The Theological Impossibility of the Trinity

[Belenus]

There can be no trinity in the orthodox sense of the word for the cruxifiction of Christ to hold and salvation for the human race.

In the Jewish tradition, every year they sacrifice a goat (scapegoat) in which they place all the sins of the Jewish people from the Original sin and by sacrificing the goat they gain some mesure of salvation or relief from sin, if you will. Christ, however, was the final scapegoat. His death on the cross was the final scapegoat in which all the sins of humanity were taken on his shoulders and we could finnaly reach salvation. This is why the Christian tradition has no scapegoat sacrifice.

Christ's reserection was a sin of God's covanant and this is where the problems kick in for the trinity. God brought Christ back to life. The Trinity maintains that Christ was God but if this is true then God would have needed to die for the crucifiction to have any worth. But then who brought Christ back to life if God was dead?
Alternitivly, perhaps God was never really trully dead and brought Himself back to life. However, this means the crusifiction is null and void as something had to die (if not remain dead) for it to have the desired scapegoat effect hence this would mean all of the New Testament was a bit pointless.

Another dilema is that Christ shouted on the cross 'Father, Father, why have you forsaken me?' How could God possibly have a crisis of faith about himself?
The Gospel of Luke says the Holy Spirit left Christ on the cross. This suggests that Christ was a normal man with divine isperation, not God in flesh.

When Satan tempts Christ in the desert, he tempts him to turn away from God and toward him. Tempting God away from God seems a bit of a non starter on Satan's part.

Thats all for now, but what do people think about the Trinity?

 

[BrendanMark]

As St Irenaeus said, all heresy stems from an inability to accept the Incarnation (and therefore the Trinity). A scandal and folly to Jews and Gentiles, as St Paul wrote to the Corinthians.

. . . prior to the Nestorian controversy, the church had opposed three extreme misrepresentations of the person and work of Christ. (1) Christ was a divine being and therefore could not suffer (Docetism); (2) God the Father was temporarily changed into the suffering Son, at the expense of his full divinity and transcendence (Patripassianism); (3) Christ was involved in change, birth, suffering, and death, therefore he could not be fully divine (Arianism). Having ruled out the three extreme options, the church asserted that the Son of God suffered in reality and not mere appearance; that it was the Son who became incarnate and suffered, not the Father; that the Son’s involvement in suffering did not diminish his divine status, because the incarnation was a supreme act of divine compassion and as such it was most appropriate and God-befitting.

The justification of the incarnation as an act worthy of God is a common theme of Christian apologetic against philosophically minded pagans, whose understanding of God did not allow for the possibility that God could empty himself, assume the human condition, and suffer the consequences.
Gavrilyuk, Paul L. – The Suffering of the Impassible God – The Dialectics of Patristic Thought [Oxford Early Christian Studies, 2004 p. 18]

Without a doubt the central affirmation of the Christian faith is that Jesus Christ is both divine and human. On this truth all Christians are agreed, since indeed one who denies this can scarcely bear the name ‘Christian’ in any meaningful sense at all.
Fairbairn, Donald – Grace and Christology in the Early Church [Oxford Early Christian Studies, 2003 p.vii]

 

[Terral]

Hi Belenus:

There can be no trinity in the orthodox sense of the word for the cruxifiction of Christ to hold and salvation for the human race.

The Trinity Doctrine pertains to Singularity Expressions (God, The Word, Adam = pic) broken down (pierced) into Triune witnesses of spirit, blood and water (pic = three testifying = 1Jn 5:7-8) without regard for Christ’s crucifixion or the salvation of anyone. God’s three witnesses (God To Come, God Who Is, God Who Was = top of this diagram on right) appear in Revelation 1:8 like the Word’s three witnesses (Father, Son, Holy Spirit/ Helper) appear in Matthew 28:19, as matters of Biblical FACT. This Creation (Adam) is broken down into the heavens, heaven and earth (pic) in the same way that Adam (Gen. 2:7) is broken down into Adam (spirit), her seed (blood) and Eve (water witness/ helper = pic) the very same way that man himself is comprised of a spirit, soul (blood witness) and physical body (water witness/helper = pic) with a selection of God’s Three Witnesses Mystery Sets appearing in these two diagrams here and here.

In the Jewish tradition, every year they sacrifice a goat (scapegoat) in which they place all the sins of the Jewish people from the Original sin and by sacrificing the goat they gain some mesure of salvation or relief from sin, if you will.

So what? :0) The term “salvation” (yeshuw 'ah #3444) is used only four times in the Torah (Five Books of Moses) in Genesis 49:18, Exodus 14:13 and 15:2 and Deuteronomy 32:15 and all of these pertain to the salvation of the Lord. There is no salvation,’ 'forgiveness' (pardon) of sins or the kind of ‘justification’ we receive in the ‘righteousness OF GOD’ (Rom. 3:21-26) found anywhere in the Old Testament, because by the works of the Law comes the ‘knowledge of sin.’ Romans 3:19-20. Anyway, your descriptions of the ‘scapegoat’ are backwards, which is the likely reason that your Opening Post contains nothing in the way of Scripture. Begin reading in Leviticus 16:1 down to verse 10 to see two goats are presented at the doorway of the tent of meeting and two lots are cast for the Lord (first) and then for the scapegoat. The Lord’s goat is sacrificed, but the other (scapegoat) is presented alive before the Lord and sent into the wilderness. Lev. 16:10.

The problem with your theory is that we have several sacrifices taking place in Leviticus 16 that coincide with the releasing of the scapegoat into the wilderness. We have the bull sacrificed for the sin offering and the ram for a burnt offering (Lev. 16:3), before Aaron can even think about entering the Holy Place (blood witness of the Temple) only after his baptism in Leviticus 16:4. Note the ‘water’ washing of the Helper witness and the blood offering of the ‘blood witness’ in preparation for entering the Holy of Holies (spirit witness) only one time every year. :0) However, the priest kills the bull first and sprinkles the blood for his own sin and then backtracks to kill the Lord’s goat for sprinkling that blood for the sins of the people amid ceremonies to make atonement for the holy place itself (Lev. 16:16) like for the tent of meeting. In fact, nobody is allowed to enter the tent of meeting until the priest returns from making atonement (a covering) for himself, the components of the tabernacle and the people (Lev. 16:17). The point is that the Trinity is even manifested throughout all of Israel’s Tabernacle and Temple activities (washings, sacrifices and anointing = water, blood and spirit) in reverse, which actually proves the Trinity Rule.

Christ, however, was the final scapegoat. His death on the cross was the final scapegoat in which all the sins of humanity were taken on his shoulders and we could finnaly reach salvation. This is why the Christian tradition has no scapegoat sacrifice.

The Lord’s goat is the one that is sacrificed, but the goat for the people is sent into the wilderness with the hides and flesh of the bull and sacrificed goat (outside the camp). Our sacrifice takes place at the Lord’s Passover some six months earlier on Nisan 14 to be eaten at twilight (Lev. 23:5) ‘and’ our Passover has already been sacrificed (1Cor. 5:7). :0) Christ is the “Lamb of God” and no “Goat of God” anyway, so the types are teaching something else for the two goats and the bull offerings. If you think things through carefully, then the sacrificed goat (the Lord’s) is typical of ‘Abel’ and the goat sent into the wilderness with all the sin attached is Cain who murdered him to typify Satan murdering Adam in God’s Infinite Realm. Cain is the one sent out of the presence of the Lord (Gen. 4:14-16) and Abel is the one sacrificed (the Lord's). If either of these goats were sufficient (and they are not), then there was no reason for the bull offering in the first place. :0) The Day of Atonement marks the only day that the High Priest enters the Holy of Holies (spirit witness), but the priest only enters the Holy Place of the Temple (blood witness) at the Lord’s Passover, because ‘our High Priest’ is in reality a “King” and the Holy of Holies (spirit witness) and Court (water witness) are temporary witnesses (beyond the two veils) “imposed until a time of reformation.” Heb. 9:10. The real high priest on the earth represents a ‘spirit witness’ that is also temporary like the angels and like the Court containing mere men are both temporary, until the two again become ‘one’ to take on immortality (like us in 1Cor. 15:51-53). Therefore, again, God is showing Israel (and His sons) the ‘Trinity’ in all these things, but only if you have eyes from God to see.

Christ's reserection was a sin of God's covanant and this is where the problems kick in for the trinity. God brought Christ back to life. The Trinity maintains that Christ was God but if this is true then God would have needed to die for the crucifiction to have any worth.

Woo horsey! The Roman Catholic version of the ‘Trinity’ has no basis in Biblical Reality whatsoever, because the Father + Son + Holy Spirit are the three witnesses of “The Word” we know as the “Only Begotten Son of God.” Matt.16:15-17. God sent His Son to die for sins ‘and’ God also raised His Son from the dead (Rom. 10:9) on the third day (1Cor. 15:3-4). Let us try not to confuse God’s Trinity types for Israel told through the Tabernacle of Moses and the Temple (pic) with errors in Roman Catholic dogma and the creeds of mere men deluded by Denominationalism.

But then who brought Christ back to life if God was dead?

No one has seen God at any time (Jn 1:18), but MANY people have seen the Son of God (John 1:34).

Alternitivly, perhaps God was never really trully dead and brought Himself back to life. However, this means the crusifiction is null and void as something had to die (if not remain dead) for it to have the desired scapegoat effect hence this would mean all of the New Testament was a bit pointless.

No sir. A thesis paper using no Scripture from a guy that cannot spell resurrection or covenant or crucifixion might be considered by some to be pointless, but God is teaching something other than what you profess in the Opening Post anyway.

Another dilema is that Christ shouted on the cross 'Father, Father, why have you forsaken me?' How could God possibly have a crisis of faith about himself?

Christ repeated the very words that His ‘son of God’ (Luke 3:38) cried between the wings of the cherubim guarding the way back into the Garden on the day that he died to begin putting on human skins (Gen. 3:21) for living on this broken earth. Jesus Christ is the Lord God who formed Adam, but His son was not qualified to die for himself. Everything in Isaiah 53 pertains to your father Adam (son of man = heavens, heaven and earth) in the past ‘and’ to our Lord Jesus Christ walking in his footsteps to make the ultimate sacrifice at Calvary as the ‘Son of Man’ (Father, Son and Holy Spirit).

The Gospel of Luke says the Holy Spirit left Christ on the cross. This suggests that Christ was a normal man with divine isperation, not God in flesh.

Humbug! Jesus Christ is the “Son of God” in the flesh ‘and’ the Temple of the Living God walking around with “God IN Him.” 2Cor. 5:19. The greatest born of women is still “John the Baptist” (Matt. 11:11), because he is yet another ‘skin’ (Mark 1:6 = Gen. 3:21) for Adam like Elijah (2Kings 1:8) and Abraham and David and Joshua and so forth. Jesus Christ is the “Lord God” (Gen. 2:4+) who formed this entire universe IN Himself (Col. 1:16-17) and His ‘son of God’ to represent the same universe in one ‘man sent from God.’ John 1:6. If you really want to transform the Lord God of the OT and the “Son of God” of the NT into a mere man, then find some way to reduce ‘him’ to a position lower than John the Baptist; because otherwise he is a LIAR and a mere man in need of a Savior.

When Satan tempts Christ in the desert, he tempts him to turn away from God and toward him. Tempting God away from God seems a bit of a non starter on Satan's part.

Again, Christ is walking in the shoes of His son Adam and reenacting the events from when the ‘son of God’ was tempted under the devil for 930 cotton picking years way back in Genesis. Satan told Adam to ‘worship me’ and Adam laughed in his pathetic face to suffer under the devil’s heel every step of the way.

Thats all for now, but what do people think about the Trinity?

God’s three witnesses are still testifying in Revelation 1:8 like those for His Son (The Word) continue testifying in Matthew 28:19 and you have a spirit, soul and body and your family is a man, offspring and a woman.

In Christ Jesus,

Terral

 

[Belenus]

No sir. A thesis paper using no Scripture from a guy that cannot spell resurrection or covenant or crucifixion might be considered by some to be pointless, but God is teaching something other than what you profess in the Opening Post anyway.

I did not realise that this was an academic essay on the nature of the Trinity. I will, of course, refrain from such slander as mis-spelling on a forum in which I use as an outlet to my hobby of theologigal and philosophical thought of the first half of the first millemium.

I was mistaken not to add scripture, however, and I must make an apology for that. The phrase 'Son of Man' is used throughout the Gospels only when Christ refers to himself (see Mark 8:31 ect). This shows Christ's thoughts on his own mission on earth and it was not as God.
The phrase 'Son of Man' is used again and again by Ezekiel to indicate the humble human status of the prophet (note not in context with Trinity).
The phrase is widely agreed by biblical scholars to be a refrence back to Daniel 7:13-14. In this prophetic vision we see what may be Christ being given authority, either as a preveiw of what is to come or as an at the moment event. The problem arises from this that, if Christ is God, then who gives authority to God?

I think this further underlines the fact that Christ was close to God and given power by Him, but was a seperate entity which resided beneath God in the heirarchy of the Heavenly host.

At the Synods between 393 A.D. and 426 A.D. ignorance won out over truth and knowledge and for the next 1600 years would shroud the true face of the Holy Spirit. We are only now begining to peel back that ignorance but it shall be a challenge.

 

[Terral]

Hi Belenus:

I did not realise that this was an academic essay on the nature of the Trinity. I will, of course, refrain from such slander as mis-spelling on a forum in which I use as an outlet to my hobby of theologigal and philosophical thought of the first half of the first millemium.

You give yours and I do the same and everyone decides for himself. 1Cor. 11:19. Please forgive, but your explanation begins by saying, “There can be no trinity in the orthodox sense of the word for the cruxifiction of Christ to hold and salvation for the human race.” The ‘Trinity’ is a Biblical fact where Singularities are broken down into three witness mystery sets like the Father, Son and Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19 = The Word) and God To Come, God Who Is and God Who Was (Rev. 1:8 = The Almighty) known as Trinities without regard for hobbies, theological or philosophical thought. The idea that ‘there can be no trinity’ because of any other Biblical fact is completely absurd.

I was mistaken not to add scripture, however, and I must make an apology for that. The phrase 'Son of Man' is used throughout the Gospels only when Christ refers to himself (see Mark 8:31 ect). This shows Christ's thoughts on his own mission on earth and it was not as God.

Steven is the exception (Acts 7:56) when he saw the “Son of Man” standing at the right hand of God. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are the three witnesses of “The Word” who contain this universe and hold all things together (Col. 1:15-17). Jesus Christ is the “Son of” that Heavenly “Man” (under red arrow) walking around on the earth “being found in appearance AS A MAN.” Phil. 2:8. These readers can read about the Differences Between Jesus Christ and Christ Jesus here.

The phrase 'Son of Man' is used again and again by Ezekiel to indicate the humble human status of the prophet (note not in context with Trinity).

No. The phrase “son of man” is used by the Lord God (Christ) to address Ezekiel saying such things as, “Son of man, stand on your feet that I man speak with you!” (Eze. 2:1) and “Son of man, I am sending you to the sons of Israel, to a rebellious people who have rebelled against Me. . .”. Ezekiel 2:3. Jesus Christ is the "Son of Man" (F+S+HS) and John the Baptist is the "son of man" (diagram = heavens, heaven and earth) if you have eyes from God to recognized him.

The phrase is widely agreed by biblical scholars to be a refrence back to Daniel 7:13-14.

These scholars have just as much right to be wrong as Belenus. :0)

In this prophetic vision we see what may be Christ being given authority, either as a preveiw of what is to come or as an at the moment event. The problem arises from this that, if Christ is God, then who gives authority to God?

Jesus Christ is the “Son of the Living God.” Matthew 16:15-17. God raised His Only Begotten Son (Jn 3:16) from the dead (Rom. 10:9) on the third day. 1Cor. 15:3-4. Some people also do not know the Difference Between the "Only True God" and "My Father who is IN HEAVEN" (my thread).

I think this further underlines the fact that Christ was close to God and given power by Him, but was a seperate entity which resided beneath God in the heirarchy of the Heavenly host.

The Word and God are the same thing in God’s Infinite Realm (far left), but heaven (Gen. 1:8) and even the highest heaven (Gen. 1:1) cannot contain God. 1Kings 8:27. The Lord of Heaven (Isa. 66:1 = my thread) is the “Son of God” our Lord Jesus Christ the "Lord God" who formed Adam and the garden in Genesis 2:4-8.

At the Synods between 393 A.D. and 426 A.D. ignorance won out over truth and knowledge and for the next 1600 years would shroud the true face of the Holy Spirit. We are only now begining to peel back that ignorance but it shall be a challenge.

Perhaps we can get around that ignorance by simply quoting God through His Living Word to cut out the middlemen. All the words of men together do not equal one Word from God, because He is above all. Jn 3:31.

In Christ Jesus,

Terral

 

[beloved57]

There can be no trinity in the orthodox sense of the word for the cruxifiction of Christ to hold and salvation for the human race.

In the Jewish tradition, every year they sacrifice a goat (scapegoat) in which they place all the sins of the Jewish people from the Original sin and by sacrificing the goat they gain some mesure of salvation or relief from sin, if you will. Christ, however, was the final scapegoat. His death on the cross was the final scapegoat in which all the sins of humanity were taken on his shoulders and we could finnaly reach salvation. This is why the Christian tradition has no scapegoat sacrifice.

Christ's reserection was a sin of God's covanant and this is where the problems kick in for the trinity. God brought Christ back to life. The Trinity maintains that Christ was God but if this is true then God would have needed to die for the crucifiction to have any worth. But then who brought Christ back to life if God was dead?
Alternitivly, perhaps God was never really trully dead and brought Himself back to life. However, this means the crusifiction is null and void as something had to die (if not remain dead) for it to have the desired scapegoat effect hence this would mean all of the New Testament was a bit pointless.

Another dilema is that Christ shouted on the cross 'Father, Father, why have you forsaken me?' How could God possibly have a crisis of faith about himself?
The Gospel of Luke says the Holy Spirit left Christ on the cross. This suggests that Christ was a normal man with divine isperation, not God in flesh.

When Satan tempts Christ in the desert, he tempts him to turn away from God and toward him. Tempting God away from God seems a bit of a non starter on Satan's part.

Thats all for now, but what do people think about the Trinity?

So where does it say in scripture that there is no Trinity ?

 

[Hentenza]

Mod Hat On
​

Thread moved to UT from Paterology, Christology, and Pneumatology.​

 

[&Abel]

jesus christ was indeed god he was the essence/spirit of the father

a translation of the father into the physical through the words brought to us through that spirit/essence

the spirit of god in the flesh of man

 

[Cassiopeia]

I did not realise that this was an academic essay on the nature of the Trinity. I will, of course, refrain from such slander as mis-spelling on a forum in which I use as an outlet to my hobby of theologigal and philosophical thought of the first half of the first millemium.

I was mistaken not to add scripture, however, and I must make an apology for that. The phrase 'Son of Man' is used throughout the Gospels only when Christ refers to himself (see Mark 8:31 ect). This shows Christ's thoughts on his own mission on earth and it was not as God.
The phrase 'Son of Man' is used again and again by Ezekiel to indicate the humble human status of the prophet (note not in context with Trinity).
The phrase is widely agreed by biblical scholars to be a refrence back to Daniel 7:13-14. In this prophetic vision we see what may be Christ being given authority, either as a preveiw of what is to come or as an at the moment event. The problem arises from this that, if Christ is God, then who gives authority to God?

I think this further underlines the fact that Christ was close to God and given power by Him, but was a seperate entity which resided beneath God in the heirarchy of the Heavenly host.

At the Synods between 393 A.D. and 426 A.D. ignorance won out over truth and knowledge and for the next 1600 years would shroud the true face of the Holy Spirit. We are only now begining to peel back that ignorance but it shall be a challenge.

If you are to take this discussion to the Latter-day Saint part of this forum you will find they give you no argument and have believed since the early 1800's that God the Father, Jesus Christ the Son of God and the Holy Ghost are three separate distinct individual beings with one divine purpose.

 

[2ducklow]

If you are to take this discussion to the Latter-day Saint part of this forum you will find they give you no argument and have believed since the early 1800's that God the Father, Jesus Christ the Son of God and the Holy Ghost are three separate distinct individual beings with one divine purpose.

There are many ways of explaining how Jesus can be god, and his father can also be god, yet there is only one God. None of the many varied explanations as to how this can be have any more validity than any of the others do. Explaining a contradiction , such as naming more than one God and saying there is only one God, is an impossibility, and any explanation of a contradiction is no explanation, for contradictions cannot ever be explained, in any shape form or fashion. They all fail. They all have achilles heals that condemn them to being invalid. The best one can hope to do in explaining a contradiction , such as trinity, is to confuse the issue with vague talk, misnomers, convolution, and flat out contradictions, and nonsensical explanations that have no meaning.. This is what every explanation of trinity amounts to.

 

[TurntoChrist1985]

There are many ways of explaining how Jesus can be god, and his father can also be god, yet there is only one God. None of the many varied explanations as to how this can be have any more validity than any of the others do. Explaining a contradiction , such as naming more than one God and saying there is only one God, is an impossibility, and any explanation of a contradiction is no explanation, for contradictions cannot ever be explained, in any shape form or fashion. They all fail. They all have achilles heals that condemn them to being invalid. The best one can hope to do in explaining a contradiction , such as trinity, is to confuse the issue with vague talk, misnomers, convolution, and flat out contradictions, and nonsensical explanations that have no meaning.. This is what every explanation of trinity amounts to.

Very good, make wide sweeping generalizations with some embellishments in the hopes you'll convince someone, let's just say that little rant of yours wouldn't hold up in a theological or philosophical debate.

 

[2ducklow]

Very good, make wide sweeping generalizations with some embellishments in the hopes you'll convince someone, let's just say that little rant of yours wouldn't hold up in a theological or philosophical debate.

There are many ways of explaining how Jesus can be god, and his father can also be god, yet there is only one God.

Turntochrist says that wouldn't hold up in a theological debate. so presumably you believe there is only one way.

None of the many varied explanations as to how this can be have any more validity than any of the others do. Explaining a contradiction , such as naming more than one God and saying there is only one God, is an impossibility,

TurntoChrist's reply is that my assertion that naming more than one god and saying there is only one god is an impossiblity and contradiction wouldn't hold up in a theological debate. so presumably you believe naming as many gods as you want and calling them one God would hold up in a theological debate.

which denegrates the validity of theological debate.

]


and any explanation of a contradiction is no explanation, for contradictions cannot ever be explained, in any shape form or fashion.

So turntochrist believes that's wrong. so presumably, since you whole heartedly disagree with me, you believe that contradictions can be explained.

They all fail. They all have achilles heals that condemn them to being invalid. The best one can hope to do in explaining a contradiction , such as trinity, is to confuse the issue with vague talk, misnomers, convolution, and flat out contradictions, and nonsensical explanations that have no meaning.. This is what every explanation of trinity amounts to.

so you disagree with this too. I say 3 is one is a contradiction, which is what trinity teaches. so presumabely since you wholeheartedly disagree with me, you must therefore believe that 3 is one is not a contradiction.


YOur only real rebutal is to call my post a rant, and say basically , "IS NOT". In other words, you have no rebutal because what I said is undeniable. The last trinitarian I talked to rebutted my comments by calling me feebleminded. the one before that said verbs have no subjects, 'is' is an action verb, the action of is, the subject of a sentence is in another sentence.
So you guys are 3 for 3 so far.

 

[BrendanMark]

Gregory has hinted several times in the course of Oration 31 that the proof of the Spirit’s divinity—and thus the real basis of his Pneumatology—comes through the Spirit’s direct indwelling in the Church. . . . Twice he argues that those who deny the Spirit’s divinity are in effect depriving him of his regeneration in baptism, since only God can deify us (33.17; 34.12). And in Oration 41, the Spirit is “always partaken, not partaking; perfecting, not being perfected; sanctifying, not being sanctified; deifying, not being deified” (41.9); and it is “the author of spiritual regeneration” (41.14).
. . .
The fundamental basis of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, Gregory says, lies in the Christian life of deification, which begins in baptism. The Spirit is known to be God, and is therefore worshipped and adored, because it deifies Christians. Paradoxically, this means that the Spirit’s divinity is recognized only from the actual Christian experience of the divine life, as it is conveyed through the Holy Spirit in the Church.
Beeley, Christopher A. – Gregory of Nazianzus on the Trinity and the Knowledge of God [Oxford Studies in Historical Theology, 2008, p.174-175]


If one has never experienced the indwelling presence of the Spirit then one is often confounded by intellectual conundrums. But infinite mystery is not an intellectual matter any finite human can resolve, but can experience.


It is not a matter of arithmetic or logic - the divine transcends all human understanding but we can experience His love, through self-sacrifice and prayer.


[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Even if the godhead, which is beyond all, is worshipped by us as Trinity and as Unity, we know neither the three nor the one as numbers.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Maximus the Confessor – [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]On the Divine Names[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif], 13 (PG4, 412) quoted from Clément, Olivier [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]The Roots of Christian Mysticism[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif] [1982, 1993 p67][/FONT]


11.27 Who has woe? Who are afflicted? Who are headed for agony, darkness, eternal damnation? The transgressors; those who deny the faith. What is the proof of their denial? They have abandoned what they professed when they entered God’s household. What did they profess? Faith in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
. . .
He who rejects the Spirit rejects the Son, and he who rejects the Son rejects the Father. “No one can say ‘Jesus is Lord’ except in the Holy Spirit,” and “no one has ever seen God; the only-begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has made Him known.” Such a person has no part in true worship. It is impossible to worship the Son except in the Holy Spirit; it is impossible to call upon the Father except in the Spirit of adoption.
St Basil the Great – On the Holy Spirit [SVS, 1980, p. 47-48]

 

[pclarkwilson]

"So where does it say in scripture that there is no Trinity ?"
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
That would be Deuteronomy 6:4 which says that YHWH is One YHWH. this is the great declaration of monotheism, and clearly says that he is one God in one person...YHWH is one YHWH.

 

[2ducklow]

Gregory has hinted several times in the course of Oration 31 that the proof of the Spirit’s divinity—and thus the real basis of his Pneumatology—comes through the Spirit’s direct indwelling in the Church. . . . Twice he argues that those who deny the Spirit’s divinity are in effect depriving him of his regeneration in baptism, since only God can deify us (33.17; 34.12). And in Oration 41, the Spirit is “always partaken, not partaking; perfecting, not being perfected; sanctifying, not being sanctified; deifying, not being deified” (41.9); and it is “the author of spiritual regeneration” (41.14).
. . .
The fundamental basis of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, Gregory says, lies in the Christian life of deification, which begins in baptism. The Spirit is known to be God, and is therefore worshipped and adored, because it deifies Christians. Paradoxically, this means that the Spirit’s divinity is recognized only from the actual Christian experience of the divine life, as it is conveyed through the Holy Spirit in the Church.
Beeley, Christopher A. – Gregory of Nazianzus on the Trinity and the Knowledge of God [Oxford Studies in Historical Theology, 2008, p.174-175]


If one has never experienced the indwelling presence of the Spirit then one is often confounded by intellectual conundrums. But infinite mystery is not an intellectual matter any finite human can resolve, but can experience.

The bible doesn't say God is an infiinite mystery. Godliness doesn't mean God.. something in the image of something isn't the thing it is in the image of, something in the form of someone isn't the one he is in the form of. in my opinion,these faulty logics of trinity are inexcusable for any intelligent thinking human being.

It is not a matter of arithmetic or logic - the divine transcends all human understanding but we can experience His love, through self-sacrifice and prayer.


[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Even if the godhead, which is beyond all, is worshipped by us as Trinity and as Unity, we know neither the three nor the one as numbers.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Maximus the Confessor – [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]On the Divine Names[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif], 13 (PG4, 412) quoted from Clément, Olivier [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]The Roots of Christian Mysticism[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif] [1982, 1993 p67][/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif] In other words you are saying that when you say one and three you don't mean one and three. What do you mean when you say one and three? Plus Godhead is a poor translation of theotes which means god essence or divinity, not godhead, godhead is old english for godhood, but no one takes godhead to mean godhood, most everyone takes godhead to mean the place the trinity hangs out, which isn't the meaning of theotes.[/FONT]

11.27 Who has woe? Who are afflicted? Who are headed for agony, darkness, eternal damnation? The transgressors; those who deny the faith. What is the proof of their denial? They have abandoned what they professed when they entered God’s household. What did they profess? Faith in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
. . .
He who rejects the Spirit rejects the Son, and he who rejects the Son rejects the Father. “No one can say ‘Jesus is Lord’ except in the Holy Spirit,” and “no one has ever seen God; the only-begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has made Him known.” Such a person has no part in true worship. It is impossible to worship the Son except in the Holy Spirit; it is impossible to call upon the Father except in the Spirit of adoption.
St Basil the Great – On the Holy Spirit [SVS, 1980, p. 47-48]

he relied upon a spurious scripture, matthew 28.19, and an interpolated scripture john 1.18. Very few bible translations translatate john 1.18 as god most translate it as son, because it is a theological impossibility, even to most trinitarians, for God who is infinite, to be born. (even though the manuscript evidence is slightly weightier for god than son, there is much that indicates that son is the correct reading.

 

[k2svpete]

"So where does it say in scripture that there is no Trinity ?"
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
That would be Deuteronomy 6:4 which says that YHWH is One YHWH. this is the great declaration of monotheism, and clearly says that he is one God in one person...YHWH is one YHWH.

Bingo, my friend. Trinitarian doctrine is not based in scripture but greek philosophy that took hold from the 2nd century. The expression of trinitarianism is in of itself, polytheism - the presence of more than one god.

Judaism is a monotheistic religion and Christ taught out of the OT, did he not? When quizzed himself, Jesus specifically states that he is not God and reinforces the quote from Deut. in Mark 12.28.

 

[gort]

Bingo, my friend. Trinitarian doctrine is not based in scripture but greek philosophy that took hold from the 2nd century. The expression of trinitarianism is in of itself, polytheism - the presence of more than one god.

Trinitarianism most certainly, of itself, does not speak of polytheism one iota. Trinitarianism holds to one God in 3 persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit all of which is based in scripture and not a greek philosophy of the 2nd century. After all, John (1st century) spoke of Jesus being God in John 1.1

Perhaps it is you who holds to polytheism if the Word was not the one God in John 1.1, but that determination will be made when you can explain what John 1.1 really means when John says, The Word was God.

Judaism is a monotheistic religion and Christ taught out of the OT, did he not? When quizzed himself, Jesus specifically states that he is not God and reinforces the quote from Deut. in Mark 12.28.

Mar 12:29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, "Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord;

I don't see where Jesus specifically says what you say?

 

[gort]

"So where does it say in scripture that there is no Trinity ?"
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
That would be Deuteronomy 6:4 which says that YHWH is One YHWH. this is the great declaration of monotheism, and clearly says that he is one God in one person...YHWH is one YHWH.

It does'nt clearly say that at all. (One God in one person)

It does clearly say that:

Deu 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:

The Lord our God is (numerically) one Lord.

Which of course is what trinitarianism strictly holds to.

 

[k2svpete]

Trinitarianism most certainly, of itself, does not speak of polytheism one iota. Trinitarianism holds to one God in 3 persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit all of which is based in scripture and not a greek philosophy of the 2nd century. After all, John (1st century) spoke of Jesus being God in John 1.1

Perhaps it is you who holds to polytheism if the Word was not the one God in John 1.1, but that determination will be made when you can explain what John 1.1 really means when John says, The Word was God.

Mar 12:29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, "Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord;

I don't see where Jesus specifically says what you say?

Gort, trinitarianism does not hold any basis in scripture. Please tell me how you equate word with Jesus? The word in John 1:1 refers to God's word, His, plan if you will, which is what makes the plan divine and by virtue of that, of God. He had it from the beginning in his mind and when it came to fruition it 'became flesh' Jesus Christ, his ministry and task were all known from the beginning. The realisation of that plan is what is meant here. I exhort you to search the OT for any semblance of the Jews looking upon anything else other than God as described in Deut.

As in the NT the reference to one is just that. Single, solitary, none other besides. Not this rediculous concept of something approaching a multiple personality reverence.

Read that passage from Mark again. Jesus is pretty clear in what he is saying.

 

[gort]

Gort, trinitarianism does not hold any basis in scripture. Please tell me how you equate word with Jesus? The word in John 1:1 refers to God's word, His, plan if you will, which is what makes the plan divine and by virtue of that, of God. He had it from the beginning in his mind and when it came to fruition it 'became flesh' Jesus Christ, his ministry and task were all known from the beginning. The realisation of that plan is what is meant here. I exhort you to search the OT for any semblance of the Jews looking upon anything else other than God as described in Deut.

As in the NT the reference to one is just that. Single, solitary, none other besides. Not this rediculous concept of something approaching a multiple personality reverence.

Read that passage from Mark again. Jesus is pretty clear in what he is saying.

So Gods plan became flesh, eh? And they beheld Gods plan who dwelt among them? And Gods plan made the world, yes?

I exhort you to search the OT for any semblance of the Jews looking upon anything else other than God as described in Deut.

How could I when Gods plan was'nt revealed yet?

You know, for a non-trinitarian, you've brought a new idea that I've never heard before to the table. I give you credit anyways because you at least brought something. Most who argue against trinitarianism would rather lambast it and never give rationale to how the Word was God. Still, I cannot see any rationale as to how a plan was made flesh.

I would never call a plan a Him under any circumstances.