Why the Trinity is a False Doctrine

[Hoghead1]

That dos jot explain at all, Berean777, how you have provided a Trinity, one God, and not three separate ones. Also, you need to explore more the claim that the Son became fully human. True, that was claimed in c by teh church fathers; but they killed this with a million qualifiers, such as arguing that Christ consider of two separate natures.

 

[Berean777]

The larger picture is of a transitional phase in human history to be granted access to heaven through death and onto resurrection, by reason of adoption. This could not happen unless God the Living Word took the nature of a human being as the last Adam. Does that stop the Living Word from being fully God at the same time fully man as Jesus of Nazareth and fully heavenly glorified as the New Creation that takes place. When our corruptable puts on incorruption after the terrestrial body dies, in order to be clothed with the heavenly to then be reunited with the Lord in his Father's house that he said he would prepare for the believers.

My Father's house has many rooms; if that were not so, would I have told you that I am going there to prepare a place for you? (John 14:2)

 

[Fireinfolding]

Spin Julie, spinnnnnn!
There should be an animated gif of that scene where she's singing, "the hills are alive with the sound of muuuuusic...." , and then spins right off the edge of the mountain behind her. (Waiting for retort from someone saying, so a Christian wants to see an animated death gif featuring Julie Andrews? In three, two one.... )

“Don't use words too big for the subject. Don't say infinitely when you mean very; otherwise you'll have no word left when you want to talk about something really infinite.” C.S Lewis.

Unfortunately, it also seems to happen in threads that revolve around Exegisis that the charge of heresy inevitably enters in. Using big words is sometimes a method of at once appearing as an authority who can rightly make the charge based on what is presumed that person's knowledge of the so called heresies they accuse a poster of. It's meant to minimalize their targeted posters remarks and influence others to ignore what that individual accuser deems is unworthy of respect. And should therein be something that, labeled by them as heresy, is the central focus of future posts that will then devalue further that targeted posters prior remarks. Essentially , the accuser intends to shut someone out of the discussion with their accusation of heresy.
Unfortunately, that's a tactic that is employed in topics like those that encompass Exegesis, Soterology, and other scriptural subjects and very often by those cannot objectively discuss the topic without throwing daggers at those who do not hold their own views on the issue.
Typically that method is cause to say the accuser has voluntarily lost the argument by conceding they cannot discuss without branding opponent views as heresy.
It isn't heresy to disagree with the individual. It's common sense at times.

Nothing I have said is heresy. In fact it can be noted by the objective reader that it is all supported by scripture. Which is linked or already known by the Christian Bible reader.

Yeah I dont get the feeling its being too honest at all. That was a very perceptive post thanks for posting this.

God bless you

 

[Tiny Bible]

Everyone is entitled to an opinion. The post is what it is

That should be a given, yes. However, when false accusations arise that's something else.

 

[Tiny Bible]

Yeah I dont get the feeling its being too honest at all. That was a very perceptive post thanks for posting this.

God bless you

Thank you.
And may the Father bless you as well.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

That should be a given, yes. However, when false accusations arise that's something else.

If my labeling that post as modelism was false then we should be able to distinguish the difference between what that post presented and modelism. As someone who has studied heresies has already confirmed my guess am not sure that proving I made a false accusation would be a fruitful endeavor.

 

[Berean777]

That dos jot explain at all, Berean777, how you have provided a Trinity, one God, and not three separate ones. Also, you need to explore more the claim that the Son became fully human. True, that was claimed in c by teh church fathers; but they killed this with a million qualifiers, such as arguing that Christ consider of two separate natures.

God has one nature. The Godbeing nature of the Living Word persona had to put on the human nature at the incarnation.

Does that make two natures?

No, because the Godbeing nature as the Creator, transcends the human nature that he took on permanently and by doing so was able to expedite our adoption papers and our migration into heaven, in his Father's house, after the death of the terrestrial body.

The heavenly form that we take on at the resurrection is a different nature to the terrestrial form we have today. The evidence of the crucifixion marks on the Lord's glorified body points to the transition from the human nature that is terrestrial, to the heavenly nature that is in his Father's house. This means that the God nature took upon himself the human nature when he walked on earth as the man Jesus of Nazareth.

The Living Word is in the creation and has sequentially from earthly to heavenly natures brought us into adoption, after we put off the incorruptible terrestrial body and to put on the incorruptible heavenly body.

When you say the Living Word has two natures, it would be inconsequential in the resurrection of the dead, because nature cannnot be quantified nor qualified in heaven. As Jesus would say in the resurrection they will not be given into marriage. Nor will we discern nature or natural qualities, because we become connected to the Godhead in ways we can not understand now whilst we have our human nature.

 

[cgaviria]

Sorry, but I'm afraid I could say the same to you.

Before I either get dizzy from going round in circles, or give up with this thread completely; it seems that your position, from posts on this and other threads, could be summarised as follows, (correct me if I'm wrong):
1. Jesus was created by God the Father. The Father made him to be a god, but he was created and is lower than the Father.
2. The Father and Jesus - who is actually the Spirit mentioned in Genesis 1:2 - created the universe.
3. Jesus was born of Mary and conceived by the Holy Spirit. He is God; so there are two gods. But Jesus is not literally one with his Father, because there is only one, true God.
4. The stars, which are actually angels, were created on day 4.
5. Angels are spirits. They are from God so they are holy, and they help and minister to people, so there are many Holy spirits, and each person can have their own.
6 The trinity exists but it is an unequal trinity.

Someone else wrote a thread in this forum saying that the trinity cannot be true because it is difficult to understand and something that is "convoluted" cannot be from God. With respect, it is a lot easier to understand the trinity than your teaching, which is, at times, contradictory, not to mention unscriptural.

And by the way, "Scriptural" does not mean that you find a verse, take it out of context, interpret it a certain way and then say, "it's ok; it's in the Bible." Otherwise we could say that committing suicide is a scriptural teaching; "then Judas went and hanged himself", Matthew 27:5. "Go and do likewise", Luke 10:37. "What you have to do, do quickly", John 13:27. Do you see? I have just given Scriptural teaching for taking your own life!
(In case anyone is in any doubt, by the way, I do NOT believe this and do NOT recommend treating Scripture this way - I did this only to make a point.)

If a teaching is scriptural, it means that it is taught, repeated, proclaimed and held to in Scripture - not just once or twice in selected verses, but often.
For example, I said that it is a Jewish belief, taught in the OT, that there is only one God. There is plenty of evidence for this - not just the Shema in Deuteronomy 6:4, but the fact that the nation was punished again and again for rejecting the God who saved them and appeared to them at Sinai, and going after false gods. God's servants were told to tear down the altars belonging to these false gods and urged the people to repent; Elijah gave a brilliant demonstration of the power of God on Mt Carmel. The Jews have always believed this; Jesus did as well, because he was a Jew.

When it comes to a doctrine like "God created Jesus", you may have found a verse, or two, that could be interpreted in that way; but does that fit with the rest of Scripture; God's revelation of himself to us? I don't believe so, for the reasons, and Scriptures, I have quoted. The mainstream churches don't believe so either; anyone who presented with the beliefs that you hold, and said they wanted to become a member of that church, would be enrolled in Bible classes or very quickly given some 1-1 tuition. If anyone approached me on the streets with those views, I would almost certainly feel they belonged to a cult and, if I didn't feel able or led to argue, I would ignore them.

I am certain that you are very sincere in what you believe and maintain that it is has a scriptural basis; but you have to understand that very, very few others share your view - and there is a VERY good reason for that.

I have never said there is a trinity, there isn't. The holy spirit is not one being, but many holy spirits. So there is not "big three" as the doctrine of the trinity teaches. There is only the Father, then the Son, then holy angels who are holy spirits, and then the elect.

Angels are not literally stars, but angels are indeed associated figuratively with stars.

 

[Berean777]

Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when Christ appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is. (1 John 3:2)

 

[Tiny Bible]

The flaming that goes on here and elsewhere on this site id largely due to the fact that many posters did not have a solid adult education in theology and do not know how to go about a theological debate. I don't mean to put people down, but that is the truth.

Just for my edification and presuming there will be more posts created by you in future, would you please explain why at times you write, 'teh', for 'the'. And at other times you write, the, as it should be spelled out ? Thank you in advance.

 

[Berean777]

I have never said there is a trinity, there isn't. The holy spirit is not one being, but many holy spirits. So there is not "big three" as the doctrine of the trinity teaches. There is only the Father, then the Son, then holy angels who are holy spirits, and then the elect.

Angels are not literally stars, but angels are indeed associated figuratively with stars.

Did you say that there is not only one Holy Spirit? Hmmmmmm........oh dear!

 

[Hoghead1]

Good question, The Bible. For some reason, my spell check doesn't pick up on "teh." I type fast and depend solely on my spell check.

 

[Hoghead1]

Berean 777, the fact is that the church fathers and creeds stated that Christ has tow wholly separate natures. If so, then, as I said, both God and man are part of some larger whole which transcends either one of them. Also, God did not become fully human, as the God part is described as totally incapable of emotion and experiencing suffering.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Did you say that there is not only one Holy Spirit? Hmmmmmm........oh dear!

Yep, it gets curiousier and curiousier.....

 

[Berean777]

There is one Spirit as Jesus said.......

God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth." (John 4:24)

Now @cgaviria you said on previous posts that sons of God are demi-gods and in another post #789 you say "holy angels are holy spirits".

I cannot help but draw the conclusion that you are somehow advocating the worship of angels, since you have unwittingly blurred the lines of John 4:24, where Jesus says Spirit not Spirits.

Why would you say in post #789....

The holy spirit is not one being, but many holy spirits.

 

[Hoghead1]

Again, Berean777, that is precisely the problem with the doctrine of the two natures. The Son, God, never does experience the human, as teh divine is incapable of emotion and suffering, as I just said. That's one of the reasons why teh Trinity has been such a major problem.

 

[Berean777]

Jesus in John 4:24 says worship in the Spirit. The word THE is a definite article that points to one unique Holy Spirit, not three and certainly not many holy spirits of angels, as you had previously mentioned in post #789.

Are you saying that there are more than one Holy Spirit? (please confirm)

Which Holy Spirit do you worship if there are more than one?

Are you advocating the worship of angels, when you say that they are holy spirits?

 

[civilwarbuff]

Berean 777, the fact is that the church fathers and creeds stated that Christ has tow wholly separate natures. If so, then, as I said, both God and man are part of some larger whole which transcends either one of them. Also, God did not become fully human, as the God part is described as totally incapable of emotion and experiencing suffering.

No idea where you to that idea from.
So you have never heard of agape love:
The Greek word agape is often translated “love” in the New Testament. How is “agape love” different from other types of love? The essence of agape love is goodwill, benevolence, and willful delight in the object of love. Unlike our English word love, agape is not used in the New Testament to refer to romantic or sexual love. Nor does it refer to close friendship or brotherly love, for which the Greek word philia is used. Agape love involves faithfulness, commitment, and an act of the will. It is distinguished from the other types of love by its lofty moral nature and strong character. Agape love is beautifully described in 1 Corinthians 13.

Outside of the New Testament, the word agape is used in a variety of contexts, but in the New Testament it takes on a distinct meaning. Agape is used to describe the love that is of and from God, whose very nature is love itself: “God is love” (1 John 4:8). God does not merely love; He is love itself. Everything God does flows from His love. Agape is also used to describe our love for God (Luke 10:27), a servant’s faithful respect to his master (Matthew 6:24), and a man’s attachment to things (John 3:19). gotquestions.org

 

[cgaviria]

There is one Spirit as Jesus said.......

God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth." (John 4:24)

Now @cgaviria you said on previous posts that sons of God are demi-gods and in another post #789 you say "holy angels are holy spirits".

I cannot help but draw the conclusion that you are somehow advocating the worship of angels, since you have unwittingly blurred the lines of John 4:24, where Jesus says Spirit not Spirits.

Why would you say in post #789....

The holy spirit is not one being, but many holy spirits.

God is indeed a spirit, doesn't mean there is only literally one spirit. God is also a consuming fire, is all fire literally God? Or was this just said as a figure of speech?

The sons of God will certainly be as tiny gods in the millennial kingdom. They certainly won't be like servants as they are now, as the elect will have immortal and glorified bodies that radiate light, and will also have dominion upon nations that will survive after the coming of Christ. So certainly, in the perception of those who remain mortal, these will be perceived as gods. This is the intention of God, as the kingdom of the heavens that will exist on the earth will be unlike any kingdom that has ever existed.

 

[Berean777]

Again, Berean777, that is precisely the problem with the doctrine of the two natures. The Son, God, never does experience the human, as teh divine is incapable of emotion and suffering, as I just said. That's one of the reasons why teh Trinity has been such a major problem.

Let me kindly stop you there. Your statement "the devine is incapable of emotion and suffering" is totally bogus.

How many times in scriptures does it state the following, through the use of personal pronouns.....

Hosea 2:19-23
19 I will make you my wife forever, showing you righteousness and justice, unfailing love and compassion.
20I will be faithful to you and make you mine, and you will finally know me as the LORD.
21“In that day I will respond,” declares the Lord—“I will respond to the skies, and they will respond to the earth;
22and the earth will respond to the grain,
the new wine and the olive oil, and they will respond to Jezreel.
23I will plant her for myself in the land;
I will show my love to the one I called ‘Not my loved one. I will say to those called ‘Not my people, ’ ‘You are my people’; and they will say, ‘You are my God.’ ”

God is Love and for a statement to say ...

"the devine is incapable of emotion and suffering"

Begs belief. For God to be incapable of emotion and suffering, is pointing to the ethereal Gnostic god and certainly not the Christian God.

Isaiah 63:9-10
9In all their affliction he was afflicted, and the angel of his presence saved them: in his love and in his pity he redeemed them; and he bare them, and carried them all the days of old.

10But they rebelled, and vexed his holy Spirit: therefore he was turned to be their enemy, and he fought against them.

Exodus 20;5
You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,

Deu 6:15
for the LORD your God, who is among you, is a jealous God and his anger will burn against you, and he will destroy you from the face of the land.