I am drawn to those who do not boast of a specific affiliations for various reasons I wont say here.

And to your second question concerning being baptized by the Holy Ghost, that would depend on what you might mean by that given your choice of words, because the incoming questions and expected answers to the same shift all the time around here because of the various sects/divisions (and various understandings) and the supposed correct answers. This same being true with being baptized with the Holy Spirit. If you are asking if I have the Holy Spirit yes, but thats my own saying so, I wouldnt ask you back, because I dont really ask that question of others (as if I should rely too heavily on a persons answer in relation to the same). Given the section we are in, if your asking about the baptism of the Holy Spirit in respects to some of the things they float around on forums as such (experiencially speaking) much of that is what I call nuts, and is not my own experience with the Holy Spirit.

I would also be a little more hesitent to discuss certain things in the unorthodox section because you can really get dragged into nutsville. I typically pick the questions I wish to get involved in per the OP and leave off of those I dont wish to really go into having been here for quite awhile and seeing where they typically head off to.

God bless you

Do you want to discuss privately through private message? My name is Christian by the way.