Why The Trinity is a False Teaching - Summarized Doctrinal Reasons

[Albion]

What you think a fully Godman would rook rike sir?

Not Godman. As I said, the belief is that Jesus was fully Man and also fully God. Two natures.

 

[Albion]

If they are not beings, then how is there three of them?

The being is God and there is only one God.

It is contradictory to say there are three "somethings" but they aren't beings.

No, it's not. Not unless you begin by thinking that you're dealing with a belief three separate beings.

 

[Albion]

Yes, the concepts are extra-biblical, such as "ousia," which comes from Hellenic substance metaphysics.

No, the Bible certainly teaches one God and that Jesus, the Father, and the Holy Spirit are god and not qualities of God. That means that a Trinitarian explanation of some sort is indicated. In fact, it's unavoidable, so long as Scripture is the determiner. Then came explanations which, as is universally acknowledged, owe much to Hellenic thinking. But that's the explanation, not the concept.

 

[nothead]

No, the Bible certainly teaches one God and that Jesus, the Father, and the Holy Spirit are god and not qualities of God. That means that a Trinitarian explanation of some sort is indicated. In fact, it's unavoidable, so long as Scripture is the determiner. Then came explanations which, as is universally acknowledged, owe much to Hellenic thinking. But that's the explanation, not the concept.

Jesus is a living being.

The Father is a living God-being.

You can say Jesus is a living elohim, but this does not translate into a Living God-Being.

These are all Judaic concepts. You are not Judaic and never have been. Like your buddies neither do you care.

Why does a Jew say "being" and not PERSON sir? Since it is too anthropomorphic to state? BEING is their preferred term, and this means God is alive and well, WITH a singular existence, will and set of attributes. That is all folks.

 

[nothead]

Not Godman. As I said, the belief is that Jesus was fully Man and also fully God. Two natures.

Two incompatible natures you mean. God is NOT a man that He should lie or the SON OF MAN that He should repent.

 

[Hoghead1]

The being is God and there is only one God.


No, it's not. Not unless you begin by thinking that you're dealing with a belief three separate beings.

Then what are they?

 

[Albion]

Then what are they?

Borrowing an explanation from the Greek, they're referred to as persona, which seems appropriate to me.

 

[Hoghead1]

Borrowing an explanation from the Greek, they're referred to as persona, which seems appropriate to me.

That's Latin, as I recall. Also the term "persons" had a different meaning then. It meant a role, as in a mask an actor wears.

 

[nothead]

OK, makes sense up to a point. However, the problem is that you are not addressing NT passages, such as the opening of John, which clearly state Christ is God.

Okay then let us peruse the Prologue.

First problem, the definition of "WORD" by John. Most modern trinitarians consider this some sorta gnostic dealybobber, some definition which GREEK thinkers did employ, and so then John did employ.

Trouble is, the Word of God is primarily what God said, in the beginning in Genesis thirteen times DABAR what He said to create this world we live in. This is the dominant SEMITIC definition, and the Greek thinkers can take a hike.


The secondary and mutually exclusive meaning is the conventional replacement NAME for God, like "Adonai," which replaces God's DEFINITIVE name since now this name is too sacred and holy to pronounce out loud, render unto text... or even THINK out loud. I do NOT think John meant this meaning somehow or someway in his text. The memra (Aramaic) or "the Word" was God, His name.

In the beginning was the Word, what God said. The Word was at, to, toward or face-to-face with God, a reflection of His will to create. And the Word WAS God in qualified meaning, having no definitive article, a common Koine convention denoting qualified as, or the quality of.

The Word WAS God, since no OTHER one ever said the Word of God.

This MISTAKE modern men make is now the CRUX of their own misinterpretation of the Prologue. NOW the true meaning of the Prologue CAN BE interpreted.

 

[nothead]

That's Latin, as I recall. Also the term "persons" had a different meaning then. It meant a role, as in a mask an actor wears.

"Person" in the Koine has closest parallel to the "prosopon" or FACE of someone.

A face that makes faces is a person. My dog has persona, and nobody better say otherwise. Someone recently said RATIONALITY is "person" and this is far-fetched.

 

[Hoghead1]

Okay then let us peruse the Prologue.

First problem, the definition of "WORD" by John. Most modern trinitarians consider this some sorta gnostic dealybobber, some definition which GREEK thinkers did employ, and so then John did employ.

Trouble is, the Word of God is primarily what God said, in the beginning in Genesis thirteen times DABAR what He said to create this world we live in. This is the dominant SEMITIC definition, and the Greek thinkers can take a hike.


The secondary and mutually exclusive meaning is the conventional replacement NAME for God, "Adonai," which replaces God's DEFINITIVE name since now this name is too sacred and holy to pronounce out loud, render unto text... or even THINK out loud. I do NOT think John meant this meaning somehow or someway in his text.

This MISTAKE modern men make is now the CRUX of their own misinterpretation of the Prologue. NOW the true meaning of the Prologue CAN BE interpreted.

I don't know of anyone who thinks John is gnostic. Word or Logos here could also be translated as Reason. It does not necessarily mean speech or "word" in the usual sense, as per Genesis.
I don't follow you at all on your reference to the names of God.

 

[Albion]

That's Latin, as I recall.

I was referring to the idea.

Also the term "persons" had a different meaning then. It meant a role, as in a mask an actor wears.

Yes, but persona meant more than that. Modalism has been strictly ruled out by the Christian churches that subscribe to the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, as you no doubt know.

 

[Hoghead1]

Jesus is a living being.

The Father is a living God-being.

You can say Jesus is a living elohim, but this does not translate into a Living God-Being.

These are all Judaic concepts. You are not Judaic and never have been. Like your buddies neither do you care.

Why does a Jew say "being" and not PERSON sir? Since it is too anthropomorphic to state? BEING is their preferred term, and this means God is alive and well, WITH a singular existence, will and set of attributes. That is all folks.

Well, were you Judaic? Also, it seems you are trying to examine the Trinity, form the standpoint of Judaism. OK, fine. But you also have to examine it from the standpoint of the Trinitarians and what here argue ments are, which you have yet to do.

 

[nothead]

Well, were you Judaic? Also, it seems you are trying to examine the Trinity, form the standpoint of Judaism. OK, fine. But you also have to examine it from the standpoint of the Trinitarians and what here argue ments are, which you have yet to do.

Why, sir? I rejected trinitarianism over twenty years ago. You have to look at scripture from an EXEGETICAL POV, or else you are deviant.

You have to consider the AUTHORS then to be trinitarian. I know they were not, sir.

First Principle of Exegesis, Gordon Fee, consider the historical CONTEXT in general.

 

[Hoghead1]

Why, sir? I rejected trinitarianism over twenty years ago. You have to look at scripture from an EXEGETICAL POV, or else you are deviant.

You have to consider the AUTHORS then to be trinitarian. I know they were not, sir.

First Principle of Exegesis, Gordon Fee, consider the historical CONTEXT in general.

I am. The NT appears to have been written by Trinitarian authors, though they left many loose ends.

 

[Hoghead1]

I was referring to the idea.


Yes, but persona meant more than that. Modalism has been strictly ruled out by the Christian churches that subscribe to the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, as you no doubt know.

Well, it was and it wasn't. Tertullian, Augustine, and Calvin, for example, provided psychological models of the Trinity, which were in fact modal.

 

[Hoghead1]

"Person" in the Koine has closest parallel to the "prosopon" or FACE of someone.

A face that makes faces is a person. My dog has persona, and nobody better say otherwise. Someone recently said RATIONALITY is "person" and this is far-fetched.

It also meant a role one plays. hence, despite continual attacks on modalism, there is definitely a modalistic basis to the Trinity.

 

[nothead]

It also meant a role one plays. hence, despite continual attacks on modalism, there is definitely a modalistic basis to the Trinity.

You think Jewish thinkers, scribes, rabbis or acolytes gave a single ever CREEDENCE to ACTORS, sir?

YAYUH in hollywood there are a bunch of Jewish rich dudes in the business. THEN no.

 

[nothead]

Well, it was and it wasn't. Tertullian, Augustine, and Calvin, for example, provided psychological models of the Trinity, which were in fact modal.

Em among beany brained idiots, Tertullian takes the cake. He became a MONTANIST toward the end, the end of all wannabees.

Although I'm not sure which is worse then, a Montanist or a rationalist. They knew prophesy and miracles some of the time, indicating a supernatural source, them Montana men.

 

[nothead]

So far, all you've done is make silly remarks, boasted of great you are as a self-taught theologian, and mocked the rest of us. You have yet to make a solid case for anything. I am beginning to wonder if you are just trolling here.

Name one author of NT and how he was a trinitarian on wheels.

I can't even think of one walking and talking. Not a SINGLE one, including Matthew 28:19.