Trinity is wrong.

[ContraMundum]

then you are not paying attention.
1. Which trinity do you believe?

The one that makes sense to me. The orthodox understanding.

2. How can anything be two different things?

Why not?

....And how does such a question relate to the nature of divinity?

3. How can a being that cannot change, then change and die, but not really?

Again- how does such a proposition relate to the nature of divinity?

How can anyone try to enforce the laws and logic of common, crude nature upon the supernatural Creator? That in itself is illogical.

 

[hybrid]

We have found it very odd that no Trinitarian can explain what they mean by person

and you think you understand what a person is?
so what is a person?

 

[gort]

I believe has more weigh than a trinity, as "us" can easily be prophetic..."you and me"...with God talking to his son, Jesus, in the future. Remember that Jesus learned the scriptures. He grew in favor with God and man...
So, God says, "let us make man in our image and likeness"...the God made man in his image....no likeness. That was up to Jesus to accomplish by his example.

Cliff

How can it be prophetic?? How can you derive that God is talking to Jesus in the future yet is creating in the present?

God had just made all sorts of creatures and then says, Let us make man in our image, which was done in v.27.

You seem to skip the context of what is being created in the whole of Chapter 1 and jump to another conclusion of Jesus accomplishing something by example; a whole nother context.

How then was man created? And where is this shown?

(KJV) And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

 

[timbo81]

I don't find it confusing, when I pray to one I am praying to all.

I don't try and understand how they function nor do i need to know, I just accept God is 3 beings all complete and equal.


it even says he who gives glory to the son gives glory to the father or something like that so I disagree trinitarians are somehow commiting idoltary and violating the second commandment.

I think denying an aspect of God is a far more serious crime, he who denies the son denies the father.

if you deny the trinity you might as well go convert to islam.

 

[Clifford B]

(KJV) And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

It is the next verse where God only made man in his image...it was up to Jesus to exemplify being like God.


Timbo...3 beings? You are a polytheist. Even the trinitarians will disagree with you. In fact you have denied the trinity with that statement.

For the record: Islam believes God is One. Judahism believes God is One. I believe God is One. The trinitarians believe God is One, but hedge their bets by calling him 3 distinct persons in One being. The bible makes no such claim. It says God is One. It says Jesus is his son, the man Christ Jesus.

 

[timbo81]

I disagree that it's polytheism because it is still one God, he is just in 3 forms than function as a single being

 

[Bananna]

Mathmatcally F x S x H =1.
F=S
S is neither greater than nor less than 1
If H = 1x1x1x1x1x1x1

In fact to be Echad with all Israel, FxSxH/Israel = 1

So most certainly FxSxH =1 is also a plausibility one must admit.

Being numerically one however does not prove a triunity of among the many facets of God.

What is being illustrated most often is basically One person in three modes of existance revealing him self to Mankind.

(disclaimer: this was an exercise is possiblity and not a profession of belief in any particular above statement)

Part 2.

Trinitarians will often use multiplication as an example for the Trinity doctrine, and yet they do not see their error in doing this example. In order to use 1 x 1 [repeating the same source] we will need to say that the Trinity doctrine teaches all three persons are the Father for 1 x 1 x 1 [repeating the same source, in this case repeating the Father], or that the Trinity doctrine teaches all three persons are the Son for 1 x 1 x 1 [repeating the same source, in this case repeating the Son], or that the Trinity doctrine teaches all three persons are the Holy Spirit for 1 x 1 x 1 [repeating the same source, in this case repeating the Holy Spirit]. We cannot use different sources [Father is not Son, Son is not Holy Spirit, and Holy Spirit is not Father] with multiplication, for if we do this we it will be a mathematical violation.

We do not refuse to accept any doctrine which we cannot fully explain. But mystery and contradiction are two different things. It will be like saying 1 + 1 = 7, it's a mystery, so accept it with faith, and yet this is not a mystery but a contradiction, such as we have with the Trinity doctrine.

We have found it very odd that no Trinitarian can explain what they mean by person, in fact, they get nerves and call one a heretic for questioning the Trinity doctrine. We have been called more than heretics, and to just name a few; Deceiver, Satan's Agent, Stupid Idiot, Moron, Lost Soul, and many other things we do not want to mention. But let us state that we truly are all of these in the eyes of Trinitarians and Modalists, and we do not deny it. But we in the eyes of the Eternal God (blessed is he) we are messengers of truth which the scriptures teach. Therefore, we do not get offended by the majority, after all their doctrines are very anti-scriptural.

We do confess that there are hints of a Trinity and of a Modalism in the scriptures, but that is all it is, nothing but hints which are contradictions when applied to the whole message of the scriptures. But there is also hints of UFOs and alians in the Bible, does that make it true? No.

Singular personal pronouns inform us that the Eternal God who is one is definitely a who. To make him into three who's demonstrably violates the consistent testimony of the scriptures. The Tanakh (O.T.) and Brit Chadashah (N.T.) contain well over twenty thousand singular pronouns and verbs describing the One God who is One. Language has no clearer or more obvious way of providing a testimony to Yisraels and Yehoshuas unitary monotheism.

 

[Bananna]

I disagree that it's polytheism because it is still one God, he is just in 3 forms than function as a single being

That is also what the modalist states. Welcome to Unity theology.

Bananna

 

[2ducklow]

Mathmatcally F x S x H =1.
F=S
S is neither greater than nor less than 1
If H = 1x1x1x1x1x1x1

In fact to be Echad with all Israel, FxSxH/Israel = 1

So most certainly FxSxH =1 is also a plausibility one must admit.

Not so. You can't multiply one person times another person, or one god times another god or one apple times another apple. If you multiply one inch times one inch times one inch you would get one cubic inch, but you wouldn't get one inch. The only way you can multiply one person times another, or one god times another is if god or person is a unit of measurement, which it isn't. And if God or person was a unit of measurement then you would get one cubic god or one cubic person by multiplying father times son times holy ghost. but since god isn't a yard stick you can't.

One apple times one times one is possible, but not one apple times one apple times one apple.See you are saying there is one quantity of one apple when you say one apple times one. saying one apple times one apple is nonsense. saying one person times another person is nonsense, as is father times the son times the holy spirit. It's all nonsense, the way one determines the quantity is to add up everything on the list. You add one apple + one apple to determine how many apples there are. You don't multiply an apple times another apple to determine the quantity. And actually multiplication is just addition. one times one means one quantity of one. two times one means one quantity of 2. 2 times 2 means 2 quantities of 2. so multiplying the father times the son tiimes the holy spirit makes as much nonsense as multimplying one apple times one orange, times one pear.

Or look at it like this. You got Tom , Dick and Harietta in a room. How do you determine how many people are in the room? do you A. multiply Tom times Dick times Harrietta = one person (Tom, Dick and Harrietta)? or do you B. Add one person ( tom) + one person ( Harrietta) + one person (Dick) = 3 persons (tom, Dick, and Harrietta). Even a first grader can get that one right,B. No first grader is gonna say A is the answer, just rrinatarians in the trinaitarian mode of thinking are gonna say A is the answer.

sadly when it comes to trinity, common sense goes out the door. It's a totally different realm where illogic prevails and logic is scoffed at.. this trinity example of father times son times holy spirit = one god, is but one of many examples of illogical trinity. You'd think that people couldn't say such things but they do.

Being numerically one however does not prove a triunity of among the many facets of God.

What is being illustrated most often is basically One person in three modes of existance revealing him self to Mankind.

(disclaimer: this was an exercise is possiblity and not a profession of belief in any particular above statement)

 

[gort]

(KJV) And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

It is the next verse where God only made man in his image...it was up to Jesus to exemplify being like God.

So, in Gen 1 God is creating and speaking to Jesus prophetically you say.

Yet John tells us:

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

...that the Word was God and all things were made by him. How do you reconcile the prophetic talk when the Word, who was God, made all things in the present tense of Gen chapter 1?

 

[hybrid]

Not so. You can't multiply one person times another person, or one god times another god or one apple times another apple. If you multiply one inch times one inch times one inch you would get one cubic inch, but you wouldn't get one inch. The only way you can multiply one person times another, or one god times another is if god or person is a unit of measurement, which it isn't. And if God or person was a unit of measurement then you would get one cubic god or one cubic person by multiplying father times son times holy ghost. but since god isn't a yard stick you can't.

of course a metaphor is only an analogy. you cannot analyze or treat the metaphor as if it is the real thing. a lot of people have fallen trap to this. eating the menu instead of the meal and mistaken the map over the territory and got lost.

 

[2ducklow]

of course a metaphor is only an analogy. you cannot analyze or treat the metaphor as if it is the real thing. a lot of people have fallen trap to this. eating the menu instead of the meal and mistaken the map over the territory and got lost.

In that case you have an unreal metaphor for an unreal trinity god. There is no such thing as one person times one person times one person = one person, and there is no such thing as what it represents which is one person of god times one person of god times one person of god = one god. So unreality represents unreality.

 

[Bananna]

I don't find it confusing, when I pray to one I am praying to all.

I don't try and understand how they function nor do i need to know, I just accept God is 3 beings all complete and equal.


it even says he who gives glory to the son gives glory to the father or something like that so I disagree trinitarians are somehow commiting idoltary and violating the second commandment.

I think denying an aspect of God is a far more serious crime, he who denies the son denies the father.

if you deny the trinity you might as well go convert to islam.

That is a pretty far stretch don't you think? Wouldn't it make more sense to convert to Judaism?

Besides Trinity is a concept in the proverbial 'eye of the beholder" As we have a whole thread here somewhere with all kinds of people taking the test on how they view the one God. Three/one is too narrow a view of what I read in scriptures and Echad is biblical translation rather than a man made one.

Here is one:
http://quizfarm.com/quizzes/new/svensvensven/are-you-a-heretic/

It took them four hundred years to excumunicate me.

bananna

 

[hybrid]

In that case you have an unreal metaphor for an unreal trinity god.

all models are false, you ought to know that by now. so to say metaphor is unreal is correct but not a convincing argument to make a conclusion that the triune god is unreal . it does not follow. it only means that the metaphor is poor.although.it always fascinates me to see people destroy a metaphor as if it is the real thing. hehe

There is no such thing as one person times one person times one person = one person,

that is not what trinity is saying.

and there is no such thing as what it represents which is one person of god times one person of god times one person of god = one god. So unreality represents unreality.

that is not what trinity is saying.

have you heard about the principle " the whole in every part"?
take holograms for example, you can cut the holographic film of the original image into parts and still the part will reflect the whole image

ain't that something?.

 

[Bananna]

Well God is more like energy (the energy of love) if you need a metaphor,
Christ used wind. God as an invisible force is everywhere, in everything and able to affect everything and change everthing. We preceive the changing of these forces as a person moving and acting upon us and our preceptions of the energies around us.

We need the air to live yet we cannot see it and cannot see it leave unless some other force acts upon it or it acts upons something eles.

There is in fact one source. It makes sense that Yeshua was filled with God, and it does not make God any less able to fill any number of us with His spirit or his power making us one of the bretheren of Christ. One in spirit.

There are seven spirits at the foot of throne later called Angels in Revelation.

That became the first problem if applying three or Tri to any of the concept of the Godhead.

Why would God suddenly make a salvation issue out of his nature a belief in tri anything when the Hebrew Language could not support it?

When God made man in "our" image, God singularly created mankind by himself and no plural form of God created man. To assume that "us" has to represent a plural form singular God is not supported by that particular text. The angels also are created in God's image and created persons that existed before God made man in the earth.

We are a thought in the imagination of an invisible God who chooses to be one with His creation. God with me = 1
So God with Yeshua = 1
God with us = 1

We are one in the Spirit.

I simply object to the Tri part. It is too limited and the extrabiblical aplication of it is... not plausible to me due to all the scriptures that it does not appear to fit with.

 

[hybrid]

I simply object to the Tri part. It is too limited and the extrabiblical aplication of it is... not plausible to me due to all the scriptures that it does not appear to fit with.

yes, it should have not been reify into a doctrine/belief that made a necessary requirement for salvation.

but based on your post above, it was clear to me that the ontological implication of a trinitarian concept was totally harmonious to the biblical teachings regarding the relationship of man to god.

 

[Bananna]

It was clear to me there is more than on concept of the Trinitarian view, so if you take the test I can figure out which one you argree with.

 

[Bananna]

Never mind I just got what you said hybid. Still curious of your view.
banna

 

[Clifford B]

This is how I see it. You obviously see it as a trinitarian. That is your choice. I am sorry if I seem to childish here but:

Word..that is something that is spoken or a thought to be spoken.

God speaks...things happen, like creation.

God can have words or thoughts for quite a while before he uses them. Since both God and his words are spirit...God and his words existed forever.

God and his words are inseparable. Since both are spirit, and his words express him...Both God and his words are God.

By speaking, God created everything. He used words...expression.

Jesus was born and grew, and came to see that God's words cannot be broken. If anyone disobeys God's words, he is a sinner.

Jesus never disobeyed. Every breath, every action was in obedience to his Father's words. He chose to do that of free will. He was tempted to not follow God's words, but stood fast.

At the point of death, he chose to obey even though his will was not to go through with it. Not my will, but thy will...

If Jesus was "the Word" in some way by nature, he would not have had the option to disobey. His will would be captive to his nature.

If Jesus was "the Word" by the actions that he chose to do, having free will, he would be a man in obedience to his Father, and the only one to have done the opposite of what Adam chose by free will. He obeyed to the death.

His life was God manifest. His life was the Word, manifest. When we see Jesus, we see God, not because Jesus was God in Nature, but because Jesus became the living Word of God in action. When we see Jesus, we see the Father....yet Jesus is a man that died and rose again.

 

[hybrid]

Besides Trinity is a concept in the proverbial 'eye of the beholder" As we have a whole thread here somewhere with all kinds of people taking the test on how they view the one God. Three/one is too narrow a view of what I read in scriptures and Echad is biblical translation rather than a man made one.

i tried the test's first page only. ( o hate long tests hehe} i disagree most of it, what does it make me?



my simple view is this ... when jesus said the father and i are one ...

did he just made a philosophical statement based on his knowledge of the present theological paradigm or the statement was simply based on his experience?

obviously that wasn't a mathematical nor a logical discourse in his part. and to make it such missed his point