Are Trinitarians Christians?

[Duane Morse]

Quote from Lewis W.
There are actualy four states of mater to my knowlege, solid, liquid, gasseous, and plasma.

You forgot the plasma state... If your analogy holds true what is the fourth state of God?

That would be the One God before God separated into the three.
The plasma would be the combined Whole before anything.
Then the One separated into Father, Holy Spirit, and Son by attributing the Phi equation
Square root five plus one, divided by two
to the One, causing the separation within.

The plasma was separated, which brought about the three states of matter - solid, liquid and gaseous.

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

In the beginning the plasma God created the heaven and earth, the heaven being the liquid, in this case water, the earth being the solid, and the Spirit being the gaseous.

 

[Knight]

An interesting, if odd, analogy Duane.
The solid-liquid-gas example predates the discovery of plasma. (I think) Which is why most apologists ignore it.

An analogy I like to use is the three states of time. Past, Present and Future. Each is unique and distinct but all are the same time.

 

[franklin]

  Originally posted by eldermike
As nice as I can say this: Every non-beleiver I know says that Jesus is not God.

Mr ElderMike, as nice as I can say.....Not every believer including yourself has had the scriptures truely revealed to them either!  Just because everyone else believes what you are proclaiming doesn't make it right. I just love how you sidestep scripture. 

  All I can do is witness to them as I am doing to you.     [/B]

 

Oh really?  When witnessing to someone who doesn't know God is this your usual method, to not use scripture?  I haven't seen you define anything so far with scripture. It's always from man's philosophy and speculations that I hear coming from you ElderMike.

  When Jesus said "I am the way the truth and the life" that was quite a statement for a created being, wouldn't you say? [/B]

 

Jesus in this passage in no way is making Himself equal with the father or claiming to be the father. He is proclaiming that He is a man sent by God as the ultimate sacrifice for our sins.  God had to send a man to die for our sins. The Bible made it very clear that Jesus is God's Son, because he has been "conceived." In other words, Jesus began to exist on the day He was "born." Like all sons, his Father precedes him. Mary is to be the mother, but Joseph is not to be the father. The child was conceived by the power of the Highest and called the Son of God. This is biblical teaching. Let's continue to read in the Gospel of John:

John 1:13-14, "Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father) full of grace and truth."

John 1:18, "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."

  When He said "no one come to the Father except through me" He is blocking all paths or He is the Father, which makes sense? Who could block all paths to God?, only God. [/B]

As usual Mr ElderMike, you fail to see the distinction Jesus is making between Himself and His father!  That's because you keep quoting passages out of it's proper context! And why do you think He had the power to block all paths there mr ElderMike? This something that I've noticed that you have missed.  Once again, it's right there in scripture.  Not mans speculations.

1 Corinthians 15:24,28, "Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father...And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all."

The Son shall be subject to God, that God may be all in all. Jesus has been given all power in heaven and earth (Matthew 28:18) for the accomplishment of a purpose - that of bringing all things into harmony with God. When that purpose is accomplished, he relinquishes all power to God, that God may be all in all.

John 14:10, "Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works."

More scripture for you to ponder at your leisure:

John 14:28, "Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I."

The majority of beleiver's I know say that Jesus is God. All I can do is witness to them as I am doing to you. 

Be sure your beliefs are derived from and founded upon God's Word, not man's speculations. Anyone who learned their "theology" direct from the scripture would never believe in the Trinity, because there is no such thing taught anywhere therein. 



 

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

There is one guy here interpreting for himself, Franklin, and that is you.

 

[cthoma11]

Originally posted by franklin
Howdy partners, Well, I guess this is my assigned cell since I am a defender of the faith and I have this bad habit of exposing false teachings and doctrines that have absolutely nothing to do with scripture, so let me throw in my 2 quarters for what it might be worth. [/color]  [/color]

In post 10 you bravely stepped up to the plate but I do not think you have come close to "exposing false teaching". I think you have failed because the concept of the trinity is not false teaching.

Your responses, in my opinion, can be summed up in either of your posts 76 and/or 117. In these two posts you argue that Christ is not God because you give verses which show that Christ was not God the father.

But the definition of the trinity states that God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy spirit are distinct persons while being one God. So that in showing Christ (God the son) is not God the father does not show that Christ is not God. 

In the following posts people gave many many scriptures to show that Christ was in fact God:

websitejack posts 46, 47, 48, 49 and 73;

oldshepard posts 40, 61, 68, 89 and 93;

herbert schmedly post 62;

cougan post 83; and fiinally

souljah in post 110.

You need to address and refute each of these hundreds of verses that claim that Christ was God. A blanket statement that they are all mistranslations, or misinterpretations as well as ignoring them does not prove your assertion.

Finally, in post 92 you claim that scripture shows that Christ was created, but you never give a verse. Before you give one, remember that "begotten" does not equal "created"

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Good post!

 

[Duane Morse]

Jesus places a distinction between Himself and God, meaning God Almighty, the Alpha-Omega.
But Jesus said if you have seen Him, you have seen the Father.
Jesus is saying that He IS the Father incarnate, but not God Almighty.

Jesus worships God Almighty, the Alpha-Omega, as should we.

 

[franklin]

Originally posted by s0uljah
There is one guy here interpreting for himself, Franklin, and that is you.

OK souljah, I'll just post the scriptures and let it be it's own interpretor, fair enough?  In context ! 


John 3:34-35, "For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him. The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand."

John 5:17-24, "But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work. Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God. Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel. For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will. For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son: That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him. Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life."

John 5:36-38, "But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me. And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape. And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not."

As you can see souljah, God's word is the interpretor, what do you have to say about that?

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

The same I said before, Jesus is the Son of God, and God.

 

[franklin]

To all the trinitarians: A quote from Andrew Norton....

A Statement of Reasons for Not Believing the Doctrine of the Trinitarians Concerning the Nature of God and the Person of Christ 1833 Andrews Norton

"When we look back through the long ages of the reign of the Trinity . . . we shall perceive that few doctrines have produced more unmixed evil."

The Bible does not give us a doctrine of a trinity, the historical record shows that modern Christian trinitarian beliefs were not formulated until about 300 years after the death of Jesus Christ, but in pagan religions trinitarian beliefs date back to ancient Babylon, thousands of years before Jesus Christ. The coequal, coeternal, one substance, three in one trinity is not a Christian Biblical doctrine; yet there are those who insist that it is the cornerstone of Christianity.

In our day and time the doctrine of the trinity is a cornerstone of idolatry.  

Some more quotes from:  Man’s Religions John B. Noss 1968

Saying that Jesus Christ is not God does not degrade Jesus Christ it merely sets things in their proper order so we can know God and worship Him in spirit and truth.

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way the truth and the life: no man cometh to the Father, but by me.

John 14:13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

Satan the Devil strongly desires man to worship him instead of the one true God, and when he can't achieve his primary goal then his next desire is to get man to worship anything other than the true God. Satan has been quite successful in tricking good Christians into worshipping Jesus Christ as God instead of worshipping the one true God, the Father of Jesus Christ.

We can no longer be lulled to sleep by the bizarre, complex, confusing, ritualistic, mysterious Babylonian traditions of trinitarian doctrines. We must come back to God’s Word and worship the one true God; the Father of Jesus Christ.

 

 

[eldermike]

Who is Andrew Norton?

 

[franklin]

Originally posted by eldermike
Who is Andrew Norton?

A Statement of Reasons for Not Believing the Doctrine of the Trinitarians Concerning the Nature of God and the Person of Christ 1833 Andrews Norton

go to your search on the internet and you'll find him.

The New Encyclopedia Britannica 1976

"Neither the word trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: 'Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord' (Deut. 6:4). . . The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. . . . By the end of the 4th century . . . the doctrine of the trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since."

Just thought I'd add this one for you to Mr ElderMike.


. the Trinity is an unintelligible proposition of platonic mysticisms that three are one and one is three" [quote from Thomas Jefferson]

I'm sure you know who Thomas Jerrerson was?

Face the facts, the trinity is not from scripture. It's roots are in Paganism. I had to fall out of love with this doctrine like many other Christians. Contrary to popular belief it's not a requirement for becoming a Christian.  I know it's a tough decision but who are you going to serve, God or man? The choice is yours Mr ElderMike.


Have a nice evening.......

 

[cougan]

Unless I missed it franklin you never answered my question. Do you belive that Jesus was created? If he was created when?

 

[cougan]

Actual I looked back and found your answer on post 92. but you really didnt answer my question. I just simply want a yes or no answer do you believe that Jesus was created? If the answer is yes please tell me when he was created?

Thanks Cougan

 

[OldShepherd]

Posted by Reasonable Doubt
All Gods are three: Amun, Re, Ptah: they have no equal. His name is hidden as Amun, he is Re before [men], and his body is Ptah. [the Egyptian trinity from the Leiden papyrus - RD]
-- Hornung, Erik; Conceptions of God in Ancient Egypt: The One and the Many”

Notice, “All gods are three., implying there is more than one triad. Since the Christian Trinity is supposedly copied from Egyptian triads, there should be more than one Trinity. “{the Egyptian trinity from the Leiden papyrus - RD}”, inserted by whom? Evidently not part of the work cited. Also see below, thirty six gods, not three! And according to Hornung all 36 are three.

None of the sources I consulted, linked below, about the Leiden papyrus mention triads of deities. And also note that your “sources” show two different triads, i.e. grouping of three, not trinities, from among the same bunch of deities. So would the real Egyptian triad, please stand up? Is it “Amun , Re, and Ptah” or “Isis, Serapis, and the child Horus”? Or did everybody decide for themselves which three gods they would worship? As I said before arbitrary groupings of three deities, concocted by modern writers, without historical documentation, solely for the purpose of attacking the Christian Trinity. Hornung’s “Re” is erroneous it should be “Ra” the sun god and principal deity. Real convincing, he can’t even get the name of his concocted triad right.

Ra (Ra’)
{Egypt Ra, sun, day} Egypt. Myth. the sun god and principal deity: usually depicted as having the head of a hawk and wearing the solar disk as a crown.
Merriam-Webster

Quote:
”Egyptians assumed that the body was divided into 36 parts, each of which was under the sway of a certain god. 'There is no limb of his without a god,' (Leyden Papyrus, a.k.a. Leiden Papyrus) and so invoking these, they heal the diseases of the limbs.”

http://www.wrf.org/news/news0001.htm

Quote:
”In the early 19th Century a papyrus, dating from the end of the Middle Kingdom, was found in Egypt. It was taken to the Leiden Museum in Holland and interpreted by A.H. Gardiner in 1909. The complete papyrus can be found in the book Admonitions of an Egyptian from a heiratic papyrus in Leiden. The papyrus describes violent upheavals in Egypt, starvation, drought, escape of slaves (with the wealth of the Egyptians), and death throughout the land. The papyrus was written by an Egyptian named Ipuwer and appears to be an eyewitness account of the effects of the Exodus plagues from the perspective of an average Egyptian. Below are excerpts from the papyrus together with their parallels in the Book of Exodus.[/I]”[/b]

http://www.ohr.org.il/special/pesach/ipuwer.htm

http://www.specialtyinterests.net/ipuwer.html

While the Leiden papyrus does nothing to prove your claim of “pervasive pagan trinities” or ancient Egyptian belief in a triad of deities, it certainly does present proof, from the losing, i.e. Egyptian, side, soundly refuting anti-Bible polemics that Moses never existed and the Exodus never occurred.

... it is probable that the worship of the Egyptian triad Isis, Serapis, and the child Horus helped to familiarize the ancients with the idea of a triune God and was not without influence in the formulation of the doctrine of the trinity as set forth in the Nicene and Athanasian creeds.
-- Laing, Gordon Jennings; Survivals of Roman Religion

First, who is Laing? I said acknowledged scholars, not just some guy who threw a book together. And note the complete lack of historical documentation.

1. “It is probable”, is guessing. It is not proof!
2. ”(probably) helped to familiarize” the writer guessing again, not proof, that anything or anyone helped to familiarize anyone with anything!
3. ”(probably) not without influence, still guessing. Not proof!
4. A “triad” is a group of three, it is not a trinity or triune!

Where is the documentary evidence from ancient historical sources which proves that Egypt or any other people, worshipped a trinity, i.e. one god manifested as three?

In the unity of that One, Only God of the Babylonians there were three persons, and to symbolize that doctrine of the trinity they employed ... the equilateral triangle, just as it is well known the Romish Church does at this day.
-- Hislop, Alexander; The Two Babylons: Or, the Papal Worship

I cannot believe that anyone would seriously cite this piece of horse droppings as proof of anything. It was published in 1858 and never updated or revised. All the illustrations are woodcuts, i.e. 144 year old drawings, therefore worthless as evidence.

Here is a review of Al His Slops, To Babble On, by a former staunch supporter, who even wrote his own book, citing His Slop. He later withdrew his own book, although it was selling well, because of the many errors which he had quoted from His Slop.
______________________________________________
Quote:
”The subtitle for Hislop’s book is "The Papal Worship Proved to Be the Worship of Nimrod and His Wife." Yet when I went to reference works such as the Encyclopedia Britannica, The Americana, The Jewish Encyclopedia, The Catholic Encyclopedia, The Worldbook Encyclopedia – carefully reading their articles on "Nimrod" and "Semiramis" – not one said anything about Nimrod and Semiramis being husband and wife. They did not even live in the same century. Nor is there any basis for Semiramis being the mother of Tammuz. I realized these ideas were all Hislop’s inventions.

While seeking to condemn the paganism of Roman Catholicism, Hislop produced his own myths. By so doing, he theorized that Nimrod, Adonis, Apollo, Attes, Ball-zebub, Bacchus, Cupid, Dagon, Hercules, Januis, Linus, Lucifer, Mars, Merodach, Thithra, Molock, Narcissus, Oannes, Oden, Orion, Osiris, Pluto, Saturn, Teitan, Typhon, Vulcan, Wodan, and Zoraster were all one and the same. By mixing myths, Hislop supposed that Semiramis was the wife of Nimrod and was the same as Aphrodite, Artemis, Astarte, Aurora, Bellona, Ceres, Diana, Easter, Irene, Iris, Juno, Mylitta, Proserpine, Rhea, Venus, and Vesta.

Because Hislop wrote in the mid-1800’s the books he refers to or quotes are now quite old. (144 + years old to be exact.) I made considerable effort to find these old books and to check Hislop’s references; books such as Layard’s Nineveh and Its Remains, Kitto’s Cyclopeidia of Biblical Literature, Wilkinson’s Ancient Egyptians, as well as old editions of Pausanias, Pliny, Tacitus, Herodotus and many more. When I checked his footnote references, in numerous cases I discovered they do not support his claims.

Hislop says, for example, that the "round" wafer used in the Roman Catholic mass came from Egyptian paganism. For this he cites a statement in Wilkinson’s Ancient Egyptians (vol. 5, 353,365) about the use of thin round cakes on their altars. When I checked Wilkinson’s work, however, he also said the Egyptians used oval and triangular cakes; folded cakes; cakes shaped like leaves, animals, and a crocodile’s head; and so on. Hislop failed to even mention this.

While condemning round communion wafers as images of the sun-god Baal, Hislop fails to mention that the very manna given by the Lord was round. "Upon the face of the wilderness there lay a small round thing…And Moses said unto them, This is the bread which the Lord hath given you to eat" (Exod. 16:14-15, KJV, emphasis added). round is not necessarily pagan.”
http://users.clarkston.com/rcorson/2babylons.htm
________________________________________

The genius of Plato, informed by his own meditation or by the traditional knowledge of the priests of Egypt, had ventured to explore the mysterious nature of the Deity.

When he had elevated his mind to the sublime contemplation of the first self-existent, necessary cause of the universe, the Athenian sage was incapable of conceiving how the simple unity of his essence could admit the infinite variety of distinct and successive ideas which compose the model of the intellectual world; how a Being purely incorporeal could execute that perfect model, and mould with a plastic hand the rude and independent chaos.

The vain hope of extricating himself from these difficulties, which must ever oppress the feeble powers of the human mind, might induce Plato to consider the divine nature under the threefold modification-of the first cause, the reason or Logos, and the soul or spirit of the universe. His poetic imagination sometimes fixed and animated these metaphysical abstractions; the three archial or original principles were represented in the Platonic system as three Gods, united with each other by a mysterious and ineffable generation.

” Say what? vain hope”, “his own meditation”,”his mind”, “sublime contemplation”, “might induce”, “incapable of conceiving”, “His poetic imagination” This is supposed to be evidence? This is supposed to be proof? The scribblings of one (1) pagan philosopher concerning his concept of three something, based on his own “mind”, vain hope”, “meditation”, “contemplation”, and “imagination”, does not prove anything about anything and certainly nothing about pagan trinities! Again note the lack of any historical documentation proving any of this.

Perhaps you did not understand my question. Documentation by acknowledged History/Theology scholars, based on/citing authentic ancient manuscripts, scrolls, codices, clay/stone tablets, papyri, etc., proving that any ancient culture, with which early Christians came into contact, knew of or worshipped a Trinitarian god, i.e. one god manifest as three.

True to form, as most anti-Trinitarians, you rounded up the usual suspects, contradictory, arbitrarily grouping three, out of hundreds of, Egyptian deities, erroneously calling a “triad”, a trinity, many people don’t know the difference, trying vainly to prove that ancient Egypt had an established, recognized, acknowledged group of three deities.

And I haven’t seen the first bit of evidence concerning Athanasius and any so-called pagan influence!

 

[OldShepherd]

Originally posted by franklin
A Statement of Reasons for Not Believing the Doctrine of the Trinitarians Concerning the Nature of God and the Person of Christ 1833 Andrews Norton

go to your search on the internet and you'll find him.

The New Encyclopedia Britannica 1976

"Neither the word trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: 'Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord' (Deut. 6:4). . . The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. . . . By the end of the 4th century . . . the doctrine of the trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since."

Just thought I'd add this one for you to Mr ElderMike.

. the Trinity is an unintelligible proposition of platonic mysticisms that three are one and one is three" [quote from Thomas Jefferson]

I'm sure you know who Thomas Jerrerson was?

Face the facts, the trinity is not from scripture. It's roots are in Paganism. I had to fall out of love with this doctrine like many other Christians. Contrary to popular belief it's not a requirement for becoming a Christian.  I know it's a tough decision but who are you going to serve, God or man? The choice is yours Mr ElderMike.

Have a nice evening.......

I'm still waiting for you, Franklin, or anyone else, to post the first solid evidence of the existence of a trinity in any pagan culture. I posted proof that pre-Christian Judaism believed in a Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Why are all the anti-Trinitarians avoiding that post?

I noticed a lot of ellipses, i.e. three periods indicating something omitted, in your post from Encyclopedia Britannica. Here is the current Trinity article with the parts you left out, to change the meaning, highlighted in red.

___________________________________________
Quote:
Trinity in Christian doctrine, the unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three persons in one Godhead.

Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord” (Deuteronomy 6:4). The earliest Christians, however, had to cope with the implications of the coming of Jesus Christ and of the presumed presence and power of God among them—i.e., the Holy Spirit, whose coming was connected with the celebration of the Pentecost. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were associated in such New Testament passages as the Great Commission: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19); and in the apostolic benediction: “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all” (2 Corinthians 13:14). Thus, the New Testament established the basis for the doctrine of the Trinity.

The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. Initially, both the requirements of monotheism inherited from the Old Testament and the implications of the need to interpret the biblical teaching to Greco-Roman religions seemed to demand that the divine in Christ as the Word, or Logos, be interpreted as subordinate to the Supreme Being. An alternative solution was to interpret Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three modes of the self-disclosure of the one God but not as distinct within the being of God itself. The first tendency recognized the distinctness among the three, but at the cost of their equality and hence of their unity (subordinationism); the second came to terms with their unity, but at the cost of their distinctness as “persons” (modalism). It was not until the 4th century that the distinctness of the three and their unity were brought together in a single orthodox doctrine of one essence and three persons.

The Council of Nicaea in 325 stated the crucial formula for that doctrine in its confession that the Son is “of the same substance [homoousios] as the Father,” even though it said very little about the Holy Spirit. Over the next half century, Athanasius defended and refined the Nicene formula, and, by the end of the 4th century, under the leadership of Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus (the Cappadocian Fathers), the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since.

To cite this page:
"Trinity" Encyclopædia Britannica
<http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=75314>
[Accessed September 11, 2002].

And OH BTW Tom Jefferson was not a Theologian Just because he was president does not mean that his unsupported opinion has any more validity than any other man on the street.
___________________________________

 

[OldShepherd]

Originally posted by franklin
To all the trinitarians: A quote from Andrew Norton....

The Bible does not give us a doctrine of a trinity, the historical record shows that modern Christian trinitarian beliefs were not formulated until about 300 years after the death of Jesus Christ, but in pagan religions trinitarian beliefs date back to ancient Babylon, thousands of years before Jesus Christ. The coequal, coeternal, one substance, three in one trinity is not a Christian Biblical doctrine; yet there are those who insist that it is the cornerstone of Christianity.

Someone asked who is Andrew Norton. It is irrelevant. He is just another heretic spreading his lies. Not only does he not document anything he said, it is just his opinion, but he makes several false statements.

• There is no record of any culture, Babylonian or other, which came into contact with Judaism or Christianity that had a trinity.
• The Trinity doctrine was first described by pre-Christian Judaism, years before Jesus was born.
• The word Trinity was used by Christians in the year 190 AD.

Some more quotes from:&nbsp; Man’s Religions John B. Noss 1968

Who cares? Just another antichristian heretic telling us his opinion without any documentation or support.

When he was criticized about how he was conducting the civil war, Abrahm Lincoln answered;

“I do the best I can, the best I know how, and intend to keep on doing so until the end. If the end brings me out wrong, ten angels swearing I was right will make no difference.”

Ten unknown anti-Trintarian “scholars”, and I use that term very loosely, swearing that the Trinity is pagan make absolutely no difference when placed along side the truth. And here is truth, the early church writing about the Trinity, 110 years before one of these gentlemen claimed it was introduced to Christianity.

190 AD Clement Of Alexandria "I understand nothing else than the Holy Trinity to be meant; for the third is the Holy Spirit, and the Son is the second, by whom all things were made according to the will of the Father." (Stromata, Book V, ch. 14)

200 AD Tertullian "All the Scriptures give clear proof of the Trinity, and it is from these that our principle is deduced...the distinction of the Trinity is quite clearly displayed." (Against Praxeas, ch 11)

225 AD Origen "Nothing in the Trinity can be called greater or less, since the fountain of divinity alone contains all things by His word and reason, and by the Spirit of His mouth sanctifies all things which are worthy of sanctification." (De Principis, Book I, ch. 3, section 7)

Posting “The Trinity is pagan.”, “The Trinity is pagan.”, “The Trinity is pagan”, over and over again does not make it true. I want to see evidence, proof, documentation, such as I just posted, from ancient scrolls, manuscripts, codices, stone and clay tablets, papyri, etc. etc., from the periods in question, showing that any kind of pagan trinity existed, not an arbitrary grouping of three deities, and proof that the pagan trinity was copied by early Christians. In Matt 16:18, Jesus said;

upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

So I want to see proof of the anti-Trinitarian church in the years 33 AD through 325 AD. I have already posted documentation that it did not exist in 190 AD, 200 AD and 225 AD.

 

[Phoenix]

In other words, Jesus began to exist on the day He was "born."

Franklin, have you not read Isaiah 48:16 ?


Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in
secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there
[am] I: and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me.

 

[franklin]

&nbsp; Originally posted by OldShepherd
Someone asked who is Andrew Norton. It is irrelevant. He is just another heretic spreading his lies. Not only does he not document anything he said, it is just his opinion, but he makes several false statements.

• &nbsp;

• &nbsp;
  
  OS, Interesting that you say this guy is a heretic because of his opinions about the trinity when the trinity is just that, someones heretical opinion and un-inspired writing that&nbsp;totally contradicts everything Jesus and the Apostles taught!&nbsp; This is almost laughable my friend!&nbsp; keep up the good work!&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;
  
  

  
  gentlemen claimed it was introduced to Christianity. 190 AD Clement Of Alexandria "I understand nothing else than the Holy Trinity to be meant; for the third is the Holy Spirit, and the Son is the second, by whom all things were made , and proof that the pagan trinity was copied by early Christians. In Matt 16:18, Jesus said;

• 
  upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. So I want to see proof of the anti-Trinitarian church in the years 33 AD through 325 AD. I have already posted documentation that it did not exist in 190 AD, 200 AD and 225 AD. [/B]

  
  
  So what would we do today OS, if there were no creeds to fall back on?&nbsp; Oh my, that would mean that all we would depend on is scripture alone!&nbsp;&nbsp;How aweful that would be?&nbsp;
  
  During the first three centuries, Christians did not believe that Jesus Christ was coequal, and coeternal with God, or that he was God the Son, they believed that Jesus Christ was subordinate to God, and that he had a beginning, that he was born. Those that believed otherwise were the exception.&nbsp; Now in our modern times today, it's the other way around!&nbsp; How sad!&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; Oh and BTW OS, if you want to see documentation that refutes your doctrine, just&nbsp;go to the scriptures!&nbsp;
  
  &nbsp;

 

[Phoenix]

It would seem Franklin that,

and that he had a beginning, that he was born. Those that believed otherwise were the exception.

Those who believe otherwise would truly be the exception, according to this scripture and others, that he did have a beginning that was at the foundation of the world. As in Before Abraham was I AM.

1Pe 1:19
But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without
blemish and without spot:&nbsp;
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
1Pe 1:20&nbsp;&nbsp;
Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the
world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

1Pe 1:23

Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the Word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

The Word of God in the Greek text here is also Logos that pesky Word from John 1:1

&nbsp;