Why The Trinity is a False Teaching - Summarized Doctrinal Reasons

[Wgw]

Thanks to Bill Gates we can now determine the Nature of God...Wow.

St. Bill the Monopolist, pray for us.

 

[redleghunter]

If we understand God, then even without scripture stating God cannot be tempted, we know there is no way God can be tempted. God is self sufficient, and is in need of nothing, in fact all things come from Him, so what can God be tempted with.

James 1:13 “not able to be tempted” - G551. Apeirastos - untried, inexperienced, untempted, incapable of being tempted. - 551 apeírastos (from 1 /A "not" and 3985 /peirázō, "susceptible to enticement, allurement") – properly, unable to be tempted, lacking the very capacity to be enticed by evil or influenced by sin.

Yet:


Matthew 4:

7 Jesus said to him, “It is written again, ‘You shall not tempt the Lord your God.’”


ekpeirazō: tempt

1. to prove, test, thoroughly
   
   
2. to put to proof God's character and power

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1598&t=KJV

 

[Jack Terrence]

If we understand God, then even without scripture stating God cannot be tempted, we know there is no way God can be tempted. God is self sufficient, and is in need of nothing, in fact all things come from Him, so what can God be tempted with.

I do not accept your understanding of God. The Genesis narrative says that God appeared to Abraham along with two angels. It says that they were "mortals". Though our English bibles say that it was "three men" that appeared to Abraham the Hebrew actually says "three mortals." As a mortal God could indeed be tempted.

James 1:13 “not able to be tempted” - G551. Apeirastos - untried, inexperienced, untempted, incapable of being tempted. - 551 apeírastos (from 1 /A "not" and 3985 /peirázō, "susceptible to enticement, allurement") – properly, unable to be tempted, lacking the very capacity to be enticed by evil or influenced by sin.

No! The verb literally is, "is not tempted." I have already shown the literal reading from the YLT. The prefix 'a' does NOT imply inability. It would be grossly incorrect to say that an atheist cannot become a theist. Likewise, the prefix 'a' does NOT imply that God cannot become tempted.

 

[o2bwise]

Hi Wgw,

Wgw:
Your methodology and logic is flawed. By your own admission, on five occasions, Scripture clearly identifies our Lord as God.

By my own admission, Jesus Christ is referred to as theos. There is a difference. For example, in John 1, Christ is called theos, but the definite article (ho) is absent and in Greek this may carry the meaning, "not that thing, but qualitatively like that thing" and so interpreting theos as "divine" may be more accurate.

John 10:34
34 Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your law, 'I said, "You are gods" '?

In this passage, You are identified as theos. I would not therefore assert that Scripture clearly identifies them as God.

Wgw:
On the other hand, in the 1,061 verses, never is it explicitly said our Lord is not God.

Never is it explicitly said our Lord is not Daffy Duck, either. That is very poor methodology, in my opinion.

Furthermore:
John 17:3
3 And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.

Jesus says the Father is the only true God and refers to Himself as someone other. I think that is strong. Paul does the same in Corinthians.

Wgw:
Thus, you have no real point; your use of statistics to attempt to prove Arianism is frankly disingenious. Particularly your misleading labelling of them.

I don't think I am Arian and so I do not see how I can be attempting to prove it. I thought I was attempting to derive truth from the scriptures and it is my experience that for many subjects, some texts appear to support one view and others, another view - at least without further digging and perhaps with a lack of discernment. John 1 is a case in point.

So what you refer to as "statistics," I intended to be a comprehensive study where I brought every theos text to the table in the effort to see what the bulk of them seem to say.

I just looked up the word disengenuous - not candid or sincere.

On this matter (your identifying my study as not candid or sincere), I don't think you can possibly know my heart on the matter and you therefore partake of province that is God's alone.

Finally, I am unaware of misleading labeling.


Blessings,

Tony

 

[o2bwise]

Hi redleghunter,

redleghunter:
Thanks to Bill Gates we can now determine the Nature of God...Wow.

I don't understand what you are trying to say.

 

[Wgw]

Hi Wgw,

Wgw:
Your methodology and logic is flawed. By your own admission, on five occasions, Scripture clearly identifies our Lord as God.

By my own admission, Jesus Christ is referred to as theos. There is a difference. For example, in John 1, Christ is called theos, but the definite article (ho) is absent and in Greek this may carry the meaning, "not that thing, but qualitatively like that thing" and so interpreting theos as "divine" may be more accurate.

Ah, now herein you reduce yourself to vexatious quibbling i the manner of the semi-Arians. If your argument were correct, which it is not, by the way, it would mean in addition to God, there was another eternal being, who was divine but not the God, but who nonetheless created all things. Unconvincing.

Every attempt to argue against the Trinity on the basis of dubious JW-style exegesis of John 1:1 fails as soon as we reach John 1:2-14.

John 10:34
34 Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your law, 'I said, "You are gods" '?

In this passage, You are identified as theos. I would not therefore assert that Scripture clearly identifies then as God.

"God became man so that we might become god," wrote St. Athanasius.

Wgw:
On the other hand, in the 1,061 verses, never is it explicitly said our Lord is not God.

Never is it explicitly said our Lord is not Daffy Duck, either. That is very poor methodology, in my opinion.

Here you are being more than a little cheeky, for Scripture also does not say "In the beginning was Daffy Duck..."

Furthermore:
John 17:3
3 And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.

"and."

Jesus says the Father is the only true God and refers to Himself as someone other. I think that is strong. Paul does the same in Corinthians.

Untrue.

Wgw:
Thus, you have no real point; your use of statistics to attempt to prove Arianism is frankly disingenious. Particularly your misleading labelling of them.

I don't think I am Arian and so I do not see how I can be attempting to prove it.

If you believe Jesus Christ was like God but not eternally God, consubstantial with God the Father, you are semi-Arian or Arian, depending on whether "homoiousios" or "heteroousios" more aptly describes your worldview.

I thought I was attempting to derive truth from the scriptures and it is my experience that for many subjects, some text appear to support one view and others, another view - at least without further digging and perhaps with a lack of discernment. John 1 is a case in point.

One cannot read John 1:1-14 and not rationally conclude our Lord is God. Which is why non-Trinitarians inveitably resort to attempts to modify it.

So what you refer to as "statistics," I intended it to be a comprehensive study where I brought every theos text to the table in the effort to see what the bulk of them seem to say.

In other words, "statistics."

I just looked up the word disengenuous - not candid or sincere.

On this matter (your identifying my study as not candid or sincere), I don't think you can possibly know my heart on the matter and you therefore partake of province that is God's alone.

Finally, I am unaware of misleading labeling.

Either your study was shaped intentionally or unintentionally owing to confirmation bias, to support a non-Trinitarian perspective, or you fell into a logical trap and drew unsupported conclusions owing to methodological error.

 

[nomadictheist]

Hi,

A few months ago, I referenced every single NT occurrence of the Greek word theos and entered them into an excel spreadsheet. I included the following columns.

Verse
Who is theos in the passage?
Is Jesus mentioned in the passage, but as someone other than who theos is in the passage?
Is the Holy Spirit mentioned in the passage, but as someone other than who theos is in the passage?

I am sure my numbers may be ever so slightly off, but here is some summary information.

1130 times theos is the Father
5 times theos is the Son
0 times theos is the Holy Spirit
Out of the 1130 times theos is the Father (only), Jesus is referred to in the passage 1061 times and as someone other than theos.
Out of the 1130 times theos is the Father (only), Jesus is not referred to in the passage 69 times.
So with a population size of 1130, 94% of the time Jesus is mentioned, but as someone other than theos.


One of the things I get out of the above is that for the trinity to be the truth, the Bible must "speak" in a manner completely contrary to how human beings normally communicate.

It would be like suppose 1130 times Joe the fireman is mentioned and out of those 1130 times, Jack the police officer is also mentioned. Now, this piece of literature does have other (related) passages, but to say

"Joe the fireman and Jack the fireman" would be considered an extraordinary level of departure from how humankind normally communicates.


I believe Jesus was begotten a divine Son due to His lineage, His Father being God.

I believe the Bible almost entirely likes to refer to Father only as theos.

I believe the Bible prefers to refer to Jesus not as theos but as Son of theos and part of its delineating Father and Son is to refer to Father as theos and the Son as His Son.

I am happy doing the same.


Blessings,

Tony

Hi Tony...

I believe that you omitted some facts from your findings. I would suggest that you did not include in your results the references to Jesus as the Son of God, and most specifically only begotten Son of God. Also, the times that the pharisees recognized that by claiming to be the Son of God, Jesus was making Himself Equal with God.

But even so, if Jesus is specifically called God even 5 times in the New Testament, then He is God, for scripture cannot be broken.

 

[o2bwise]

Hi Wgw:

Wgw:
t would mean in addition to God, there was another eternal being, who was divine but not the God, but who nonetheless created all things. Unconvincing.

Realizing God is not limited as His creation is, He does not need another in order to beget a child, should that be His prerogative.

To put in human terms, let's pretend only "one" is needed to have a child, an offspring.

God creates that "one." That one is "the man."

That one has a child.

That child is 100% qualitatively like his parent. In other words, is fully human.

What you call unconvincing, I call exclaiming, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God!" and it is wholly apparent to me that such a One, once begotten, is equal to God and has creative power.


Blessings,

Tony

 

[o2bwise]

Hi nomadictheist,

Thanks for your tone. Much appreciated.

nomadictheist:
Also, the times that the pharisees recognized that by claiming to be the Son of God, Jesus was making Himself Equal with God.

I do believe that to confess Jesus is the Son of God would make Him equal with God. It would be like if a father had an IQ of 120 and had a child and the child inherited His father's intelligence, it could be said the child was made equal with his dad.

I don't draw the same conclusion with respect to those 5 verses, but that's OK!


Blessings,

Tony

 

[DrBubbaLove]

When I said “Your misrepresenting me.” I was not referring to doctrine, but “Begrudgingly.”

You are saying God the Son, I say Son of God.

All I'm saying is if God made a perfect image of Himself, there is a certain range of “perfect” that could be achieved. You are saying a perfect image of God, IS God. That is no longer an image of God, but IS God. If you say God is three persons, yet one God, then the perfect image of this God is three persons, yet one God. All three would need to become human, yet in one body. This is one of the problems with this doctrine, is that God the Son became flesh, 100% human, yet remained 100% God, then really he remained like the Father and Holy Spirit that did not become human. Not unless God Himself actually became human, and stopped being God Himself, which is not possible.

What we need to see is this is a test of God Deuteronomy 13:1-3. God called Israel, Israel is the called, but out of Israel God chose some, and whatever was written before, was written for us.

Jesus was the perfect “human” image of God. It does not say Jesus is the perfect God image of God. ...not sure if that came out sounding right.

We will also partake of that divine nature 2 Peter 1:4. It's not a impossible concept in my mind, having two natures, but if we think one is the God, then problems arise.

When we speak like this: “The examples given in Scripture – His temptation, His human intellect/will struggle in the Garden, His not knowing the hour of His Return – all demonstrate that He is very much a human like us.” it speaks of Jesus having two minds, which is two persons.

This “At the same time, the Authority with which He spoke, His own acclamations (like calling Himself the Lord of the Sabbath), the Miracles He performed – all support His Divinity – that He is also God the Son.” speaks of the rest from our works, this is not referring to the original creation, but the new creation. When we understand the new creation is all through the Son, in the plan of God the Father, then we will understand what the apostles are referring to when saying things like God created through the Son. Notice it never says created heaven and earth, the Father created heaven and earth. And miracles, sure don't prove one is God. In fact in Acts it says God was with him, and we know the Father was working in, and through him.

It is because only LORD knows the Day Zechariah 14:7. "(paraphrasing Saint Thomas)" This to requires understanding.


I guess that would make Peter the God also Acts 5:9-10; Acts 8:20-24, who also had the keys to the kingdom of heaven.


Not only does this refer to the Son, but even the Holy Spirit, if the Holy Spirit was another person that is...

Mark 13:32 (KJV) But of that day and that hour knoweth no man (this is the word G3762 - oudeis – no one, nothing, NOT the word G444 – anthrōpos – human being, man), no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.

By using this word “G3762 – oudeis (a powerful negating conjunction that leaves no exceptions)” he is excluding all others. No one else! We must understand the N/T in light of the O/T.

No one claimed you were misrepresenting me. That statement was about me and my limited abilities to present the Trinity Doctrine correctly.

You are however all over the place here jumping from metaphysical discussion of God the Son, as a Perfect Image of the Father and talking about a physical man. We are not limited to the physical models when talking about the Nature of God. So how can we claim to know what is or is not possible when it comes to talking about God and His Nature?

Am not sure why we should think a Spiritual Being with consisting of multiple Persons is impossible simply because we do not see (or at least have not) such things in the physical realm.

Again, we were not talking about God making something. We were talking about what we thought the Perfect Image of God the Father in God's Mind would be. You said that Image would be Real and Perfect, but stopped short apparently of declaring that Image could be a Person separate from God the Father - which begs the question why not. If the Perfect Image in God the Father's mind is real as you said - then what do you think that is?

Am saying what we call God the Son (that Perfect Image of the Father) became the man we call Son of God while still retaining His Divinity. So that man is still One Person - the same person He was before the Incarnation - but has two natures.
Am unclear how we can claim to know what is possible for God to do or not do. How do we say God the Father can have Perfect Knowledge of Himself in His Mind, that such an Image is Real - yet not really perfect - somehow incomplete?
Why do we assume God has a body or else limit Him to characteristics/traits of our physical world - (can only have one being (Nature) matched with one person?

 

[Wgw]

Hi Wgw:

Wgw:
t would mean in addition to God, there was another eternal being, who was divine but not the God, but who nonetheless created all things. Unconvincing.

Realizing God is not limited as His creation is, He does not need another in order to beget a child, should that be His prerogative.

To put in human terms, let's pretend only "one" is needed to have a child, an offspring.

God creates that "one." That one is "the man."

That one has a child.

That child is 100% qualitatively like his parent. In other words, is fully human.

What you call unconvincing, I call exclaiming, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God!" and it is wholly apparent to me that such a One, once begotten, is equal to God and has creative power.


Blessings,

Tony

To be rather frank, I have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[o2bwise]

Wgn,

Son of God refers to Christ's lineage with respect to His Father.

son of man refers to Christ's human lineage.

The Son of God inherited divinity from His Father and thus is equal with God.

 

[7xlightray]

I do not accept your understanding of God. The Genesis narrative says that God appeared to Abraham along with two angels. It says that they were "mortals". Though our English bibles say that it was "three men" that appeared to Abraham the Hebrew actually says "three mortals." As a mortal God could indeed be tempted.

No! The verb literally is, "is not tempted." I have already shown the literal reading from the YLT. The prefix 'a' does NOT imply inability. It would be grossly incorrect to say that an atheist cannot become a theist. Likewise, the prefix 'a' does NOT imply that God cannot become tempted.

I completely, and totally disagree with you assumption. Your God then cannot guarantee His promises, if He can be tempted to sin. And it makes it possible for your God to change. 1 John1:5 says God is light, that is what God is, it is not possible for him to be darkness. God is Love, therefor He can't be tempted to do wrong, to lie, to break a promise, to be mean, for He IS love. This debases God to a man, we have to be careful of this Romans 1.

Numbers 23:19(KJV) God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man(did you catch that? God says He is not the son of man, do we believe Him?), that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?​

You cannot tempt God!

The scriptures you are giving are saying test God, not tempt Him to sin. Clearly we can see this is the meaning, and not the meaning of tempting God to sin...

Matthew 4:6 And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.
7 Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt [obviously test] the Lord thy God.

 

[7xlightray]

Yet:


Matthew 4:

7 Jesus said to him, “It is written again, ‘You shall not tempt the Lord your God.’”


ekpeirazō: tempt

1. to prove, test, thoroughly
   
   
2. to put to proof God's character and power

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1598&t=KJV

The scriptures you are giving are saying test God, not tempt Him to sin. Clearly we can see this is the meaning, and not the meaning of tempting God to sin...

Matthew 4:6 And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.
7 Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt [obviously test] the Lord thy God.​

 

[redleghunter]

The scriptures you are giving are saying test God, not tempt Him to sin. Clearly we can see this is the meaning, and not the meaning of tempting God to sin...

Matthew 4:6 And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.
7 Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt [obviously test] the Lord thy God.​

What's interesting about the Satan exchange is he appeals to the humanity of Christ and His Deity (Colossians 2:9).

Notice the advancing tests as you say, with the Nature of Messiah.

You ever have someone offer you something which already belongs to you? Interesting to ponder a bit. I know a bit off OP but fascinating.

You said obviously "test" and not tempt. Which lexicon did you derive the modification from? Curious.

 

[redleghunter]

Hi redleghunter,

redleghunter:
Thanks to Bill Gates we can now determine the Nature of God...Wow.

I don't understand what you are trying to say.

You used a Microsoft product to come to your conclusions.

 

[Jack Terrence]

I completely, and totally disagree with you assumption. Your God then cannot guarantee His promises, if He can be tempted to sin. And it makes it possible for your God to change. 1 John1:5 says God is light, that is what God is, it is not possible for him to be darkness. God is Love, therefor He can't be tempted to do wrong, to lie, to break a promise, to be mean, for He IS love. This debases God to a man, we have to be careful of this Romans 1.

Numbers 23:19(KJV) God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man(did you catch that? God says He is not the son of man, do we believe Him?), that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?​

You misapply these scriptures and you totally ignore the Genesis narrative. It is saying that God is not as sinful man. The Genesis narrative says that God appeared to Abraham as a mortal. You proceed from your unproveable assumption that a man could not guarantee promises made. But it was a man that confirmed God promises.

Christ became a servant of the Jewish people to maintain the truth of God by making good his promises to the patriarchs.... Romans 15:7-8 NEB​

Your whole argument fails because it was a man that guaranteed God's promises.

You cannot tempt God!

Yet Moses warned the people to not tempt God as they tempted him at Massah (Deuteronomy 6:16). Paul said that it was Christ that was tempted on that occasion (1 Corinthians 10:9). We know that Christ could be tempted. Therefore, God could be tempted.

The scriptures you are giving are saying test God, not tempt Him to sin. Clearly we can see this is the meaning, and not the meaning of tempting God to sin...

This is an artificial distinction. To test God and to tempt him to sin are the same thing.

Matthew 4:6 And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.
7 Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt [obviously test] the Lord thy God.

Again there is no difference between testing God and tempting him to sin. If Jesus had tested God in that instance he would in essence had been tempting God to lie.

 

[7xlightray]

What's interesting about the Satan exchange is he appeals to the humanity of Christ and His Deity (Colossians 2:9).

Notice the advancing tests as you say, with the Nature of Messiah.

You ever have someone offer you something which already belongs to you? Interesting to ponder a bit. I know a bit off OP but fascinating.

You said obviously "test" and not tempt. Which lexicon did you derive the modification from? Curious.

Have no idea what your going on about there, have a feeling I may not want to know.

Not sure why you would bring up scripture of the resurrected Christ Col. 2:9, and what this has to do with whether God the Father can be tempted, or not.

Matt. 4 is pretty clear it is not speaking of God being tempted to sin, all that has to be done is read to see this.


Well since you used blueletterbible and it says...
G1598 ekpeirazō
to prove, test, thoroughly
to put to proof God's character and power
...not sure what you would be objecting to, if you are.

 

[7xlightray]

You misapply these scriptures and you totally ignore the Genesis narrative. It is saying that God is not as sinful man. The Genesis narrative says that God appeared to Abraham as a mortal. You proceed from your unproveable assumption that a man could not guarantee promises made. But it was a man that confirmed God promises.

Christ became a servant of the Jewish people to maintain the truth of God by making good his promises to the patriarchs.... Romans 15:7-8 NEB​

Your whole argument fails because it was a man that guaranteed God's promises.

Yet Moses warned the people to not tempt God as they tempted him at Massah (Deuteronomy 6:16). Paul said that it was Christ that was tempted on that occasion (1 Corinthians 10:9). We know that Christ could be tempted. Therefore, God could be tempted.

This is an artificial distinction. To test God and to tempt him to sin are the same thing.

Again there is no difference between testing God and tempting him to sin. If Jesus had tested God in that instance he would in essence had been tempting God to lie.

Your argument makes no sense to me. They were angels as you said, and Hebrews 13:2 says ,“Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.” The angels appeared as men, but they were angels. And Abraham did not see the LORD, it was an angels, speaking in the name of the LORD. As it was God's name in the angel that went before the Israelites Exodus 23:20-21; Acts 7:53; Galatians 3:19; Hebrews 2:2. Angels are messengers of God.

Romans 15:6 that you may with one mind and one mouth glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. 7 Therefore receive one another, just as Christ also received us, to the glory of God. 8 Now I say that Jesus Christ has become a servant to the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made to the fathers,

To confirm the promises of God the Father made to the father. This is all the Father's work.

Deuteronomy 6:16 is referring to Exodus 17 and this is not about the people tempting the LORD to sin. Not sure where do you get that from? And 1 Corinthians 10:9 is the same thing, which is in Numbers 21. They were not living by faith, and testing God, as Ahaz said he would not test the LORD Isaiah 7:12.

Their not tempting God to sin, but testing Him for a sign, because they lack faith, saying things like God brought them out of Egypt to kill them, is God among us or not.

What, Jesus tempting God to lie? God cannot lie, God is love, meaning God cannot lie. I can't even believe I am having this debate. What an odd thing to debate that your God could be tempted to lie, that it was possible for God to lie, as if He were a man, and in need of something. That a God that is truth, could be tempted to lie. Being tempted means you have your own desires, and needs, other then God's, and are tempted with your own will. We are to resist those for the will of God. God's will is His will. God's desires, and will are always right and good, that can never change in Him, for He is pure light, and darkness can't enter Him.

 

[o2bwise]

Hi redleghunter,

redleghunter:
You used a Microsoft product to come to your conclusions.

Oh, OK!

Next time I'll try to use open office (Libre) on Linux. That sounds better.


Tony