"Trinity"

[Imagican]

Whether one agrees or disagrees with the concept, isn't it OBVIOUS that if it were as IMPORTANT to God or His Son as the 'churches' insist, it would have stated OUTRIGHT instead of having to be created by MEN?

Just think of all the trivial information offered in the Bible. Now compare that to the importance placed upon 'trinity' by the churches that teach it. IF 'trinity' were TRUTH pertaining to God and His Son, how does one come to accept that it is not even MENTIONED in the Bible?

If it were TRUE, then it would have been revealed to God's CHOSEN people from the beginning.

But even if there were SOME reason it wasn't, it surely WOULD have been revealed by Christ, (God's OWN Son), when He was here in the flesh.

And then there are the apostles. What kind of God or how does one suppose that God's own SON would hide this information from those CHOSEN to deliver the GOOD NEWS: the apostles??????

Many saints and wise men of the past have come to the same conclusion: if one can be TAUGHT to believe that one plus one plus one equals ONE, that person can be taught to believe in ANYTHING.

Blessings,
MEC

 

[Sally_Wheeler]

Have you ever done a study on the furniture of the Tabernacle? Such as on gold? Gold symbolizes deity. And in 1Cor 3:12-13 it says if any man build upon this foundation, gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stumble; Every mans work shall be manifest...
In other words, if you worship Jesus as God, then you will be rewarded. Silver represents redemption as precious stones represent people you win to Christ.
If it wasn't important to God that you recognize Jesus is God, then you wouldn't be rewarded at the judgment seat of Christ.
As far as the churches go, many condemn those who do not believe in the Godhead. However, salvation is a gift, and God doesn't take a gift back just because a person is without understanding on a Bible Doctrine.
But its also worthy to note that if a man does not confess Jesus Lord and believe He was raised from the dead, then he is not saved. Romans 10:9-10.
And another point I would like to make is, 1Timothy 3:16, Paul made it clear that the Godhead (Trinity) was a mystery.
Jesus made it clear, that the mysteries of the kingdom of God was given to the disciples, but to others in parables so that seeing they may not see, hearing they may not hear. Luke 8:10. And the Trinity is one of those messages of the kingdom of God, for Paul preached the gospel of the kingdom of God, Acts 20:24-25.
And another thing I will mention is God spoke about the Trinity in the Old Testament, Isaiah 48:16. Hope this helps you.
May the grace of God be with you.

 

[Imagican]

Sally,

Thanks for your offering. I do appreciate your attempt to explain your understanding. But I can't help but wonder if it is your own, or merely what you have been led to believe from others.

How about this scripture:

Acts 17:

29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.

30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

What do you believe these words to mean?

Go on google, type in 'trinity' and then hit 'images'. You will find MORE 'graven images' of 'trinity' than you ever imagined exist.

Yet the words above PLAINLY state that we should NOT consider the Godhead as something to be defined by 'graven images'.

Your attempt to compare God, His Son, the Godhead to GOLD or SILVER is obvious contrary to the words quoted above.

So you see, maybe it's not ME that has been influenced to follow false beliefs. For you see, my understanding is NOT based on MAN MADE concepts or principles. I have NO allegiance to denominational 'churches' nor to any particular statement of faith laid out as LAW by men intent upon making merchandise of his neighbor.

I have read and studied the Bible for many many many years now. And I have also studied the 'churches' history. The RCC in particular, (they were the ones that created this concept called 'trinity').

The conclusion is that God revealed Himself to His chosen people as ONE, singular, NOT plural. And He did so in order to show the separation of Himself and other MULTI part gods. The Babylonians, Egyptians, Persians, Greeks, Romans ALL worshiped 'multi part gods' LONG before their introduction to the name of Christ.

So it only stood to reason, (from their perspective), that: Father, Son and Holy Spirit fit within their IDEA of 'multi part gods'.

History PLAINLY reveals that this was NOT the ONLY belief system BEFORE it became doctrine, (church LAW). And the methods used to indoctrinate this concept are documented in detail.

Many were tortured and murdered who spoke out against 'trinity' while the 'church' had the power to do so.

Now, is THAT the message that Christ brought and delivered? That the 'church' should torture and murder people who refuse to accept THEIR created ideas?

The Bible tells us to judge those that we would listen to by their FRUIT. I would offer that the FRUIT of the RCC is clearly revealed and it's history is easily obtainable to any that choose to do their homework.

So, do I place my faith in the fantasies of men? Or do I place my faith in God and His Son?

I have offered above scripture that plainly contradicts what you have offered that you believe. Do you trust 'churches' of MEN or God's Word as offered through the Bible?

The KJV of the Bible is over four hundred years old. That four hundred years of LESS corruption than has taken place in the 'churches' themselves. Four hundred LESS years of the influence of Satan upon the understanding and faith of men.

Don't know what 'church' you follow, but do yourself a favor, BEFORE you accept ANY ideas delivered by MEN concerning God or His Son, it would be my suggestion that you read the Bible ENOUGH, (over and over again), to be able to defend yourself against those things men may offer you that are incorrect. THEN see if you can find a 'church' that matches the TRUTH that you will learn IF you read the Bible ENOUGH, (over and over again). Not just reading IN the Bible. Start at the first page and read until it's finished and then start over and do it again, and again, and again.... You will be amazed at the things you will find that are utterly contrary to the teachings of 'churches'.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[JackRT]

For many years I have struggled to understand the doctrine of the trinity. To say it is a mystery that we are not expected to comprehend simply doesn't cut it for me. Some time ago I discovered that in the original formulation of the trinity, the word in Greek which we traditionally have interpreted to mean "persons", as in "three persons in one God" is actually the same word used to designate the mask worn by actors in Greco-Roman theater. We cannot call this a "person" but we can certainly call it a "persona". This insight has put a totally new spin on the entire concept for me. We finite creatures cannot possibly hope to describe our transcendent God, but we can speak of the modes or roles or personae that assist our understanding. God as creator/father, God as spirit/sustainer, and the glimpse of God we obtain in the life and teaching of Jesus. In other words, trinity is not a description of God but is, rather, a description of the human experience of God in the language of fourth century Greek speaking Christianity. We are not limited to just these three. Any persona that promotes our understanding of and our relationship to God is completely acceptable. God could be mother as well as father. God could be Wisdom / Sophia / Word / Allah / Krishna / Manitou. God's possibilities are endless. These are merely our human images of God. God is, as always, ONE.

 

[Imagican]

Oh, and your attempt to use Isa as proof of 'trinity'???
Come now. If it really means what you would indicate, that would be GOD calling His Son GOD. It would be the ONLY line in the Bible that such a statement exists.

And if Jesus were GOD, why didn't He just say so?

But instead, we have Christ asking His faithful servants, "Who do YOU say that I am?" And the answer what unanimous: "Thou art the SON of the LIVING GOD". Not ONE of them said that they believed that HE was God.

Thomas' words were NOT meant to teach men that he was calling Christ GOD. Thomas, having doubted the identity of Christ had defied both Father AND Son. Hence, his appeal to both Father and Son in recognition of his blunder.

It would be like doubting the representative of a King. Once you realized your blunder, you would appeal for forgiveness from BOTH: The King that sent the representative and the representative himself.

And if you eliminate Thomas' words as indicating that Jesus is God Himself, there are NO OTHERS. Not a single apostle EVER addressed Christ AS GOD. Not a single apostle EVER answered Christ's question as to His identity that they believed Him to be GOD.

Christ was/is EXACTLY who He stated He was/is: The Son of God.

"Trinity" insists that Christ is EQUAL to God. But the Bible offers us the words of Christ Himself stating that the Son is NOT equal to the Father. And we KNOW that the Father IS God.

Christ openly stated that there were things HE DID NOT KNOW. Things ONLY the Father KNOWS. That plainly shows that the Son is NOT equal to the Father. And we KNOW that the Father IS God.

When dying upon the cross, the last words uttered by Christ, "My God, my God, why hath thou forsaken me?" Do you know the meaning of the word 'forsaken'? It means to ABANDON. That means that the very SPIRIT of God was forced to abandon Christ so that His Son could TAKE ON the sins of this world.

So the idea that GOD died upon the cross is ridiculous. God is IMMORTAL and cannot DIE.

The Bible tells us that NO MAN can GAZE upon the glory of God and LIVE. No man shall EVER SEE God and LIVE.

So it would seem to indicate that physical flesh cannot withstand the GLORY of God. If the flesh cannot even gaze upon that 'glory', how does one suppose that God could DWELL within that flesh with DYING?

God was NOT 'born' in the flesh. His SON was SENT to become flesh. Or at least that is what Christ tells us. I trust in the words of God and His Son way beyond the words of men that we KNOW are MOSTLY corrupt.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Imagican]

Jack,

You are certainly free to believe as you choose. But to try and equate all OTHER gods with The one and ONLY true God certainly reveals something utterly contrary to the instruction we have been given in the Bible.

Not really sure where you came to your understanding, but I base mine on the Bible and conviction of the Holy Spirit.

Allah is NOT The God of the Holy Bible. Their attributes are CONTRARY to one another.

Allah commands that his followers purge the earth of those that believe in anything other than him. That entire concept is utterly foreign to the message contained within the Holy Bible.

So at some point, if you and I were to agree to debate such issues, we would be FORCED to pick some SOURCE as THE source to compare our beliefs. As far as I'm concerned, the ONLY source would be the Holy Bible.

But it's obvious that you don't really adhere to such a source. For if you did, then you wouldn't be able to offer the 'belief system' you follow.

I appreciate your response. But making up your OWN definition of 'trinity' just don't CUT IT. It was either revealed by God and is the SAME no matter WHO it is revealed to, or it is FALSE. If there is ONE truth, then all that does not conform to that truth is FALSE. Not rocket science here. Just plain common sense. If ten people tell ten different stories about the same event, then the obvious answer is that ONLY ONE could be telling the TRUTH and the rest, for some reason, aren't. That is IF one is telling the truth. For it might be that ALL ten are telling a DIFFERENT version of the story WITHOUT ONE telling the TRUTH.

"Trinity" is PLAINLY and CLEARLY defined by it's creators. If you are unfamiliar, I direct you to the "New Advent". It the Catholic Encyclopedia. When you go there, just type 'trinity' in the search bar. If you never have, you ought to. For I can GUARANTEE you that you will find what is offered AMAZING. Amazing that ANYONE would follow such a concept.

Ask TEN different people what 'trinity' MEANS. Funny, but you'll end up with TEN DIFFERENT definitions. Do you REALLY believe that a TRUE God would let His followers believe in such a manner?

God is NOT the author of CONFUSION. So if you find a concept offered by men and their churches that is confusing, guess WHO the author REALLY IS? It's certainly NOT GOD.

Godhead is offered in the Bible as the relationship between God and everything else including His Son. Notice that it is CALLED God HEAD. God is the HEAD. The Bible plainly defines God as the HEAD of Christ. Christ as the HEAD of man. Man as the HEAD of woman.

The Bible also tells us that God is THE God of Christ as well as Our God. Hmmmm...................God having A GOD???? Now THAT makes sense..............NOT.
the Father is GOD. Jesus is the SON of God. That is what the Bible tells us. That is what CHRIST Himself tells us.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[royal priest]

For many years I have struggled to understand the doctrine of the trinity. To say it is a mystery that we are not expected to comprehend simply doesn't cut it for me. Some time ago I discovered that in the original formulation of the trinity, the word in Greek which we traditionally have interpreted to mean "persons", as in "three persons in one God" is actually the same word used to designate the mask worn by actors in Greco-Roman theater. We cannot call this a "person" but we can certainly call it a "persona". This insight has put a totally new spin on the entire concept for me. We finite creatures cannot possibly hope to describe our transcendent God, but we can speak of the modes or roles or personae that assist our understanding. God as creator/father, God as spirit/sustainer, and the glimpse of God we obtain in the life and teaching of Jesus. In other words, trinity is not a description of God but is, rather, a description of the human experience of God in the language of fourth century Greek speaking Christianity. We are not limited to just these three. Any persona that promotes our understanding of and our relationship to God is completely acceptable. God could be mother as well as father. God could be Wisdom / Sophia / Word / Allah / Krishna / Manitou. God's possibilities are endless. These are merely our human images of God. God is, as always, ONE.

Have you had the opportunity to study the Word of God concerning this? If so, has your study confirmed or altered your view as expressed above?

 

[Chriliman]

Whether one agrees or disagrees with the concept, isn't it OBVIOUS that if it were as IMPORTANT to God or His Son as the 'churches' insist, it would have stated OUTRIGHT instead of having to be created by MEN?

Just think of all the trivial information offered in the Bible. Now compare that to the importance placed upon 'trinity' by the churches that teach it. IF 'trinity' were TRUTH pertaining to God and His Son, how does one come to accept that it is not even MENTIONED in the Bible?

If it were TRUE, then it would have been revealed to God's CHOSEN people from the beginning.

But even if there were SOME reason it wasn't, it surely WOULD have been revealed by Christ, (God's OWN Son), when He was here in the flesh.

And then there are the apostles. What kind of God or how does one suppose that God's own SON would hide this information from those CHOSEN to deliver the GOOD NEWS: the apostles??????

Many saints and wise men of the past have come to the same conclusion: if one can be TAUGHT to believe that one plus one plus one equals ONE, that person can be taught to believe in ANYTHING.

Blessings,
MEC

Be aware of what you're teaching as well.

I agree the term "trinity" is man made and not necessary to understand God through His Holy Spirit.

Ask yourself, what is the Fathers will right now? The Fathers will is to be One with Jesus and He currently is One with Jesus at this very moment . You cannot separate Jesus from God the Father. The Fathers will is to also be one in Spirit with those who believe in Jesus and do His will.

Jesus and the Father are inseparably One God because this is the Father's will.

It is not the Fathers will to be separated from Jesus, therefore when we listen to the words of Jesus our Lord we are listening to God.

God can be explained without using the term "trinity", but God cannot be explained separately from Jesus. The Father and Jesus are One and those of us who believe in Jesus will also be one in Spirit.

Right now you are teaching that Jesus is not God which goes against the will of the Father who is One with Jesus.

If the Father is One with Jesus, how can you say Jesus is not God without feeling like you're denying the will of the Father and denying the words of Jesus who said He is One with the Father?

 

[Imagican]

Be aware of what you're teaching as well.

I agree the term "trinity" is man made and not necessary to understand God through His Holy Spirit.

Ask yourself, what is the Fathers will right now? The Fathers will is to be One with Jesus and He currently is One with Jesus at this very moment . You cannot separate Jesus from God the Father. The Fathers will is to also be one in Spirit with those who believe in Jesus and do His will.

Jesus and the Father are inseparably One God because this is the Father's will.

It is not the Fathers will to be separated from Jesus, therefore when we listen to the words of Jesus our Lord we are listening to God.

God can be explained without using the term "trinity", but God cannot be explained separately from Jesus. The Father and Jesus are One and those of us who believe in Jesus will also be one in Spirit.

Right now you are teaching that Jesus is not God which goes against the will of the Father who is One with Jesus.

If the Father is One with Jesus, how can you say Jesus is not God without feeling like you're denying the will of the Father and denying the words of Jesus who said He is One with the Father?

First, let me offer this: I teach 'only' that Christ is exactly who He said that He is: The Son of The Living God. (Period). It is you that are teaching something that the Bible never teaches us to begin with: Christ is God. You say it is so. But the Bible does not. You assume through some vague scripture that you can offer proof that the Bible does teach that Christ is God. But in truth, those scripture must be twisted and bent in order to 'make' them say what you choose to believe. They have 'never' shown me that Christ is God. In truth, what they teach is utterly contrary to the concept. Christ is exactly who He stated He is: The Son of God.

You offer this as them being 'one' means the 'same'. It doesn't.

We have the words of Christ Himself that His greatest 'wish' would be for 'us' to be one with both Himself and the Father: 'as they are one'.

So it obviously doesn't mean the 'same' when Christ speaks of the 'oneness' between Himself and the Father.

Remember, we are to take 'all' scripture into account in order to find the 'truth'. And the 'truth' is that we are capable of experiencing the same 'oneness' with God as The Son. While He may well always retain a 'higher place' in God's Kingdom, so far as 'oneness' is concerned, we 'too' can become 'one' with both Christ and His Father: God. Does that mean that there are 'thousands' or 'millions' of persons that make up 'one God'?

John 17:

20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

Now, how can you read these words and not realize what the 'oneness' is that Christ spoke of when He stated that He and the Father are 'one'? It does not mean they are the same. It means that there is 'something' that is the same about them both. That they are 'one' in this sameness, but not 'one' as in 'the same'.

I would offer that the 'oneness' spoken of is the principle of 'love'. that both Father and Son are 'one' in the love that they share with each other and to us. And that we too can become are part of this EXACT 'oneness' that they share when we love them and each other as they love each other and us. But we will all still be separate entities. What makes us 'one' is not a melding together in one physical body. But we become 'one' when we share the 'same love' shared by Father and Son.

You needn't fear that my lack of adherence to 'trinity' has in any way, shape or form left me lacking in the least. I know the relationship that I share with God and His Son through the Holy Spirit and have never once been led to accept or believe in a 'trinity'. God is God. His Son is His Son. This is what I have been led to believe and it is what I believe. Believe to the extent that I personally know both Father and Son. I know of 'no trinity' except in the imaginings of men. I certainly do not believe that 'the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit make up God. There is only one God and He is the Father of Christ. He is our God and THE God of Christ as well. That's what the Bible says and that's what has been revealed to 'me'.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Imagican]

Have you ever done a study on the furniture of the Tabernacle? Such as on gold? Gold symbolizes deity. And in 1Cor 3:12-13 it says if any man build upon this foundation, gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stumble; Every mans work shall be manifest...
In other words, if you worship Jesus as God, then you will be rewarded. Silver represents redemption as precious stones represent people you win to Christ.
If it wasn't important to God that you recognize Jesus is God, then you wouldn't be rewarded at the judgment seat of Christ.
As far as the churches go, many condemn those who do not believe in the Godhead. However, salvation is a gift, and God doesn't take a gift back just because a person is without understanding on a Bible Doctrine.
But its also worthy to note that if a man does not confess Jesus Lord and believe He was raised from the dead, then he is not saved. Romans 10:9-10.
And another point I would like to make is, 1Timothy 3:16, Paul made it clear that the Godhead (Trinity) was a mystery.
Jesus made it clear, that the mysteries of the kingdom of God was given to the disciples, but to others in parables so that seeing they may not see, hearing they may not hear. Luke 8:10. And the Trinity is one of those messages of the kingdom of God, for Paul preached the gospel of the kingdom of God, Acts 20:24-25.
And another thing I will mention is God spoke about the Trinity in the Old Testament, Isaiah 48:16. Hope this helps you.
May the grace of God be with you.

2 Corinthians 1:12 [Full Chapter]
For our rejoicing is this, the testimony of our conscience, that in simplicity and godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom, but by the grace of God, we have had our conversation in the world, and more abundantly to you-ward.

2 Corinthians 11:3
But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

You take much liberty in your assumptions that you would indicate are revealed in a manner that I have yet to receive. I have found no such understanding as that which you offer as if it is offered perfectly clearly.

The verses above would indicate otherwise.

'Trinity' is not in the Bible. Godhead is in the Bible and this is what is offered concerning it:

Acts 17:29
Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.

Graven by 'art and man's device'.

If you study the formation of 'trinity', it becomes perfectly clear that it is indeed, a concept created by men. For it is not mentioned in the Bible.

Google 'trinity' and then click 'images' and see if there aren't about a thousand different 'graven images' of 'trinity'.

It's kind of funny that you started your offering discussing 'gold'. Now read what is offered in the quote above about Godhead.

I need no 'man made' Church to teach me man made theology. The Bible has been sufficient for God to reveal Himself to me through His Son. The 'Church Fathers' that I listen to are the apostles. Not men intent upon 'ruling' other men. I need no man to make merchandise of me in order to feel secure in my faith. I place my faith and trust in God through Christ, not men.

You are certainly free to believe as you choose. All I know is that which has been revealed to me. But I can assure you that what has been revealed is that 'trinity' doesn't exist in 'truth'. It is only 'truth' in the minds and hearts of those that have allowed 'other men' to convince them of their own creation. Jesus is no more God than we are God. He is exactly who He stated He is: The Son of God. And we too are capable of being God's sons, (and daughters). But we are not capable of 'being' the one and only God. Nor is His Son. For we are instructed clearly that the Son now sits at the right hand of God. The Son is obedient to His Father: God.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Wgw]

First, let me offer this: I teach 'only' that Christ is exactly who He said that He is: The Son of The Living God. (Period). It is you that are teaching something that the Bible never teaches us to begin with: Christ is God.

It does.

You say it is so. But the Bible does not. You assume through some vague scripture that you can offer proof that the Bible does teach that Christ is God.

John 1:1-14 is not vague; it is explicit.

But in truth, those scripture must be twisted and bent in order to 'make' them say what you choose to believe. They have 'never' shown me that Christ is God. In truth, what they teach is utterly contrary to the concept. Christ is exactly who He stated He is: The Son of God.

Not only is this untrue, it also requires us to ignore the vast amount of OT prophecy, in Genesis, in Exodus, in the Psalms, in Isaiah, and elsewhere, attesting to the very deity of our Lord. The only real reason for believing this error, in my view, owes ro an inability to accept the Scriptural idea that God died in order to show us what it means to be human.

You offer this as them being 'one' means the 'same'. It doesn't.

We do not conflate the prosopa or reduce them to modes; that is Sabellianism.

We have the words of Christ Himself that His greatest 'wish' would be for 'us' to be one with both Himself and the Father: 'as they are one'.

So it obviously doesn't mean the 'same' when Christ speaks of the 'oneness' between Himself and the Father.

The very purpose of our Lord God uniting Himself hypostatically and personally with Humanity through His incarnation is to facilitate our union with God, so that by grace, we may become what He is by nature.

Remember, we are to take 'all' scripture into account in order to find the 'truth'.

We are not the ones who cannot explain one verse of John 1:1-14 without ignoring the other thirteen and without contradicting the Old Testament prophecy.

And the 'truth' is that we are capable of experiencing the same 'oneness' with God as The Son.

Not quite the same, owing to our imperfection and createdness.

While He may well always retain a 'higher place' in God's Kingdom, so far as 'oneness' is concerned, we 'too' can become 'one' with both Christ and His Father: God. Does that mean that there are 'thousands' or 'millions' of persons that make up 'one God'?

Our unity with God in theosis is according to energy, not essence.

Now, how can you read these words and not realize what the 'oneness' is that Christ spoke of when He stated that He and the Father are 'one'? It does not mean they are the same. It means that there is 'something' that is the same about them both. That they are 'one' in this sameness, but not 'one' as in 'the same'.

I would offer that the 'oneness' spoken of is the principle of 'love'. that both Father and Son are 'one' in the love that they share with each other and to us. And that we too can become are part of this EXACT 'oneness' that they share when we love them and each other as they love each other and us. But we will all still be separate entities. What makes us 'one' is not a melding together in one physical body. But we become 'one' when we share the 'same love' shared by Father and Son.

You have very nearly managed to unwittingly reconstruct the actual Trinitarian doctrine. In your opposition to the idea of it, or to your idea as to what its idea signifies, which is a misconception, you have unwittingly overlooked the extemt to which your views actually are broadly speaking, Nicene. Your rejection of the Trinity is not strictly nominal, but it is also not greatly substantial, being predicated upon a misunderstanding of the Trinitarian faith.

 

[Wgw]

'Trinity' is not in the Bible.

The doctrine Tertullian coined the word to describe is, however.

If you study the formation of 'trinity', it becomes perfectly clear that it is indeed, a concept created by men. For it is not mentioned in the Bible.

Once again, we are subjected to the argument from ontology fallacy.

Google 'trinity' and then click 'images' and see if there aren't about a thousand different 'graven images' of 'trinity'.

There are graven images of the Father (uncanonical in the Orthodox Church, by the way); using your illogical argument we would then have to say the Father does not exist.

I need no 'man made' Church to teach me man made theology.

Well, I agree; I am content to be a part of a God-made Church that teaches me God-made theology.

 

[Chriliman]

First, let me offer this: I teach 'only' that Christ is exactly who He said that He is: The Son of The Living God. (Period). It is you that are teaching something that the Bible never teaches us to begin with: Christ is God. You say it is so. But the Bible does not. You assume through some vague scripture that you can offer proof that the Bible does teach that Christ is God. But in truth, those scripture must be twisted and bent in order to 'make' them say what you choose to believe. They have 'never' shown me that Christ is God. In truth, what they teach is utterly contrary to the concept. Christ is exactly who He stated He is: The Son of God.

You offer this as them being 'one' means the 'same'. It doesn't.

We have the words of Christ Himself that His greatest 'wish' would be for 'us' to be one with both Himself and the Father: 'as they are one'.

So it obviously doesn't mean the 'same' when Christ speaks of the 'oneness' between Himself and the Father.

Remember, we are to take 'all' scripture into account in order to find the 'truth'. And the 'truth' is that we are capable of experiencing the same 'oneness' with God as The Son. While He may well always retain a 'higher place' in God's Kingdom, so far as 'oneness' is concerned, we 'too' can become 'one' with both Christ and His Father: God. Does that mean that there are 'thousands' or 'millions' of persons that make up 'one God'?

John 17:

20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

Now, how can you read these words and not realize what the 'oneness' is that Christ spoke of when He stated that He and the Father are 'one'? It does not mean they are the same. It means that there is 'something' that is the same about them both. That they are 'one' in this sameness, but not 'one' as in 'the same'.

I would offer that the 'oneness' spoken of is the principle of 'love'. that both Father and Son are 'one' in the love that they share with each other and to us. And that we too can become are part of this EXACT 'oneness' that they share when we love them and each other as they love each other and us. But we will all still be separate entities. What makes us 'one' is not a melding together in one physical body. But we become 'one' when we share the 'same love' shared by Father and Son.

You needn't fear that my lack of adherence to 'trinity' has in any way, shape or form left me lacking in the least. I know the relationship that I share with God and His Son through the Holy Spirit and have never once been led to accept or believe in a 'trinity'. God is God. His Son is His Son. This is what I have been led to believe and it is what I believe. Believe to the extent that I personally know both Father and Son. I know of 'no trinity' except in the imaginings of men. I certainly do not believe that 'the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit make up God. There is only one God and He is the Father of Christ. He is our God and THE God of Christ as well. That's what the Bible says and that's what has been revealed to 'me'.

Blessings,

MEC

Thank you for your explanation. Do you consider Jesus Christ worthy of your worship?

If so then how can He not be the One true God? In worshiping Jesus we please our Father in Heaven because He is One with Jesus and we are one in Christ. At least we should hope to be one in Christ because Christ is One with the Father.

When one insinuates that they know what God is not, like you say you know Christ is not God, this causes confusion and questioning and ultimately debating. Endless debating is not good for the Spirit.

 

[Berean777]

Whether one agrees or disagrees with the concept, isn't it OBVIOUS that if it were as IMPORTANT to God or His Son as the 'churches' insist, it would have stated OUTRIGHT instead of having to be created by MEN?

Just think of all the trivial information offered in the Bible. Now compare that to the importance placed upon 'trinity' by the churches that teach it. IF 'trinity' were TRUTH pertaining to God and His Son, how does one come to accept that it is not even MENTIONED in the Bible?

If it were TRUE, then it would have been revealed to God's CHOSEN people from the beginning.

But even if there were SOME reason it wasn't, it surely WOULD have been revealed by Christ, (God's OWN Son), when He was here in the flesh.

And then there are the apostles. What kind of God or how does one suppose that God's own SON would hide this information from those CHOSEN to deliver the GOOD NEWS: the apostles??????

Many saints and wise men of the past have come to the same conclusion: if one can be TAUGHT to believe that one plus one plus one equals ONE, that person can be taught to believe in ANYTHING.

Blessings,
MEC

God is capable of projecting himself as the Son into the world and to suffer for our sins, without needing to be absent from where he is always, as the almighty Father and the source of all light/life.

The Christ is the Son begotten of the flesh through the human family, yet the being projected in this flesh is the fullness of the God head and the God head is the Father.

Colossians 2:9
For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

So Christ is not a mere copy of the Father's being, but the very projection of the being in all his glory.

Hebrews 1:3
The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being,

The trinity is spelled out by Jesus when he said to baptise in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit for all these three persona's are the one being projected in all of God's fullness. Otherwise if they are not a projection of the fullness of the God head, then they would not have the same name, the same mind, the same will, the same everything. You can't be the same everything and be a different being with a different nature, rather to be the same of everything that God is, where God is Spirit (John 4:24), means that it is the same being we are talking about, the same God of the Bible and not just a duplication, or a copy or a mere exterior image or a part of the greater sum. The fact is that infinity plus infinity plus infinity is infinity and the trinity is the unity of the infinite God, who is three persona's at work throughout the Old Testament and the gospels.

 

[MerriestHouse]

God is capable of projecting himself as the Son into the world and to suffer for our sins, without needing to be absent from where he is always, as the almighty Father and the source of all light/life.

The Christ is the Son begotten of the flesh through the human family, yet the being projected in this flesh is the fullness of the God head and the God head is the Father.

So Christ is not a mere copy of the Father's being, but the very projection of the being in all his glory.

The trinity is spelled out by Jesus when he said to baptise in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit for all these three persona's are the one being projected in all of God's fullness. Otherwise if they are not a projection of the fullness of the God head, then they would not have the same name, the same mind, the same will, the same everything. You can't be the same everything and be a different being with a different nature, rather to be the same of everything that God is, where God is Spirit (John 4:24), means that it is the same being we are talking about, the same God of the Bible and not just a duplication, or a copy or a mere exterior image or a part of the greater sum. The fact is that infinity plus infinity plus infinity is infinity and the trinity is the unity of the infinite God, who is three persona's at work throughout the Old Testament and the gospels.

There is some controversy about that passage. We have no example in Scripture of anyone being baptized 'in the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit.' In all of the examples, disciples were baptized in the name of Jesus.

http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/verses/matthew-28-19

Eusebius was present at the council of Nicaea and was involved in the debates about Arian teaching and whether Christ was God or a creation of God. We feel confident that if the manuscripts he had in front of him read “in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” he would never have quoted it as “in my name.” Thus, we believe that the earliest manuscripts read “in my name,” and that the phrase was enlarged to reflect the orthodox position as Trinitarian influence spread.

If Matthew 28:19 is accurate as it stands in modern versions, then there is no explanation for the apparent disobedience of the apostles, since there is not a single occurrence of them baptizing anyone according to that formula. All the records in the New Testament show that people were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus, just as the text Eusebius was quoting said to do. In other words, the “name of Jesus Christ,” i.e., all that he represents, is the element, or substance, into which people were figuratively “baptized.” “Peter replied, ‘Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins’” (Acts 2:38). “They had simply been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 8:16). “So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 10:48). “On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 19:5). We cannot imagine any reason for the Apostles and others in Acts to disobey a command of the risen Christ. To us, it seems clear that Christ said to baptize in his name, and that was what the early Church did.

 

[Berean777]

There is some controversy about that passage. We have no example in Scripture of anyone being baptized 'in the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit.' In all of the examples, disciples were baptized in the name of Jesus.

http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/verses/matthew-28-19

Jesus said those words right?

 

[Wgw]

There is some controversy about that passage. We have no example in Scripture of anyone being baptized 'in the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit.' In all of the examples, disciples were baptized in the name of Jesus.

http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/verses/matthew-28-19

There is no controversy; there is no manuscript evidence to support the assertions made. That said, it pleases me when non-Trinitarians try to argue that Matthew 28:19 is somehow inauthentic, because in so doing, they prove with dramatic effect my thesis that their entire theology is manifestly in contradiction to sacred scripture.

 

[MerriestHouse]

Jesus said those words right?

The controversy is that "The Father and the Holy Spirit" were added to Jesus' words by someone other than Matthew at a later date. There is not a single occurrence of them baptizing using that formula in the NT Scripture. They were all baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.

The first disciples were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.

"Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." Acts 2:38

 

[Berean777]

The controversy is that "The Father and the Holy Spirit" were added to Jesus' words by someone other than Matthew at a later date. There is not a single occurrence of them baptizing using that formula in the NT Scripture. They were all baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.

The first disciples were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.

"Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." Acts 2:38

By who, when, how and why?

 

[MerriestHouse]

By who, when, how and why?

Bible scholars.

Here again is the link I posted.

http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/verses/matthew-28-19