Biblical PROOF of NO trinity and triune god..

[A New Dawn]

1. You mustn't yourself know much about the Reformation; they all considered themselves to be the continuation of the Church (many are still Churches in the Truest sense).
2. You obviously haven't a clue on Anglicanism, since the Anglican Church was the Catholic Church in England. Do a little historical research please before you tell me about my own Church please.

Huh?

The Catholic Church was the Catholic Church in England. It was replaced by Henry, VIII, with the Anglican Church (which he created, or had created) when he wanted to get divorced and the church wouldn't let him.

In America, the Anglican Church is the Episcopal Church.

 

[TScott]

1. You mustn't yourself know much about the Reformation; they all considered themselves to be the continuation of the Church (many are still Churches in the Truest sense).
2. You obviously haven't a clue on Anglicanism, since the Anglican Church was the Catholic Church in England. Do a little historical research please before you tell me about my own Church please.

You are missing the point though aren't you? They all broke away from the Catholic Church because of certain differences in dogma, didn't they? That was the point of our exchange, PaladinValer. Different Christians have different beliefs.

You are certainly no authority on who is or isn't a Christian.

 

[Vedant]

My take on the trinity. There is no trinity mentioned in the Bible. I think that the relationship between the miracles of God, creation, forgiveness, and daily sustenance is often too stretched apart to the point of people needing to define God by His differences rather than His similarities. Whatever name you use, God created, forgives, and sustains us. God(or Jesus or the Holy Spirit) does EVERYTHING and that's what's important. Not believing in or understanding the trinity doesn't make you an unbeliever. Not accepting God makes you an unbeliever. I think the church, after generations after the disciples found it more and more difficult to explain God, and the trinity is what made the most sense, and it still does make the most sense to me. Jesus didn't say that if we didn't know how God works or is structured that we won't be saved. We won't understand the different relationships perfectly until we're with Him.

 

[TScott]

My take on the trinity. There is no trinity mentioned in the Bible. I think that the relationship between the miracles of God, creation, forgiveness, and daily sustenance is often too stretched apart to the point of people needing to define God by His differences rather than His similarities. Whatever name you use, God created, forgives, and sustains us. God(or Jesus or the Holy Spirit) does EVERYTHING and that's what's important. Not believing in or understanding the trinity doesn't make you an unbeliever. Not accepting God makes you an unbeliever. I think the church, after generations after the disciples found it more and more difficult to explain God, and the trinity is what made the most sense, and it still does make the most sense to me. Jesus didn't say that if we didn't know how God works or is structured that we won't be saved. We won't understand the different relationships perfectly until we're with Him.

Good post, Vedant!

At the time that doctrine of the Trinity was actually penned by the Cappaocian Fathers there had been a battle waging for decades between the the opposing factions of the Early Church: The followers of Arius vs. the followers of Athanasius. Bishops were being dragged out of their churches by angry mobs and murdered over this issue. Constantine found both arguments compelling and at different times both Arius and Athanasius found themselves banished as the other gained the Emperor's ear. In the end Athanasius won out and later Augustine commissioned the Cappadocian Fathers, Basil and Greggory to make sense of the whole thing. None of it had anything to do with anything the Bible said directly, the writings in the Bible supported Arius' in saying that Jesus was subordinate to God. Of the Gospels, only the fourth gospel of John even hints that Jesus and God are one in the same, but even John contradicts this at times.

The question still remains. Is Christianity a monotheistic religion or not. The Trinity was a 4th century attempt to deify Jesus while still maintaining a monotheistic faith. I'm afraid the casualty in all of this is the teachings of Jesus. After the fracus in the fourth century between the Arians and the Trinitarians, the focus of the Church became dogma and the teachings of Jesus have had to take the back seat ever since.

 

[PaladinValer]

Huh?

The Catholic Church was the Catholic Church in England. It was replaced by Henry, VIII, with the Anglican Church (which he created, or had created) when he wanted to get divorced and the church wouldn't let him.

This is full of errors. If you'd like, please visit STR if you'd like to hear the actual history of the Anglican Church.

TScott,

1. I thought it was the EO (or was that the OO?) that was the true "First Church?" (hint hint: neither really)
2. The Church's Councils declared orthodoxy and detailed heresy. Heresy isn't Christianity but "quasi-Christianity" at best. Non-trinitarianism is heresy.

 

[TScott]

TScott,

1. I thought it was the EO (or was that the OO?) that was the true "First Church?" (hint hint: neither really)

...and this has to do with what?

2. The Church's Councils declared orthodoxy and detailed heresy. Heresy isn't Christianity but "quasi-Christianity" at best. Non-trinitarianism is heresy.

...the councils declared orthodoxy for the Roman Church only. That others followed that orthodoxy and incorporated it into their Church as well is incidental. "Non-trinitarianism" is only heresy to the adherents of those councils. Jesus did not adhere to the councils and niether did Sts. Paul, Peter or James the Just. The councils were commisioned by Constantine because he wanted a religion for the Roman Empire.

 

[Starstreak M86]

So? Both the Father and the Holy Spirit are Christ's Parents?

He's saying what I have believed all along, that the Holy Spirit is God the Mother.

God is like a Family. The Father, the Mother (Holy Spirit), and the Son.

That's a good explanation of the Trinity. The OP unknowingly just made the Trinity more understandable.

 

[Starstreak M86]

If Jesus wasn't God, then some of what He did would make Him the biggest blasphemer ever.

Jesus put Himself on the same level with the Father on several ocassions, and even openly admitted to being God in John 10:30.

I already explained this in another thread:
http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=9534634#post9534634

Find some Scritpure that refutes the idea of the Trinity. WHERE IN THE BIBLE DOES IT SAY THAT ONLY THE FATHER IS GOD? Nowhere.

Even the term God, which is "Elohim" means a plurality of persons. The verses in the Bible that say "false gods" uses the term "elohim" for gods. In Deuteronomy, Moses said "The LORD our God is ONE" to make it clear that God is One Being. Because the term "Elohim" literally means an assembly of Gods and Goddesses. Moses made sure that people knew that God is One Being and not an assembly of gods.

Also, all memebers of the Trinity have the same traits of being:

Holy
Eternal
Omnipotent
Omniscient
Intelligent
Capable of Emotions

In the Prophetic books of the Old Testament (particularly Isaiah), God even promises to incarnate as a human in the future. And in the prophetic books about the Second Coming of the Messiah, the term "LORD" is applied to Christ quite liberally. The Coming of the Messiah uses the term "LORD" for the person coming. The Messiah is called "LORD" ("YHVH") in several occassions, and is even called "Mighty God".

If Jesus is not God, then the prophets who wrote about Him were blasphemers. And so is Jesus, because on several ocassions, He does things that would be blasphemy if He were only a human. He holds His interpretation of the Old Testament on level with God the Father's teachings. He even warns that if people don't accept His teachings, that they are blaspheming God. Jesus even said that you can blaspheme Him! Jesus also allowed people to worship Him on several ocassion in the Gospels, WITHOUT A SINGLE WORD OF REBUKE!!! He just let them do it!

In Acts 7 when Stephen is being stoned to death by the Pharisees, he prays to Christ, and Paul claims that he prayed to the Holy Spirit in some of his epistles.

If Jesus and the Holy Spirit are not God, then they are THE BIGGEST BLASPHEMERS EVER.

 

[pnotc]

Tscott -

"...the councils declared orthodoxy for the Roman Church only."

Ummmm, no. There was no "Roman Church" at that point, only the undivided universal (catholic) church, which comprised both East & West, hence the title "Ecumenical Council" - they involved the entire church. And no, Constantine did not "want a religion for the Roman empire." He preferred that peace prevail over civil unrest and was instrumental in getting everyone together so that the Church, under the guidance & inspiration of the Spirit, could finally sort it all out. Which is why it makes no sense to say Jesus, Paul, James, etc did not adhere to the councils - they were decided by the church that Jesus founded and still guides, and the church that Paul & James identified themselves with.

 

[Starstreak M86]

Tscott -

"...the councils declared orthodoxy for the Roman Church only."

Ummmm, no. There was no "Roman Church" at that point, only the undivided universal (catholic) church, which comprised both East & West, hence the title "Ecumenical Council" - they involved the entire church. And no, Constantine did not "want a religion for the Roman empire." He preferred that peace prevail over civil unrest and was instrumental in getting everyone together so that the Church, under the guidance & inspiration of the Spirit, could finally sort it all out. Which is why it makes no sense to say Jesus, Paul, James, etc did not adhere to the councils - they were decided by the church that Jesus founded and still guides, and the church that Paul & James identified themselves with.

Excelent!

I'm glad that someone finally put this conspiracy theory to rest that the Council of Nicea supposedly invented the idea of the Trinity. I'm sick of conspiracy theories like this from would-be modern-day "reformers".

It never ceases to amaze me how hard some people who call themselves Christians fight so hard against what is right there in the Bible.

What would be the point of "inventing" the Trinity?

 

[TScott]

Tscott -

"...the councils declared orthodoxy for the Roman Church only."

Ummmm, no. There was no "Roman Church" at that point, only the undivided universal (catholic) church, which comprised both East & West, hence the title "Ecumenical Council" - they involved the entire church. And no, Constantine did not "want a religion for the Roman empire."

Yet of the approximately 300 bishops attending the first conference in Nichaea only one (1) was from outside the Empire. The council was the very first time that the Christians of the Empire had met as a body and they did it at Constantine's invitation. He even paid all of their travel and per diem expences.

He preferred that peace prevail over civil unrest and was instrumental in getting everyone together so that the Church, under the guidance & inspiration of the Spirit, could finally sort it all out.

I don't deny that he was motivated by the violence between the Aryans and the Trinitarians, that was the main motivation behind the Council. The next hot topic was which day to celebrate Easter, or some such.

Which is why it makes no sense to say Jesus, Paul, James, etc did not adhere to the councils - they were decided by the church that Jesus founded and still guides, and the church that Paul & James identified themselves with

The question is whether the Church in the 4th c. was the same church of the first c. There is no evidence that it was, in fact most evidence points that they were two different churches.

 

[PaladinValer]

TScott, pnotc is historically 100% correct. There was no Vatican Catholic Church; just THE Church. Why else do the Eastern Orthodox, the Lutherans, the Anglicans, the Methodists, the Wesleyans, and all other orthodox denominations adhere to these Councils? Choice? I don't think so. Because the Church was One? Absolutely.

A "Christian" who does not adhere to those Seven Ecumenical Councils is not a Christian. They were the establishment of orthodoxy for the entire Christian religion. Even non-credal faiths like the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) acknowledge that, to truly be a Christian, their faith and doctrines must match those taught by the Councils. And you can add many others, even the Baptists (especially American Baptists), to that list.

This is more than theology; its history. And I'm sorry, but your history is not accurate.

 

[TScott]

TScott, pnotc is historically 100% correct. There was no Vatican Catholic Church; just THE Church. Why else do the Eastern Orthodox, the Lutherans, the Anglicans, the Methodists, the Wesleyans, and all other orthodox denominations adhere to these Councils? Choice? I don't think so. Because the Church was One? Absolutely.

A "Christian" who does not adhere to those Seven Ecumenical Councils is not a Christian. They were the establishment of orthodoxy for the entire Christian religion. Even non-credal faiths like the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) acknowledge that, to truly be a Christian, their faith and doctrines must match those taught by the Councils. And you can add many others, even the Baptists (especially American Baptists), to that list.

This is more than theology; its history. And I'm sorry, but your history is not accurate.

My history is accurate, Mr. Valer, although the words you are assigning to me are not. Where did you get "Vatican Catholic Church", from my post? Please point out to me where I typed "Vatican Catholic Church".
The rest of your post makes no sense at all, except where you again make an attempt to determine everyone's religion for them. It is not up to you to determine whether or not someone is a Christian or anything else. You simply do not have that authority.
Constantine was attempting to consolidate all of the Christians under one Church, that was the point of the councils, if you do not believe that then you are sadly mistaken. There were always disagreement among the many Bisops and the councils were usually intended to maintain unity. But as I pointed out, at the first council there was only one Bishop from outside the Empire. The Church didn't split between east and west until the 9th c., so there was general unity til then, although there were factions who did not adhere to the councils. There are still fundamentalist factions who do not put a lot of credence into the councils, and some Christians like the those of the Oriental Orthodox only adhere to some of the councils. The Assyrian Church of the East only adheres to the first council.

 

[PaladinValer]

I have a BA in history and no, your history is flawed.

 

[Inside Edge]

Valer,

I can't figure out where you're getting your history or authority from - the Anglican Church itself wouldn't even make the sweeping judgement calls you're making.

Where many of the post-Reformation denominations claim a common ancestor-Church, they most certainly "broke away" from that original authority - which is now the Catholic Church, headed by the Pope. Where the Anglican Church does consider itself "catholic" in some form, they are not "the Catholic Church in England."

If the Holy Spirit inspires and authorizes the Church, and the Church says that the Trinity is Truth, then it most certainly is.

I'm pretty certain the Holy Spirit was not inspiring & authorizing the Church to commit to the Crusades, burning people alive, or torturing people to force verbal and written
"conversions." If the Church can sanction torture and murder in the name of God, obviously not everything it says and does is of the Holy Spirit.

 

[PaladinValer]

1. You don't seem to know the history of the Anglican Church then. Do a little research on Henry VIII's Church; you'll be quite surprised.
2. You are putting words in my mouth I never said. Do you honesly believe I'm so idiotic in saying that the Advocate inspired the Crusades?

The Church has Spirit-inspired authority of interpretation; not over how to bloody up innocent people.

 

[TScott]

I have a BA in history and no, your history is flawed.

Sure you do. It is noted also that you have nothing else to say to back up your claim.

 

[TScott]

2. You are putting words in my mouth I never said.

1. Pot
2. Kettle
3. Black

 

[pnotc]

tscott-

"Yet of the approximately 300 bishops attending the first conference in Nichaea only one (1) was from outside the Empire. The council was the very first time that the Christians of the Empire had met as a body and they did it at Constantine's invitation. He even paid all of their travel and per diem expences."

Actually, there were more than one (1) bishops from outside the empire. The Catholic Encyclopedia says there were "several." At least one came from Persia and another from Russia. And so what if he paid for it? He called the council, guaranteed the safety of those coming (many had suffered under government persecutions and were wary), so why shouldn't he cover the tab? And while this was certainly the first council of this size, it was not the first council to have been called. Arius had already been condemned in a smaller council called by Alexander of Alexandria.

"I don't deny that he was motivated by the violence between the Aryans and the Trinitarians, that was the main motivation behind the Council."

Then why did you say he called it because he wanted a religion for the Roman Empire?

"The question is whether the Church in the 4th c. was the same church of the first c. There is no evidence that it was, in fact most evidence points that they were two different churches."

What evidence? You malign PV for not backing up his statements - where is your support? You attack him for using a specific definition of Christian that would exclude some, and yet you are doing something very similar here. Why the double standard? And I think he used the term "Vatican Catholic Church" as a descriptive for the sake of clarity, not to put words in your mouth.

 

[UberLutheran]

...but why is it so important for you to "prove" their is no Biblical basis for the Trinity?

If people don't accept your "proof" -- does that mean you "failed", or does it mean that it's OK if you and other people have different ideas about the Trinity (or lack thereof)?