Why the Trinity is a False Doctrine

cgaviria said:

I AM doesn't mean he existed before time, it means exactly what it says, I AM, that he is, and when speaking in reference to Abraham, he was declaring that he existed before Abraham, which is true, but not that he existed before time began.

Click to expand...

If that were the case, our Lord would have said, "Before Abraham was, I was." Not "I AM," which is a direct reference to Exodus 3:14-15.

Only the Father existed before time began, which is why even Jesus is called a son, a son comes after a Father, not at the same time as a father.

Click to expand...

Our Lord is not a creature (John 1:3); he can't be regarded as having a temporal beginning, because He is consubstantial with the Father, and this shared essence is eternal.

God does not speak unwisely.

Click to expand...

The wisdom of God is foolishness to those who are perishing (1 Corinthians 1:18).

cgaviria said:

They are indeed a protestant faction, because the very definition of protestant means a denomination that has departed from the catholic church. So they are indeed a sect of protestants,

Click to expand...

They are a cult, or sect, and they are a Christian cult because it is the Christian faith which they are misrepresenting, and Christian Bible which they have changed - as opposed to Muslim, Hindu etc.

They are not recognised by the mainstream churches and are not a Christian denomination.

cgaviria said:

Jesus Christ was indeed the spirit of God because all life came through Jesus Christ. If you say one other than Jesus Christ existed already, other than the Father who brought him into existence, then you are breaking scripture.

Click to expand...

Genesis says that the Spirit of GOD was hovering over the waters.

All life did come through Jesus; everything was created by the Father, through, and in the name of, the Son and in the power of the Holy Spirit.
In human terms, God took a breath - Spirit - spoke the word - Jesus - and life was created. You can't speak without first breathing; try it. You can't speak without using breath - try that as well.

But I'm afraid that if your starting point is "there is no trinity, or an 'unequal trinity' " (You are the only person I have ever heard use that term, then it is inevitable you will perform some spiritual gymnastics to explain away the Scriptures which say otherwise.
I reckon it would take more faith to accept your position - "Jesus was with God at the beginning and is God, but was made God; and there is a trinity but it's not an equal one" - than to accept "there is one God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

cgaviria said:

Angels did indeed come into existence on the 4th day, because life came into existence on days 4, 5, and 6 sequentially, with angels being the first kind of beings brought into existence by Jesus Christ.

Click to expand...

The sun, moon and stars were created on day 4 - go and read Genesis 1.

cgaviria said:

Every angel of God is a spirit of God and is a holy spirit. Even in this verse we have affirmation that every believer receives a distinct holy spirit, which is an angel,

The same word for these "spirits", "pneumata", is used here,


Any holy spirit a believer receives is an angel of God.

Click to expand...

That's what you want to believe and no one is going to be able to persuade you otherwise.
You haven't begun to address all the verses I quoted from the OT and the things that Jesus said about the Holy Spirit being given at Pentecost, and my guess is that you won't. If all the disciples had their own, personal Holy Spirit, why did Jesus tell them to wait for the Spirit to be given? Why did he say that the Spirit would lead them into all truth, remind them of what he had said, teach them the things of the Father and so on? Why did Luke say that Peter and Paul laid hands on people and they received the Holy Spirit? Why did he sometimes call the Holy Spirit, "the Spirit of Jesus"? Acts 16:7. Why does Paul write at length about life in the Spirit, Romans 8, and the gifts of the Spirit, 1 Corinthians 12? In the latter chapter he says that we were all baptised into ONE Spirit and given to drink of the ONE Spirit, 1 Corinthians 12:13. In verse 4 he says that there are many gifts but one Spirit. In Galatians 5 he talks about the fruit of the Spirit. All the way through the NT, Jesus and the apostles talk of THE Spirit, the ONE Spirit, the Spirit of God - NOT "well each of you have your own personal holy spirit."

It seems that in his grace, and as an extra blessing to us, the Lord may appoint a guardian angel to watch over each of his children - but an angel is not the Holy Spirit. And I think that if it was possible to see one and ask them, they would be horrified at the suggestion. Angels are beings created by God; the Holy Spirit IS God.

Strong in Him said:

They are a cult, or sect, and they are a Christian cult because it is the Christian faith which they are misrepresenting, and Christian Bible which they have changed - as opposed to Muslim, Hindu etc.

They are not recognised by the mainstream churches and are not a Christian denomination.

Click to expand...

I consider that they are a "heresy" as well as a cult; heresy, as they teach a heretical doctrine, of Arius, and cult, owing to the distasteful manner in which they abuse and exploit their members. I participated in an interesting debate on this very subject with @Albion in another forum; my view is that, in light of how the media and the public tend to use or perhaps abuse the word "cult", to refer, for instance, to Scientologists, we should use it to refer to religious movements of all stripes that are predatory or parasitic on their adherents.

Whereas "heresy" should, on the other hand, be jsed tomrefer to those who teach doctrinal error. Thus, the JWs are a heretical cult. The Unitarian Universalists are heretical, but not a cult. Scientologists are a cult, but not a Christian heresy per se. This I think represents the ideal use of this terminology.

cgaviria said:

He is indeed a creature, which is why he is called a son. A son does not precede a father nor does a son come at the same time as a father.

Click to expand...

This argument fails even from an anthropomorphological perspective: we do not create our children, we beget them.

A father comes first, then a son, therefore, Jesus did indeed begin. This wisdom is foolishness to those who are perishing, not understanding why God spoke the way he did.

Click to expand...

What God said is not what you say he said. "Before Abraham was, I AM." Not "I was."

cgaviria said:

Seems like I need to draw this out for you to understand.

God the Father, Almighty, cannot be contained by creation, predetermines, knows all things even the number of hairs on your head. Founded the heavens and the earth.

THEN

God Jesus Christ. Birthed into existence in the beginning. Highest of all created beings and express image of the Father, yet lesser than the Father. Created things in the heavens and upon the earth through speech. Was the spirit of God upon the water that then began speaking, and the Father and this spirit of God were the two witnesses that existed in the beginning.

THEN

God angels. Birthed into existence on day 4 of creation when the luminaries of the heaven came into existence. Lesser than Jesus Christ, and lesser than the Father. These angels take on different forms, which includes taking the form of spirit, which is "air", and angels that are of God are thus called "holy spirit", and inhabit the body of believers by entering the breath and living inside a believer.

Click to expand...

So in this view we would be worshiping multiple gods with one God the Father?

antletems said:

Unbiblical only by how you perceive it!

Click to expand...

I just gave you scripture regarding the need for a mediator between man and Jesus. It clearly states that Jesus is to be the mediator between God and man. If you reject scripture then your "perception" is wrong.

Wgw said:

That's debateable, and indeed there exists an entire subforum of General Theology to debating that issue. I would prefer it if Trinitarian Christians preferred to focus on what we have in commom when debating non-Trinitarians.

Click to expand...

I respect your response and I will continue this conversation in another thread if anyone wants to keep debating the biblical accuracy of praying to Mary.

DTate98 said:

I just gave you scripture regarding the need for a mediator between man and Jesus. It clearly states that Jesus is to be the mediator between God and man. If you reject scripture then your "perception" is wrong.

Click to expand...

I was referring to a post by cgaviria

Wgw said:

I consider that they are a "heresy" as well as a cult; heresy, as they teach a heretical doctrine, of Arius, and cult, owing to the distasteful manner in which they abuse and exploit their members. I participated in an interesting debate on this very subject with @Albion in another forum; my view is that, in light of how the media and the public tend to use or perhaps abuse the word "cult", to refer, for instance, to Scientologists, we should use it to refer to religious movements of all stripes that are predatory or parasitic on their adherents.

Whereas "heresy" should, on the other hand, be jsed tomrefer to those who teach doctrinal error. Thus, the JWs are a heretical cult. The Unitarian Universalists are heretical, but not a cult. Scientologists are a cult, but not a Christian heresy per se. This I think represents the ideal use of this terminology.

Click to expand...

I like this because it puts the elements of the argument correctly--and that's rarely done.

But I still feel that we need to take account of the many writers on the subject and the cult-watching organizations (most of whom have been sued out of business by now, I suspect) who used the word cult to mean something purely theological but worse than a heresy.

The point there was that all sorts of things constitute a heresy (all Protestants are heretics by Roman Catholic standards, for example), but what do we call those odd movements and newish religious organizations that push beyond--theologically speaking, that is--even that which we might call the most basic of Christian concepts, those that Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants have in common despite all that they disagree on?

What if they add some other book to the Bible? What if they dismiss the Triune nature of God? What if they alter the traditionally Christian understanding of the nature of Man as well?

When we come to these issues, we're no longer bickering over such things as the number or nature of the sacraments, Purgatory, Apostolic Succession, or etc. We've moved into a level of disagreement that's even more fundamental, even if the religious society in question does NOT operate like the Scientologists.

cgaviria said:

Somehow my interpretation of "I was before Abraham" doesn't apply but yours does? We are both affirming the same thing, except you are taking Jesus' I AM declaration even further back before "the beginning", which is not so. Do you not realize that,
Psa 2:7 Let me announce the decree of the LORD that he told me: "You are my son, today I have become your father.
Today means day one of creation. Jesus became a son at day one of creation because that is the day he was birthed into existence, and thus the day that God became a father to him, as God was not a father to him before this because Jesus Christ did not exist before the beginning. It was at this time that Jesus Christ also became I AM, because I AM means I EXIST, it is a simple affirmation of existence as a being as the Father is a being that exists.

Click to expand...

Psa 2:1 Why are the nations in an uproar, and their people involved in a vain plot?
Psa 2:2 As the kings of the earth take their stand and the rulers conspire together against the LORD and his anointed one, they say,
Psa 2:3 "Let us tear off their shackles from us, and cast off their chains."
Psa 2:4 He who sits in the heavens laughs; the Lord scoffs at them.
Psa 2:5 In his anger he rebukes them, and in his wrath he terrifies them:
Psa 2:6 "I have set my king on Zion, my holy mountain."
Psa 2:7 Let me announce the decree of the LORD that he told me: "You are my son, today I have become your father.
Psa 2:8 Ask of me, and I will give you the nations as your inheritance, the ends of the earth as your possession.
Psa 2:9 You will break them with an iron rod, you will shatter them like pottery."
Psa 2:10 Therefore, kings, act wisely! Earthly rulers, be warned!
Psa 2:11 Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling.
Psa 2:12 Kiss the son before he becomes angry, and you die where you stand. Indeed, his wrath can flare up quickly. How blessed are those who take refuge in him.
Where in the Psalm does it say "Today means day one of creation"? verses 7-12 is David speaking of what the Lord told him...that today David is become his son, and the Lord his father; that if David asks the Lord will give him the nations as his inheritance; You (David) will break them; Kings of the earth, beware; Kiss the son (David) and live in peace with him.
Firstly these verses refer to David. But secondly they also refer to Messiah. Verses 7-12 by substituting Messiah for son or you (where it points to the son) we see this to be true.

nomadictheist said:

Jesus doesn't say "I was before Abraham." He says, "before Abraham was, I am." The phrasing is very important, and the Jews certainly didn't miss its significance. Just like they didn't miss the significance of the "Son of Man" (see Daniel if you're not clear on the importance of this). Many people believe this is just a reference by Jesus to the fact that He is human, but this is in fact a reference to the prophecies of Daniel.

Click to expand...

Wow! Got busy in here.


I'm referring to Jesus existing before Abraham. You claim he was the God, and say this is what is meant by “I AM.” I'm saying he was the word before Abraham, as in the one to come, so he is before, and greater then Abraham. There is a difference in the word was God, to that of Jesus was God. Jesus is greater then Abraham, Jesus was spoken to Eve, this was the plan of God. Jesus is the word of life made flesh “God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself [2 Corinthians 5:19].” It was the God the Father that was in Christ. The fullness of the Father was expressed through Christ - I'm talking about How God thinks, judges, loves, and so forth. I see no evidence that the “I AM” of John 8:58 is the “I AM” of Genesis, for this same “I AM,” Jesus spoke in John 8:24 and the Jew say nothing, nor pick up stones to kill him. So, the words Jesus spoke that are translated “I AM” could not specifically refer to Yhvh.


Here they did not understand these words to mean the name of Yhvh.


All we could get from this, is that Jesus was saying he existed before Abraham. Nothing to suggest Jesus is saying he is the “I AM.”

The question is how was he before, and greater then Abraham? You say he was God, though scripture shows over and over, and proves he was/is not. Yet many hold onto a few scriptures which could be construed into he is God.

If you receive the testimony of the Pharisees, then you must also believe Jesus broke the Sabbath and had a demon, and therefore still in your sins. Did the Pharisees try to falsely accuse him? Or did they speak the truth concerning him? Do you accept their testimony, or Jesus testimony, because Jesus said clearly, the Father is the only true God? The scriptures, over and over, reveal the only true God. And the scriptures reveal, over and over, in many different ways, and in clear statements that the Father is the only true God. Which the trinity does not do. Once we grasp things like Jesus is the beginning of the new creation, for there are scriptures which do make it sound like Jesus is the only true God, but we have to be careful of the context, or wording, like “And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace [Isaiah 9:6]. Notice it says “will be called”, or “shall be called”, not “is called.” Jesus is the father of the new creation. The Father did all this, and the ages to come, for His Son.


Are you referring to “And behold, one like the son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven! he came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before Him. Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom?” If he is brought near, and before the Ancient of days, he can't be the Ancient of days.


Are you saying God became flesh, or are you saying that he dwelt in flesh? As in, he put on flesh, because there is a difference between putting on flesh, and became flesh. And the word became flesh. How can God become flesh and die? He can't, so, this must refer to the power of God as it speaks of Jesus conception.

We both agree Jesus was a man. When it comes to God, you say, he is The God. I say, he is God, in that he was the image of God, that he was like God in every way, except Gods nature, for Jesus was tempted, and died, then after resurrection he received Gods nature. And is this not how God wants us to be, and will be one day?

7xlightray said:

I see no evidence that the “I AM” of John 8:58 is the “I AM” of Genesis, for this same “I AM,” Jesus spoke in John 8:24 and the Jew say nothing, nor pick up stones to kill him. So, the words Jesus spoke that are translated “I AM” could not specifically refer to Yhvh.

24 Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am [egō eimi] He [“He” has been add to the text], you will die in your sins.”
25 Then they said to Him, “Who are You?”​

Here they did not understand these words to mean the name of Yhvh.

58 Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM [egō eimi].”
59 Then they took up stones to throw at Him​

All we could get from this, is that Jesus was saying he existed before Abraham. Nothing to suggest Jesus is saying he is the “I AM.”

The question is how was he before, and greater then Abraham?

Click to expand...

Wouldn't the most obvious question rather be "Why did they take up stones to throw at him if your thinking is the same as theirs?"

nomadictheist said:

The point remains that our thoughts come from us. Whether you call the heart the mind or not (which, as I have pointed out, the New Testament does not), the thoughts which "proceed from" this mind/heart are not us, nor were they us. They are a part of us, just as the sin nature is a part of us. Yet neither they nor the sin nature are us, else our resurrection into incorruptible bodies would be impossible.

I highly doubt that you would argue that my hand is me. It is part of me - it is a part of my physical body, and therefore a part of me. It can produce all kinds of things, which also are not me. Yet if I lose my hands I don't lose me. My hand is part of me, but it's not me. My eye is part of me, but it's not me. My thoughts are part of me, but they're not me.

Would you also declare God to be evil? He is omniscient - He foreknew, and therefore "thought about" - the existence of evil in the world. Does this mean that evil is also a part of God?

Click to expand...

I've already explained what I meant in post #428, and even before that post, but you seem to be fixated on suggesting that I'm saying, we become the very thought we think.

We will become a new creation when we put on immortality, we will put off this sinful flesh. We will put on a new body, our soul will have a new body, this thinking person inside will remain, only we will not gratify the lust of the flesh.

We think all the time, this is what humans do. What we choose to think about is who we are. If I think about cars, that's me choosing to think about cars. What you choose to think about is you. If I spend all my time thinking about cars, and worldly things, I'm worldly. I am what I think. This is my world inside where I am, where I spend my time thinking, without these thoughts, there would be no me. These are inseparable, me my thoughts, otherwise I would be just a breathing body. We choose what we think about. In fact we are told to change what we think about. We don't have to yield to the sin nature, to temptation. All this really has nothing to do with what I was talking about, though.

That is the same thing I said to you. Here is the difference though, I cannot take my thoughts and produce that thing, that I think within me, and have it come out from me into reality, or something tangible. Now, the other part to what I'm trying to say, is God put His disposition in His Son, and a special plan. Luke 1:35 ...therefore also that holy [40 hágios – properly, different (unlike), other ("otherness"), holy; for the believer, 40 (hágios) means "likeness of nature with the Lord" because "different from the world." The fundamental (core) meaning of 40 (hágios) is "different" – thus a temple in the 1st century was hagios ("holy") because different from other buildings (Wm. Barclay). In the NT, 40 /hágios ("holy") has the "technical" meaning "different from the world" because "like the Lord." ] thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

nomadictheist said:

You are casting a human understanding onto a Biblical text. The Bible never says that God's word is God. The Bible never says that God's thoughts are God. The Bible never says that "the Word" became the earth, the sun, the moon, the stars, or any other physical entity (save Jesus, who was not solely a physical entity). You infer all of this from your need to reconcile the nature of the one God with our finite capability of understanding the concept of "being." But casting the verses in this interpretation robs the Word of His glory (not in any literal sense, since no man can deny Christ His glory or rob Him of it, but in the sense that the Christ you now preach does not have the glory of the Word).

Click to expand...

Yes it does, in John 1:1. The word is also the Spirit, and the Spirit is God.



As for John 1, they chose to interpret it as “He” instead of “it,” and sometimes “He” instead of “this,” though sometimes they do put “The same.”

Compare these verses speaking of the logos...


So no question, this is how it could, and should read, seeing as it is referring to word-logos, and word-logos is not a person, in and of itself...

John 1:1-3 (KJV)
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 This was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by it; and without it was not any thing made that was made.

2 Peter 1:19-21 Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (RSVCE)
19 And we have the prophetic word made more sure. You will do well to pay attention to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. 20 First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation,21 because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

cgaviria Do you think that God is revealing things to you that no other person has seen?