Why the Trinity is a False Doctrine

[cgaviria]

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.

The trinity is a false doctrine because it slurs understanding concerning who the Father is, the Father is the supreme being that not even the heaven of the heavens can contain, and is the being that predestines all things, and even knows the number of hairs on the head of all billions of people on the earth. Jesus is a lesser being than the Father, yet reflects the fullness of the Father, as Jesus is also creator as the Father is creator, and also demonstrator of the full love and mercy of God, and also the bringer of the full judgment and wrath of God upon the entire earth. Holy spirit is not one being, it is multiple beings, angels, who are made into holy spirits, which inhabit the bodies of men, to guide them, to make them walk a straight and sinless path before God since being born of spirit means that you can no longer sin, and this is only possible by being baptized in holy spirit, and once receiving holy spirit, are you then sealed for salvation and you being chosen by God becomes evident. Only very few are chosen by God, yet many are called.

 

[cgaviria]

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

If that were so, then how is it that the Hebrews bowed down to even angels, especially the angels at Mount Sinai? The law was indeed given by angels. These were all creatures, yet acted as God, and this was not considered idolatry. Again, you do not know what idolatry is.

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

The trinity is a false doctrine because it slurs understanding concerning who the Father is, the Father is the supreme being that not even the heaven of the heavens can contain, and is the being that predestines all things, and even knows the number of hairs on the head of all billions of people on the earth. Jesus is a lesser being than the Father, yet reflects the fullness of the Father, as Jesus is also creator as the Father is creator, and also demonstrator of the full love and mercy of God, and also the bringer of the full judgment and wrath of God upon the entire earth. Holy spirit is not one being, it is multiple beings, angels, who are made into holy spirits, which inhabit the bodies of men, to guide them, to make them walk a straight and sinless path before God since being born of spirit means that you can no longer sin, and this is only possible by being baptized in holy spirit, and once receiving holy spirit, are you then sealed for salvation and you being chosen by God becomes evident. Only very few are chosen by God, yet many are called.

Name one other person who believed this...

 

[Imagican]

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.

Coming from a man that believes that it's ok to worship pictures or structures? Seems kind of one sided to me.

You indicate that if one does not view or believe Christ is God, He is not worthy of worship. But a 'painting of Christ' is worthy of worship???

I offer that Christ, as the Son of God, is worthy of our worship 'as' the Son of God. Nothing more, nothing less.

But I certainly don't worship the Son as God. I worship only God as God.

And I already dispelled your attempt to use 'oneness' as Christ being God because He is 'one' with the Father: God. For it is stated that Christ's wish is for us to be 'one' with both He and His Father. That certainly doesn't make 'us God' does it?

So it simply shows that your attempt to make Christ God by using the statement of Them being 'one' simply isn't correct theology. Not unless you believe that 'us' being 'one' with both Christ and His Father make 'us God' as well.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Berean777]

Jesus is the one God of the Holy Bible because all scripture testifies of him. No one has seen the Father, the Son has declared who he is personally through himself.

It would be like a person and their memories. The Father is Spirit and Jesus is the express representation of the Spirit in all his fullness, but as the hypostasis of God and man. That is why he is called the Son. The distinction is made because the Father who is immaterial and the Son who is material, yet both are the one Spirit who is God. Not three Spirits, but one infinite and indivisible Spirit (John 4:24).

 

[Berean777]

If that were so, then how is it that the Hebrews bowed down to even angels, especially the angels at Mount Sinai? The law was indeed given by angels. These were all creatures, yet acted as God, and this was not considered idolatry. Again, you do not know what idolatry is.

No angel was worshiped because they are not God. The exception was the Angel of Yahweh's presence who Abraham bowed down to and called Lord. Daniel saw him as the Son of Man who stood in the furnace with the three.

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

Coming from a man that believes that it's ok to worship pictures or structures? Seems kind of one sided to me.

You indicate that if one does not view or believe Christ is God, He is not worthy of worship. But a 'painting of Christ' is worthy of worship???

I offer that Christ, as the Son of God, is worthy of our worship 'as' the Son of God. Nothing more, nothing less.

But I certainly don't worship the Son as God. I worship only God as God.

And I already dispelled your attempt to use 'oneness' as Christ being God because He is 'one' with the Father: God. For it is stated that Christ's wish is for us to be 'one' with both He and His Father. That certainly doesn't make 'us God' does it?

So it simply shows that your attempt to make Christ God by using the statement of Them being 'one' simply isn't correct theology. Not unless you believe that 'us' being 'one' with both Christ and His Father make 'us God' as well.

Blessings,

MEC

Oh you must not have ever read Philippians 2:6-11, Colossians 1:16-18, John 1:1-18, Hebrews 1-2, Jude 5-7, 1 Timothy 1:15, 3:16, 2 Timothy 1:9-10, 1 Corinthians 8:6.

1 Cor. 8:6 in particular is a reworked Shema and I've explained the importance of that previously. Early Christians had an incredibly high and very early Christology.

 

[Imagican]

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

No. It breaks 'your' interpretation of the commandments.

And isn't 'your way' basically what Christ 'freed us from'? Men writing down laws that they themselves are unable to keep?

For it seems that you have 'bought in' to the idea that a 'group of men' were given the power or authority to make 'new laws' governing the Salvation of mankind.

I don't accept those 'men' being any more 'special' than any others. In fact, it is my opinion that they created their own 'ideas' that have little if anything to do with scriptures 'as offered'.

And then these same 'men' decided that the congregation weren't worthy to read scripture themselves and then withheld it for centuries. Choosing to torture and murder those that attempted to translate the Bible into a language of their own.

So the history of the 'church' you support is pretty 'dark'. Choosing to persecute the Saints yet calling those encouraging such persecution Saints. Hmmmm........... kind of makes one wonder don't it?

And here you and others that have chosen to follow the teachings of these 'men' actually have the audacity to state that those that don't accept what you have 'bought into' aren't 'Christians'. That same mentality that led to the CC torturing and murdering the Saints.

What i see more than anything else in your words and others is the teaching of 'men' instead of what we have been offered by God through Christ. You 'say' that your understanding is Biblical, but it's certainly not what I have come to understand 'through' the Bible.

But I can look back and study history and find the exact 'men' that created what you have chosen to believe. An institution of 'men' insistent that they are more capable of making 'rules' than the Bible itself.

I would offer that the words Christ offered about the 'religious order' of His time would follow the same 'religious order' of today. Men insistent that they are more capable of guiding other men than the Holy Spirit of God. Instead of learning what the original law was meant to teach, they instead created a whole new set of their own rules and insist that all follow or be deemed heretics. You know, that the exact same reason that the religious order of His time had Him crucified.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Wgw]

Coming from a man that believes that it's ok to worship pictures or structures? Seems kind of one sided to me.

I don't believe that.

You indicate that if one does not view or believe Christ is God, He is not worthy of worship. But a 'painting of Christ' is worthy of worship???

No.

I offer that Christ, as the Son of God, is worthy of our worship 'as' the Son of God. Nothing more, nothing less.

And this is your error, due to a failure on your part to accept the literal meaning of John 1:1-14.

But I certainly don't worship the Son as God. I worship only God as God.

See above.

And I already dispelled your attempt to use 'oneness' as Christ being God because He is 'one' with the Father: God. For it is stated that Christ's wish is for us to be 'one' with both He and His Father. That certainly doesn't make 'us God' does it?

It actually does, by way of Theosis, however, the distinction is that by Christ taking on our fallen human nature, He is able to glorify our humanity so that we may be resurrected with Him.

So it simply shows that your attempt to make Christ God by using the statement of Them being 'one' simply isn't correct theology. Not unless you believe that 'us' being 'one' with both Christ and His Father make 'us God' as well.

Blessings,

MEC

Until of course one bothers to actually study what we believe on this point, when one learns the deification of humanity is the true meaning of salvation.

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

You 'say' that your understanding is Biblical, but it's certainly not what I have come to understand 'through' the Bible.

Yes, because you're not actually trained to read the bible, I imagine. One of the failures of Protestantism is that in opening up religious authority as a free-for-all up popped 20,000 different denominations each claiming the correct interpretation. You're just one of many claiming to be special.

 

[Imagican]

Name one other person who believed this...

While I certainly don't 'believe' all that is offered concerning one man's understanding, I certainly don't believe in 'trinity' as a doctrine delivered by God, His Son or the apostles.

It only takes a cursory study of history to plainly see that 'trinity' was created by 'men'. The word itself is never offered once in scripture. You may say that many things are not offered in the Bible like the word 'Bible' itself. But I can think of not 'one thing' given the importance of 'trinity' that has not been offered in the Bible. Not one concept given such importance that isn't 'mentioned' in the Bible.

It is my firm contention that if 'trinity' were 'so' important, it would certainly have not only been mentioned, it would have been outlined in detail like everything else the Bible offers that is 'important' for us to follow.

But instead of 'trinity' being a 'part' of the Bible, it isn't even mentioned.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Wgw]

No. It breaks 'your' interpretation of the commandments.

And isn't 'your way' basically what Christ 'freed us from'? Men writing down laws that they themselves are unable to keep?

So you now consider we are free to engage in idolatry, murder, adultery, et cetera? Or is this merely another example of you contradicting yourself?

For it seems that you have 'bought in' to the idea that a 'group of men' were given the power or authority to make 'new laws' governing the Salvation of mankind.

I don't accept those 'men' being any more 'special' than any others. In fact, it is my opinion that they created their own 'ideas' that have little if anything to do with scriptures 'as offered'.

No. Rather, the Creed is supposed to regulate the teaching of the Christian faith to ensure it is taught correctly.

And then these same 'men' decided that the congregation weren't worthy to read scripture themselves and then withheld it for centuries. Choosing to torture and murder those that attempted to translate the Bible into a language of their own.

The Orthodox Church always had vernacular Bibles, and never tortured or murdered anyone for attempting to translate it; indeed we declared Ss. Cyril and Methodius saints, for their translation of the Bible into Slavonic.

So the history of the 'church' you support is pretty 'dark'. Choosing to persecute the Saints yet calling those encouraging such persecution Saints. Hmmmm........... kind of makes one wonder don't it?

Trinitarianism is not Roman Catholicism, so your argument rather fails on this point.

And here you and others that have chosen to follow the teachings of these 'men' actually have the audacity to state that those that don't accept what you have 'bought into' aren't 'Christians'. That same mentality that led to the CC torturing and murdering the Saints.

An ad hominem fallacy, one that also interestingly enough falls quite apart in the first few books of the Old Testament. Why should we follow a religion derived from another, Judaism, whose scriptures say that God commanded Israel to exterminate various populations of non-believers?

See the fallacy?

What i see more than anything else in your words and others is the teaching of 'men' instead of what we have been offered by God through Christ. You 'say' that your understanding is Biblical, but it's certainly not what I have come to understand 'through' the Bible.

Which is of course your prerogative; you can read it as you like. However, when you start telling us our understanding of it is wrong, expect disagreement.

But I can look back and study history and find the exact 'men' that created what you have chosen to believe. An institution of 'men' insistent that they are more capable of making 'rules' than the Bible itself.

No, you can't, actually; we have been over the historical errors in your argument ad nauseum, and they are as wrong now as they were then.

I would offer that the words Christ offered about the 'religious order' of His time would follow the same 'religious order' of today. Men insistent that they are more capable of guiding other men than the Holy Spirit of God. Instead of learning what the original law was meant to teach, they instead created a whole new set of their own rules and insist that all follow or be deemed heretics. You know, that the exact same reason that the religious order of His time had Him crucified.

Been reading Dostoevsky much?

 

[Imagican]

Yes, because you're not actually trained to read the bible, I imagine. One of the failures of Protestantism is that in opening up religious authority as a free-for-all up popped 20,000 different denominations each claiming the correct interpretation. You're just one of many claiming to be special.

Oh no. There you err in an exceptional manner. I have not once claimed to be 'special'. You are the one that in the very post above claim that one 'needs to be special' in order to read and understand the Bible.

Never found those words in the Bible either. You know, the ones that say, "No one should read the scriptures 'except' those deemed worthy by Aelred of Rievaulx or someone else. Somehow missed those words.

Please, such statements make me 'laugh' out loud. That someone needs to be 'trained' to read the Bible. What I hear is: "People need to be brainwashed into believing what I do in order to be able to successfully read the Bible and come to 'your' conclusions".

Now, show us where God granted 'you' such authority. Show us the scriptures that warn the layman 'not to read His Word'. If you can't, then maybe you shouldn't try to make such indications.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Wgw]

While I certainly don't 'believe' all that is offered concerning one man's understanding, I certainly don't believe in 'trinity' as a doctrine delivered by God, His Son or the apostles.

This owes to your rejection of certain key verses, like John 1:14 and Matthew 28:19.

It only takes a cursory study of history to plainly see that 'trinity' was created by 'men'.

On the contrary, we can see your doctrine having originated with one man in particular: Arius.

The word itself is never offered once in scripture. You may say that many things are not offered in the Bible like the word 'Bible' itself. But I can think of not 'one thing' given the importance of 'trinity' that has not been offered in the Bible. Not one concept given such importance that isn't 'mentioned' in the Bible.

Once again, we are subjected to a fallacious argument from ontology.

It is my firm contention that if 'trinity' were 'so' important, it would certainly have not only been mentioned, it would have been outlined in detail like everything else the Bible offers that is 'important' for us to follow.

But instead of 'trinity' being a 'part' of the Bible, it isn't even mentioned.

Blessings,

MEC

Repeated twice, as if threefold repetition somehow makes it less fallacious.

 

[cgaviria]

No angel was worshiped because they are not God. The exception was the Angel of Yahweh's presence who Abraham bowed down to and called Lord. Daniel saw him as the Son of Man who stood in the furnace with the three.

These angels were indeed God, have you not read where the angel in the burning bush spoke to Moses, and the scripture then says, "God said"? These angels were God, and were paid respects as God. Again, you do not know what idolatry is and what sonship is.

 

[Wgw]

These angels were indeed God, have you not read where the angel in the burning bush spoke to Moses, and the scripture then says, "God said"? These angels were God, and were paid respects as God. Again, you do not know what idolatry is and what sonship is.

The burning bush was not comprised of angels, but rather, was a Theophany, that is to say, God Himself.

 

[Imagican]

So you now consider we are free to engage in idolatry, murder, adultery, et cetera? Or is this merely another example of you contradicting yourself?

Nice try. But you know that isn't what I offered so why try and twist my words. The commandments have been offered: Love God above all else and your neighbor as yourself. If one follows those commandments they aren't going to murder or offer false worship or any of the things that you have attempt to alter in my words.

No. Rather, the Creed is supposed to regulate the teaching of the Christian faith to ensure it is taught correctly.

No, The 'creed' was offered by a 'group of men' you cannot prove to me were divinely inspired. So it's 'their creed'. Not offered in scripture or even the semblance of the 'idea'. Only in the manner you interpret the Bible. Not in the manner I interpret it.

The Orthodox Church always had vernacular Bibles, and never tortured or murdered anyone for attempting to translate it; indeed we declared Ss. Cyril and Methodius saints, for their translation of the Bible into Slavonic.

See, there you go again. Until sometime in the sixth century did the Orthodox separate from 'the church'. You continually try to offer that they were separate from the 'beginning' which is not true.

Trinitarianism is not Roman Catholicism, so your argument rather fails on this point.

You're right. The use of the term Roman Catholic is a modern term. The Catholic Church created the doctrine of 'trinity'.

An ad hominem fallacy, one that also interestingly enough falls quite apart in the first few books of the Old Testament. Why should we follow a religion derived from another, Judaism, whose scriptures say that God commanded Israel to exterminate various populations of non-believers?

I only remember 'one'. Those dwelling the Land of Canaan. And that was under a previous covenant to the one produced upon the Advent.

See the fallacy?

Nope.

Which is of course your prerogative; you can read it as you like. However, when you start telling us our understanding of it is wrong, expect disagreement.

I expect nothing less.

No, you can't, actually; we have been over the historical errors in your argument ad nauseum, and they are as wrong now as they were then.

According to you. I disagree.

Been reading Dostoevsky much?

Never even heard the name.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[cgaviria]

The burning bush was not comprised of angels, but rather, was a Theophany, that is to say, God Himself.

This is also a false doctrine. The scripture says "the angel of the LORD appeared to Moses". This was indeed an angel demonstrating itself as a fire in a bush.

 

[Imagican]

I am led by the Holy Spirit. Been 'born again'. Recognize 'The Spirit' when it exists in others.

But of course, you would venture to call me a tell me I'm simply confused. So too were the apostles falsely accused and persecuted. Should i expect any less if I am 'not a part of this world'?

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Wgw]

Never even heard the name.

Blessings,

MEC

I am disinclined to reply to this unless you fix the typography so your reply is not comingled with my words in the Quote box.