Why the Trinity is a False Doctrine

[Berean777]

Jesus could have told Thomas don't kneel before me and don't call me My Lord and my God, because the Father is greater than me and he doesn't want us to make any graven image of heavenly things.

Did Jesus stop Thomas and tell him don't do that?

No, because he accepted worship.

John 20
Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”

29Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed

Philip wanted to see the Father and Jesus preventa him by telling him not to look beyond his person for the Father and those that see him, are seeing the image of the Father.

We have the Son accepting worship and preventing faithful from searching for the Father. Jesus is saying that you must go through me.

Hebrews 6:13
When God made his promise to Abraham, since there was no one greater for him to swear by, he swore by himself,

If the Father has given everything to the Son as you stated in your previous post, then why does God take full ownership of being the ultimate authority and that no one else can hold his authority in his stead.

In Jewish thinking when a father swears he usually says on my Son's head and this would mean another person in his place. The Father making an oath all by himself doesn't correlate this oath with the preeminent Son, why?

Because there is only one God and the Son is the one God and not a separate created God.

 

[Imagican]

There is a problem with God making another created God. It flies in the face of this statement, I am one Lord and beside me there is no other God. (Isaiah 45:5)

It would also break commandment number 1.....



So we cannot entertain your statement below, because creating an image of the Father in Heaven and projecting it to another created God would be deemed a graven image, especially when Jesus was worshiped as God and Jesus claimed to be the God of their fathers.

Who worshiped Christ as God until long after His death and resurrection?

I recall Christ offering rebuke to someone that called Him 'good master'. So Christ wouldn't even allow Himself to be called 'good'.

Yet you say He was 'worshiped' as God. By who? Certainly not the apostles. When asked, each offered that they believed Him to be the Son of the Living God. Not God Himself.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Imagican]

Thomas doubted that the man standing before him was even Christ.

But how about this for an explanation of the words of Thomas:

By doubting that the man standing before him was Christ, not only was that doubting Christ, it was doubting Him who sent Christ: God.

So when Thomas offered the words: "My Lord and my God..............." Isn't it capable of being understood that he was appealing to 'both'. In a sense, apologizing to both: his Lord and his God. That his words were not meant to indicate Christ 'as God', but an appeal to both Christ and God.

You know, like this: "I feel i have offended my Lord and my God and appeal to both for forgiveness".

But it clearly shows how scripture can be altered according to one's 'beliefs'.

For I have also heard Catholics say that Christ rebuking the man that called Him 'Good Master' wasn't rebuke at all. It was Christ indicating that the man recognized Him as God and that is why he called Him 'Good Master'. And Christ's words, instead of being offered in rebuke, were instead a confirmation that Jesus is God.

No different with the words of Thomas. Upon recognition of his blunder, he recognized that he had offended or doubted both Christ 'and' God.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Berean777]

Who worshiped Christ as God until long after His death and resurrection?

I recall Christ offering rebuke to someone that called Him 'good master'. So Christ wouldn't even allow Himself to be called 'good'.

Yet c was 'worshiped' as God. By who? Certainly not the apostles. When asked, each offered that they believed Him to be the Son of the Living God. Not God Himself.

Blessings,

MEC

John 1:1-4 calling him God is evidence that the Living Word was worshipped.

God commands all of his creation to worship him.

Hebrews 1:6
And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says, "Let all God's angels worship him."

If angels who are ministering spirits are told to worship Jesus, do you think that man is greater than the angels to not worship Jesus?

 

[Berean777]

John 1:1-4 calling him God is evidence that the Living Word was worshipped.

God commands all of his creation to worship him.



If angels who are ministering spirits are told to worship Jesus, do you think that man is greater than the angels to not worship Jesus?

 

[Berean777]

Will you obey what God commanded you and all of his creation to do, by worshipping Jesus as God?

A simple yes or no will do. So please let's get it over and done, by answering a yes or a no.

 

[Imagican]

So far as 'those seeing Christ having seen the Father', 'trinity' doesn't even offer that the Father and Son are the 'same' so it's obvious that this was meant in some other manner than His physical self. In other words, 'seeing the man' Jesus Christ was not 'seeing the Father'. For the Father is obviously not the Son. So it must mean something 'different'.

How about this: those who Christ stated this to were His disciples. And they had witnessed not only His Words, but His 'deeds' as well. So maybe it was a matter of 'symbolism'. You know, like viewing someone's art is actually looking 'inside' that person who created it. Like, "He who has seen my art has seen me".

The words obviously are not in reference to Christ's physical appearance. That would be downright silly to believe. Especially when one considers these words:

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

So here we have the 'truth' concerning those that Christ stated had 'seen' The Father or God within Himself. It wasn't His physical fleshly appearance, but what He said and did that represented His Father: God.

And I offer this as well for them able to 'hear' or 'see':

1 John 4:12
No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us.

So this in essence could be offered: "When I practice the LOVE of God, one can 'see God in me', yet not in my personal appearance, but in the love of God which I share".

No different than the words of Christ concerning 'seeing me' is 'seeing the Father 'in' me'. Obviously the Father doesn't have a physical appearance that Christ resembled.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Imagican]

You have not directly addressed what i offered. You have now tried to avoid the issue.

I never said that Christ is unworthy of our worship. What I asked is where have you found us being instructed to worship Christ 'as God'?

As the Only Begotten Son of God, The Son is certainly worthy of our worship. I simply don't accept the CC's definition of worship. They say that worship can only be offered to God. I find that to be of their own design. An idea created and perpetuated by the CC. I have yet to find the Bible offering such a definition.

As a matter of 'fact', what I find in the Bible is that we are 'only' suppose to worship God as God.

Yet we are not only capable but guilty of worshiping 'many things' that we shouldn't. We often worship the 'creature more than the Creator'. We worship ourselves most often. We worship our families and friends. We worship items, things like cars and clothes and houses and money.

So I don't let the definitions created by men influence what i believe. I certainly don't allow the definition of 'worship' as offered by the CC to be true.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Imagican]

Will you obey what God commanded you and all of his creation to do, by worshipping Jesus as God?

A simple yes or no will do. So please let's get it over and done, by answering a yes or a no.

I'll answer your question if you'll answer mine:

Is Jesus Christ the Son of God?

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Imagican]

I would offer that we have instruction that we are 'greater' than the angels. That one day 'we' will judge angels.

So I don't really know how to answer the question you pose in any other manner.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Imagican]

There is a problem with God making another created God. It flies in the face of this statement, I am one Lord and beside me there is no other God. (Isaiah 45:5)

It would also break commandment number 1.....

Yet we have the words of Christ Himself:

John 10:

34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?


35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;


36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

So we cannot entertain your statement below, because creating an image of the Father in Heaven and projecting it to another created God would be deemed a graven image, especially when Jesus was worshiped as God and Jesus claimed to be the God of their fathers.

So you reject the words of Christ Himself in favor of your own understanding? Interesting............

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Wgw]

No, what the Bible offers through the words of the Son Himself is that the Son was 'sent' by the Father.

We ourselves believe this, so once again your criticis, of the Trinitarian position is based on an erroneous understanding or willful strawman misrepresentation of the Trinitarian doctrine.

It's not 'pride' that holds tight to this belief. It's a matter of accepting and believing in the words of Christ Himself.

So, accept and believe our Lord when he said "Before Abraham was, I AM" and "I and the Father are one," et cetera.

If humans are incapable of even seeing God and remaining 'alive', the idea that God could 'be' a man is ludicrous.

Moses lived having seen the Burning Bush; it is the same with the incarnation of our Lord, which is a visible Theophany according to His human nature.

If 'seeing' God would cause a man to 'die', then certainly a 'body' or 'man' cannot 'contain' God within his body.

The human nature of our Lord is not a container for God but is rather hypostatically united with God. This consubstantiality is what enables our salvation.

Perhaps you err. Perhaps the reason God beget a 'Son' was because it was impossible for God to dwell in the flesh Himself.
So that's 'why' He sent His Son to do what He could not do Himself.

No, because our Lord is Almighty; once again you are forced to deny His omnipotence and fall back on dualism owing to the fundamental inconsistency between your deeply flawed belief system and sacred scripture.

If God could 'take up the flesh', why did He never do so throughout the entire Bible?

He did. See Matthew 1-2, Luke 1-2, John 1.

Why reveal to 'men' what messages He chose to deliver? Why not just 'take on the flesh' and deliver the messages Himself?

His most important message, the Gospel, He did deliver in person.

Yet we see messengers 'sent' by God over and over again. Imagine how much more effective it would have been for God Himself to 'take on the flesh' and deliver the messages with POWER as well as words.

Indeed, just imagine how much more effective it would have been! Worship of the true God would no longer be confined two and a half tribes of a persecuted Levantine West Semitic nation, but would have spread throughout the world; His sacred scripture would have been translated into every language, hospitals and other charitable endeavours would flourish in His name. What a pity that never happened!

Oh, wait.

The answer I believe is obvious: Perhaps God cannot 'take on the flesh'. Perhaps the 'flesh' is abhorrent to God to the point that it's impossible for God to dwell within the 'flesh' of man.

Here, in your zeal to reject the Incarnation, you flirt with Docetism, and thus manage to unwittingly reject John 1:14, which you previously sought to pay lip service to.

Jesus clearly states that He was 'sent' by God. He never once states that He sent Himself or came of His own accord.

A compelling argument if we were Sabellians. We are not.

And we are given Christ's last words upon the cross: "My God, my God, why hath thou forsaken me?" Obviously at that moment, Jesus could 'not' have been God. For 'trinity' to be 'truth', Jesus would have had to be 'God' always. Even when 'fully God/fully man', He would of a necessity have been 'fully God' at 'all times'. Otherwise, He would have been God 'sometimes' and at other times 'merely a man'. This is not what is taught in 'trinity'. For 'trinity' insists that the Son was 'equal' to God in all ways at all times. That God could not exist without all 'three of the persons' that 'trinity' defines.

On the contrary, what we see here is our Lord dying according to His humanity, while in His divinity he remained impassable.

When Jesus was in the garden before being betrayed, who was He praying to? Himself? No. He was praying to His Father: God.

To suggest prayer does not exist within the Holy Trinity would I think be horrible blasphemy. Your problem is that you do not understand the idea of prosopa; you want the Trinity to be one prosopon so you can attack the idea with greater ease.

Now, for the predictable eisegetical verse bombing:

Romans 15:6
That ye may with one mind and one mouth glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

"the Father of," not "the Father, as opposed to"

1 Corinthians 8:6
But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

"and one Lord Jesus Christ." They are both God. This verse was of course the basis for the structure of the Creed.

2 Corinthians 11:31
The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is blessed for evermore, knoweth that I lie not.

God is the God of the Trinity. The Father furthermore is the sovereign of the Trinity.

Galatians 1:1
Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead

"and" Both our Lord and the Father are God. There is no reason to object to the idea that the Father rose the Son from the dead.

Ephesians 1:3
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ

Ephesians 1:17
That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him

These do not say "of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is not God."

Philippians 2:11
And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

This does not say "that Jesus Christ is Lord, but not God," which is apparently what you want every tongue to confess.

1 Peter 1:3
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead

See my reply to Ephesians 1:17.

2 John 1:3
Grace be with you, mercy, and peace, from God the Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love.

Amusing you seek to use St. John here will rejecting John 1:1-14 and 1 John 5:7-9. No matter;'if it said, "from God the Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, who is however, not Himself God, in any sense," you might have a point, but as it happens you do not.

I believe that these scriptures plainly show the difference between God and His Son.

That these prosopa are distinct is readily admitted by all Trinitarians.

Plainly illustrate that God is the Father. The Father is God. And Christ is the Son of God. The Son of the Father.

And that Christ is also God.

Is it through ignorance that I accept these words as offered? Or should I trust in 'your church' that teaches contrary to these words?

You accept these words contrary to their meaning; scripture is not in the reading, but in the interpretation. To interpret these words unscripturally, as you so choose, you are forced to deprecate other verses which clearly attest to the divinity of our Lord (John 1:1-14, Matthew 28:19, John 10:17, etc.).

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

Sorry, but I've been partially following this and I'm as confused as the first time I posted here.

 

[Wgw]

So you reject the words of Christ Himself in favor of your own understanding? Interesting............

Blessings,

MEC

Says the man who rejects "I and the Father are one," et cetera.

You have not directly addressed what i offered. You have now tried to avoid the issue.

I never said that Christ is unworthy of our worship. What I asked is where have you found us being instructed to worship Christ 'as God'?

If our Lord is created, we would be forbidden from worshipping Him under the Second Commandment. @Berean777 makes a terribly valid point.

As the Only Begotten Son of God, The Son is certainly worthy of our worship. I simply don't accept the CC's definition of worship. They say that worship can only be offered to God. I find that to be of their own design. An idea created and perpetuated by the CC. I have yet to find the Bible offering such a definition.

As a matter of 'fact', what I find in the Bible is that we are 'only' suppose to worship God as God.

Thus by your own standards you would be forced to reject worship of our Lord.

Yet we are not only capable but guilty of worshiping 'many things' that we shouldn't. We often worship the 'creature more than the Creator'. We worship ourselves most often. We worship our families and friends. We worship items, things like cars and clothes and houses and money.

So I don't let the definitions created by men influence what i believe. I certainly don't allow the definition of 'worship' as offered by the CC to be true.

And this of course makes no sense in light of your claim that a created Jesus would be worthy of worship while being a creature, and that at the same time, icons of the Saints are idolatry.

Try being self-consistent for a change, old chap.

 

[Wgw]

So you reject the words of Christ Himself in favor of your own understanding? Interesting............

Blessings,

MEC

Says the man who rejects "I and the Father are one," et cetera.

You have not directly addressed what i offered. You have now tried to avoid the issue.

I never said that Christ is unworthy of our worship. What I asked is where have you found us being instructed to worship Christ 'as God'?

If our Lord is created, we would be forbidden from worshipping Him under the Second Commandment. @Berean777 makes a terribly valid point.

As the Only Begotten Son of God, The Son is certainly worthy of our worship. I simply don't accept the CC's definition of worship. They say that worship can only be offered to God. I find that to be of their own design. An idea created and perpetuated by the CC. I have yet to find the Bible offering such a definition.

As a matter of 'fact', what I find in the Bible is that we are 'only' suppose to worship God as God.

Thus by your own standards you would be forced to reject worship of our Lord.

Yet we are not only capable but guilty of worshiping 'many things' that we shouldn't. We often worship the 'creature more than the Creator'. We worship ourselves most often. We worship our families and friends. We worship items, things like cars and clothes and houses and money.

So I don't let the definitions created by men influence what i believe. I certainly don't allow the definition of 'worship' as offered by the CC to be true.

And this of course makes no sense in light of your claim that a created Jesus would be worthy of worship while being a creature, and that at the same time, icons of the Saints are idolatry.

Try being self-consistent for a change, old chap.

 

[cgaviria]

There is a problem with God making another created God. It flies in the face of this statement, I am one Lord and beside me there is no other God. (Isaiah 45:5)

It would also break commandment number 1.....



So we cannot entertain your statement below, because creating an image of the Father in Heaven and projecting it to another created God would be deemed a graven image, especially when Jesus was worshiped as God and Jesus claimed to be the God of their fathers.

It does not break the commandment concerning worshiping other gods, because Jesus abides in the father and comes from God. Therefore, worshiping Jesus is as worshiping the Father, although both are clearly distinct beings, and the true God from whom are all things, including Jesus, is the Father. The commandment concerning worshiping other gods has to do with worshiping man made things, yet worshiping Jesus as God is not idolatry. Even Moses was himself called God by God, because he was sent forth by God to do his will and bring forth judgments and punishment upon Egypt,

Then the LORD said to Moses, "See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron will be your prophet. (Exodus 7:1 [NIV])

And this was also not idolatry, because Moses was indeed chosen by God. You do not know what idolatry is, nor what being chosen and what being a son of God is, otherwise you would not coincide this commandment of idolatry to Jesus even being a created being.

 

[Wgw]

It does not break the commandment concerning worshiping other gods, because Jesus abides in the father and comes from God. Therefore, worshiping Jesus is as worshiping the Father, although both are clearly distinct beings, and the true God from whom are all things, including Jesus, is the Father. The commandment concerning worshiping other gods has to do with worshiping man made things, yet worshiping Jesus as God is not idolatry. Even Moses was himself called God by God, because he was sent forth by God to do his will and bring forth judgments and punishment upon Egypt,


And this was also not idolatry, because Moses was indeed chosen by God. You do not know what idolatry is, nor what being chosen and what being a son of God is, otherwise you would not coincide this commandment of idolatry to Jesus even being a created being.

Using your argument, it would become possible to offer latria or worship to any creature provided one could show that creature represented divine instrumentality. The Orthodox view is that worship can only be offered to God; the worship of a creature, of anything on the Earth or in Heaven above, is idolatry. Our Lord is worthy of worship owing to being uncreated.

 

[Berean777]

The trinity is the one God who has within him three distinct personas. So the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are the one Creator, revealing himself as three distinct personas and in three distinct roles.

 

[cgaviria]

You say Jesus is a creature, because he was made devine by the Father. You know very well that worshipping a creature is idolatry. Reflect on what I and @Wgw have said.

Jesus is not a creature, but the creator himself, by him all things were made. How could God make a creature to create on his behalf or be worshipped beside him?

Jesus is not just any creature, he is the one being that spoke all creatures into existence. This is why we worship him, because in worshiping him do we worship the Father, as Jesus is the one creature that reflects the fullness of the Father.

 

[Berean777]

Jesus is not just any creature, he is the one being that spoke all creatures into existence. This is why we worship him, because in worshiping him do we worship the Father, as Jesus is the one creature that reflects the fullness of the Father.

It doesn't work that way, because it breaks commandments.