Why the Trinity is a False Doctrine

[Wgw]

7x,

It would seem that you have placed quite a bit of thought into what you offered. But I can't help but ask this: "How is one that doesn't yet exist, 'sent' to do something?

For over and over Christ stated that He was 'sent' by the Father. I don't understand how one that doesn't yet exist can be 'sent'.

And we also have the words offered by Christ that the words He offered were not His own but given Him by the Father. And that the things that He did were things He had witnessed of the Father. Both these indicative of Christ existing in Heaven previous to becoming 'flesh'.

And then we have the 'clincher': the Bible states that Christ witnessed Satan being 'cast out' of Heaven. Watched him fall like a 'shooting star'. Don't know how that would be possible unless He preexisted in Heaven. Preexisted His physical birth.

Blessings,

MEC

Here I find myself for once enthusiastically agreeing with @Imagican.

 

[Wgw]

Hi cgaviria,

I perceive you are studying, and seeking the truth, and not so concerned what man thinks.

It is more then easy to prove Jesus could not be God,

If one rejects canonical Scripture.

but not easy to believe, as I'm sure you have found as well sharing the word.

What I would like to show though, is that Jesus had his beginnings at birth, and not before he was born, as before the foundation of the world, because there is no place where it is said Jesus created heaven and earth,

There is actually: John 1:3.

but he is before the new creation, the foundation of, the beginning of, the firstborn [from the dead] over all creation. He is before all things because all things consist in him, for he is high priest, chief king, in the kingdom of many priest and kings, this list could go on, for nothing could be without him towards the new creation, and the ages to come. - I am referring to Heb. 1:2 “by whom also he made the worlds (165. aión – ages)” As it also speaks in Eph 2:6-7 ...and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, that in the ages to come..., and compare to Col 1:15-18 For by (1722. en – in) Him all things were created. We have this age, then age of 1,000 years, end of which all enemies are put under his feet, and then when he hands over the Kingdom to his God and Father.

Psalm 22 is speaking of Christ, and you will notice it is the spirit of Christ speaking, I'm referring to words on a page, not a person. This is the Psalm which we know speaks of Christ where it says, Jesus speaking “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me”[Psalm 22:1].

...then... “they shake the head, saying, he trusted in the LORD, let Him rescue him; let Him deliver him, since He delights in him!” [Psalm 22:7,8].

Now if you will notice the next two verses 9 and 10 it says, “But You are He who took me out of the womb; You made me trust while on my mother's breasts. I was cast upon You from birth. From my mother's womb You have been my God.” [Psalm 22:9, 10]

From the womb God has been Christ's God, not before. John 1:14 ...the word (3056. logos - a word, being the expression of a thought; expressing the thoughts of the Father through the Spirit) became flesh, not a person became flesh, and 1 John 1:1 the word (3056. logos) of life, which they handled and seen.

Then Isaiah 45, you will notice also speaks of Christ. This is what verses 4 and 5 have to say “For Jacob My servant’s sake, and Israel My elect, I have even called you by your name; I have named you [compare with Luke 1:31 “...and shall call his name Jesus.”; or Matt 1:21], though you have not known Me. 5 I am the Lord, and there is no other; there is no God besides Me. I will gird you, though you have not known Me.” - God put a hedge around him, that he may prosper, then allowed the hedge to be removed, taking all from him, then allowing him to suffer greatly.

This states when God named Jesus, Jesus did not know God before this time.

So, adoptionism.

Angels, or spirits are immortal, they cannot die, Jesus died. Jesus had the fallen nature of his mother, for he was tempted, but had the character of his Father, being holy being born of the holy spirit; this is how he overcame the flesh, temptation. He did not receive the nature of his Father until after his resurrection (Heb 1:3-4) when he received immortality, and destroying sin in the flesh, now no longer tempted by sin in the flesh.

And herein you simply come across as having no understanding of the doctrines of the Incarnation or hypostatic union. Our Lord died according to His humanity; the divine essence of God did not die.

God's Spirit is His power and His word [compare Luke 1:35 and John 1:14; Ephesians 6:17 – in the Greek “word (neuter) - 4487. rhéma - a spoken word” points to “Spirit (neuter),” not to “sword (feminine)”, so in other words it could read, “...and the sword of the word...”].

A spoken word cannot become incarnate.

Sometimes to understand the New Testament, we must turn to the Old Testament. The Berean Jews searched the Old Testament scriptures to see if what the apostle taught were true. So, what the apostles taught must be in the O/T, as Paul declared in Acts 26:22-23.

By this standard, "Before Abraham was, I AM" counts as proof of our Lord's divinity (Exodus 3:14-15).

 

[Imagican]

'Trinity' makes it impossible to even consider that Christ was 'created'. And that is what I see being a problem with 'doctrine' that 'men' create which ends up limiting understanding. For once a 'rule' is set in place, it leaves no room for additional understanding.

There were five days of 'creation' before we see the words: "Let 'us' create in 'our' image. There must be a 'reason' that these words were used in the place that they were used. When God spoke the 'Light' into existence, it does not offer, "Let 'us' create light". It says that God created light. And days later we see the use of the words: "Let 'us' create in 'our' image".

To ignore any potential reason for the use of these words on the 'sixth day' is to limit our understanding. For obviously these words were 'not' used in the beginning of creation. Only when it came to 'man' does the Bible use the words 'us' and 'our'.

"Trinity" basically eliminates any contemplation of the situation. Since 'trinity' insists that Christ has existed 'eternally', it eliminates any possibility of 'begotten' actually meaning what the word means. Nothing in the Bible speaks of 'eternally begotten'. This is a 'man made' phrase and with absolutely no Biblical backing.

All the Bible tells us is that Christ has existed since 'in the beginning'. And 'in the beginning' is obviously not a reference to eternity. If God is eternal, He has 'no beginning'.

So 'in the beginning' is in reference to that which pertains to the 'reader'. In other words, 'in the beginning of that which pertains to you'. Not 'in the beginning of heaven or God or angels or anything that existed 'before in the beginning'. And it's clear that God wasn't sitting around for eternity twiddling His thumbs waiting for something to do. As far as we know, He has been creating other worlds and other people for eternity. No way for us to 'know' one way or another. But certainly He wasn't sitting in a void by Himself for eternity before 'in the beginning'.

But we do know that the Bible tells us that 'in the beginning' God created "light". Not physical 'light' as in the Sun or the Moon. For these weren't created until days after God said, "Let there be light".

And we do 'know' that the Bible tells us that Christ 'is' the 'Light of this world'. Not physical light. But "Light" so far as 'truth' is concerned. Or we could use the term to define 'reality'. The method and means of creation itself would be 'reality' or the 'truth'.

Like following a recipe, if one doesn't actually follow the recipe, what they end up with is not the product that was meant to be created. So too would the means and method of creation require 'reality' or 'truth' to be performed 'properly.

Christ was instrumental in 'creation'. The Bible tells us so. But what it does 'not' tell us is Christ existing previous to God begetting Him. The term 'begotten' clearly indicates something 'coming into existence'. If that is true, then that means that there was a 'time before' it was begotten.

It is my understanding of the Bible that Christ has 'always' been the Son of God. Since He was 'begotten', He has been God's Son. Long before becoming manifest in the flesh, Christ was the Son of God. It was the Son of God that witnessed Satan being cast out of heaven. It was the Son of God that was referenced in: "Let 'us' create in 'our' image".

When we read John 1, it states that 'in the beginning was God's Word'. Yet Christ stated that the 'words' that He offered were not His own. That means that they belonged to God. God's Word was the means that He spoke creation into existence. It was God's Word that said, "let there be light". And if that 'light' is the "Light of this world", isn't it obvious that this was the moment that He spoke the "Light of this world" into existence? For it was days later that the Sun and Moon, physical light, were created.

I point his out and those that have been 'taught' to believe what 'trinity' offers act like it's not even worthy of consideration. Yet what I have offered makes perfect sense if one is able to get past the idea that Christ was 'not' begotten 'in the beginning'.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Imagican]

If one rejects canonical Scripture.



There is actually: John 1:3.



So, adoptionism.



And herein you simply come across as having no understanding of the doctrines of the Incarnation or hypostatic union. Our Lord died according to His humanity; the divine essence of God did not die.



A spoken word cannot become incarnate.



By this standard, "Before Abraham was, I AM" counts as proof of our Lord's divinity (Exodus 3:14-15).

Come on now. The Bible doesn't capitalize the 'a' in 'am' nor the 'm'. What it offer is: 'Before Abraham, I am'.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Imagican]

How about this for speculation:

Is it possible that 'divinity' is about as impossible to adequately define as Godhead? Is it possible that there are different 'levels' of divinity?

Or are we to suppose that the 'church fathers' had it 'all figured out' and that there was nothing that they did that could have possibly been mistakes?

I have never once denied the 'divinity' of Christ. I have simply offered that it is my understanding that the Son if more like a Son than The Father. If one must call it polytheism to believe that the Son can possess as much divinity as the Father chooses to place upon Him, then so be it. I am not one to allow the ignorance of others have any significant effect upon my beliefs.

I believe in and worship 'only one God'. And that 'God' is the Father of Jesus Christ.

And I believe in and worship only one 'Begotten Son of God'. But I do not worship the Son of God as God. I worship Him as The Son of God. I pray to God in the 'name' of Christ. I pray exactly as Christ offered as an example: Our Father............... For The Father is 'our' Father. He is our heavenly Father and THE Father of Christ. He is God.

From my perspective, I am as Monotheistic as anyone ever has been. For it is my perspective that it is 'trinity' that is polytheistic. Regardless of how those that follow it try to talk around the issue, three person equals three persons. The idea that there are three persons that make up one God makes absolutely no sense. And it's irrelevant how one tries to 'talk' around the issue, the Jews, the Muslims and quite a few others view 'three persons' as polytheistic. I offer again, I worship 'only' one God as God. God'head', get it: God is the 'head'. Everything else is something 'different' than God Himself.

The Bible 'states' that the 'head of Christ is God. And the 'head' of man is Christ. And the 'head' of woman is man. Not my words. Straight out of the Bible. This in and of itself shows that God is 'the head'. Christ is secondary. Thirdly is man and last is woman. All indications are this is the 'order of creation'. Not of 'my' design, but of God's.

So you cannot accuse me of polytheism. For i do 'not' worship Christ 'as God' or 'another god'. I worship Christ as the Son of God. I worship 'only God' as God.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Wgw]

How about this for speculation:

Is it possible that 'divinity' is about as impossible to adequately define as Godhead? Is it possible that there are different 'levels' of divinity?

In a sense, there are, but our Lord is at the highest, uncreated level of divinity, as very God of very God.

Or are we to suppose that the 'church fathers' had it 'all figured out' and that there was nothing that they did that could have possibly been mistakes?

This is a red herring; one can entirely reasonably csay a Patristic figure was wrong on some specific issue, but correct on this most important of points.

I have never once denied the 'divinity' of Christ. I have simply offered that it is my understanding that the Son if more like a Son than The Father. If one must call it polytheism to believe that the Son can possess as much divinity as the Father chooses to place upon Him, then so be it. I am not one to allow the ignorance of others have any significant effect upon my beliefs.

It is not polytheism, but it is a theological and hermeneutical error.

I believe in and worship 'only one God'. And that 'God' is the Father of Jesus Christ.

And thus I contend you misread various portions of scripture, for example, John 1:1-14.

And I believe in and worship only one 'Begotten Son of God'. But I do not worship the Son of God as God. I worship Him as The Son of God. I pray to God in the 'name' of Christ. I pray exactly as Christ offered as an example: Our Father............... For The Father is 'our' Father. He is our heavenly Father and THE Father of Christ. He is God.

And thus you ignore the verifiable fact, that Trinitarian theology clearly differentiates between the identity of the Father and Son, so that their unique attributes of paternity and sonship are not ameliorated or obviated. You use here an argument that is essentially a caricature of Sabellianism, and is thus inapplicable to us.

From my perspective, I am as Monotheistic as anyone ever has been. For it is my perspective that it is 'trinity' that is polytheistic. Regardless of how those that follow it try to talk around the issue, three person equals three persons. The idea that there are three persons that make up one God makes absolutely no sense.

It makes perfect sense to us. The prosopa are one God according to essence, one God according to energy.

And it's irrelevant how one tries to 'talk' around the issue, the Jews, the Muslims and quite a few others view 'three persons' as polytheistic. I offer again, I worship 'only' one God as God. God'head', get it: God is the 'head'. Everything else is something 'different' than God Himself.

What the Jews or Muslims think is entirely irrelevant. They are not Christians; their opinion matters as much as that of the Dalai Lama.

The Bible 'states' that the 'head of Christ is God. And the 'head' of man is Christ. And the 'head' of woman is man. Not my words. Straight out of the Bible. This in and of itself shows that God is 'the head'. Christ is secondary. Thirdly is man and last is woman. All indications are this is the 'order of creation'. Not of 'my' design, but of God's.

The Bible also says that our Lord is God.

So you cannot accuse me of polytheism.

Neither can you accuse us of polytheism, for we worship only one God.

 

[Wgw]

'Trinity' makes it impossible to even consider that Christ was 'created'.

In fact, John 1:3 does that.

And that is what I see being a problem with 'doctrine' that 'men' create which ends up limiting understanding. For once a 'rule' is set in place, it leaves no room for additional understanding.

I disagree. Once we admity the deity of our Lord, we can contemplate the beauty and wonder of Creation.

There were five days of 'creation' before we see the words: "Let 'us' create in 'our' image. There must be a 'reason' that these words were used in the place that they were used. When God spoke the 'Light' into existence, it does not offer, "Let 'us' create light". It says that God created light. And days later we see the use of the words: "Let 'us' create in 'our' image".

The Trinitarian doctrine does not rest on "Let us," and I regard this as a weak argument for the deity of our Lord, in that Arius himself did not take exception to it. One can articulate Arianism while admitting that our Lord did create everything in Genesis 1. Rather, what defeats your argument is John 1:3, unless you want to argue that that which was created prior to the fifth day cannot be counted as a "thing."

In general however, it seems to me that you would prefer to wish John 1:2-14 did not even exist, since in months of debating, the only exegesis you have offered was a semantically flawed attempt at explaining John 1:1.

To ignore any potential reason for the use of these words on the 'sixth day' is to limit our understanding. For obviously these words were 'not' used in the beginning of creation. Only when it came to 'man' does the Bible use the words 'us' and 'our'.

"Trinity" basically eliminates any contemplation of the situation. Since 'trinity' insists that Christ has existed 'eternally', it eliminates any possibility of 'begotten' actually meaning what the word means. Nothing in the Bible speaks of 'eternally begotten'. This is a 'man made' phrase and with absolutely no Biblical backing.

Why should we waste time contemplating that which is not true?

Indeed, one can make an argument that since our Lord is the Truth, the idea of rejecting his uncreated divnity is antithetical to Truth.

All the Bible tells us is that Christ has existed since 'in the beginning'. And 'in the beginning' is obviously not a reference to eternity. If God is eternal, He has 'no beginning'.

John 1:1 says "In the beginning was..." not "In the beginning began..."

So 'in the beginning' is in reference to that which pertains to the 'reader'. In other words, 'in the beginning of that which pertains to you'. Not 'in the beginning of heaven or God or angels or anything that existed 'before in the beginning'. And it's clear that God wasn't sitting around for eternity twiddling His thumbs waiting for something to do. As far as we know, He has been creating other worlds and other people for eternity.

So herein, you now propose that our Lord was created only after God had previously created numerous other worlds, civilizations, even angels. By this flawed logic, one couls day Lucifer predates our Lord, to give you a sense as to how wrong it is. You also interpret "eternity" as implying an eternal capacity of unbounded time, which again implies dualism; it seems ro me that according to your reasoning, you would have to deny that God created time; thus I argue that in your system, by implication, the real God is eternity, and the deity you refer to as God is merely a demiurge that exists in uncreated eternity.

At any rate, John 1:3 positively precludes any realities from having been created except by the action of our Lord.

No way for us to 'know' one way or another. But certainly He wasn't sitting in a void by Himself for eternity before 'in the beginning'.

But we do know that the Bible tells us that 'in the beginning' God created "light". Not physical 'light' as in the Sun or the Moon. For these weren't created until days after God said, "Let there be light".

And we do 'know' that the Bible tells us that Christ 'is' the 'Light of this world'. Not physical light. But "Light" so far as 'truth' is concerned. Or we could use the term to define 'reality'. The method and means of creation itself would be 'reality' or the 'truth'.

If this light was created, John 1:3 means our Lord created it.

Like following a recipe, if one doesn't actually follow the recipe, what they end up with is not the product that was meant to be created. So too would the means and method of creation require 'reality' or 'truth' to be performed 'properly.

Thank you for confirming my point that our Lord is an indispensable part of all creation, and not something that might optionally be invoked on the fifth day.

Christ was instrumental in 'creation'. The Bible tells us so. But what it does 'not' tell us is Christ existing previous to God begetting Him. The term 'begotten' clearly indicates something 'coming into existence'. If that is true, then that means that there was a 'time before' it was begotten.

No, because one can be begotten ourside of time, and indeed, we have to say as much, because since time is obviously a thing, a creature, our Lord created it.

It is my understanding of the Bible that Christ has 'always' been the Son of God. Since He was 'begotten', He has been God's Son. Long before becoming manifest in the flesh, Christ was the Son of God. It was the Son of God that witnessed Satan being cast out of heaven. It was the Son of God that was referenced in: "Let 'us' create in 'our' image".

Indeed; begotten, not made. The act of begetting precludes creation; we do not create our children, but rather beget them through a biological process which iconographically alludes to the extratemporal generation of our Lord.

When we read John 1, it states that 'in the beginning was God's Word'. Yet Christ stated that the 'words' that He offered were not His own. That means that they belonged to God. God's Word was the means that He spoke creation into existence. It was God's Word that said, "let there be light". And if that 'light' is the "Light of this world", isn't it obvious that this was the moment that He spoke the "Light of this world" into existence? For it was days later that the Sun and Moon, physical light, were created.

No, it is not obvious; in fact, it is contrary to reason. Firstly, John 1:3 requires this light to have been created by the Word. Now, your argument that the Word refers to the spoen utterance of God not only contradicts John 1:1 (which says "The Word was God," not "the Word was spoken by God"), but collapses entirely when we come to John 1:14, for a spoken word cannot take flesh. It is impossible to read John 1:1-14 and then reasonably assert the Word is not our Lord, that our Lord is not uncreated, that our Lord did not create all things, and that the Word did not become incarnate as Jesus Christ, for our Salvation.

John 1:1-14 simply does not say what it would be required to say for you to have a reasonable point. As it stands, since your argument does not correspond to what the text actually says, I consider it to be inherently unreasonable.

I point his out and those that have been 'taught' to believe what 'trinity' offers act like it's not even worthy of consideration.

I was never "taught" what to believe regarding the Trinity in my Methodist youth; we were taught that it existed but it was never explained or used as the basis for any number of compelling sermons on divine love or the economy of salvation our mimister could have preached, instead of the interminable stream of moralistic irrelevance to which we were subjected. Thus, I grew up with no understanding of the doctrine, and had views which were functionally close to Arianism or semi-Arianism, although I was nominally Trinitarian and believed in the deity of our Lord without understanding His uncreated nature.

Later, on my own, I researched Christian theology, and came to the conclusion that the Trinitarian faith is the most noble and honourable truth humans can believe in. It is the only way to explain the dominical statement, "God is love." For love becomes meanignless if God is reduced to a unipersonal, remote entity that cannot become incarnate for our salvation, that cannot share in our human experience in any meaningful capacity.

Yet what I have offered makes perfect sense if one is able to get past the idea that Christ was 'not' begotten 'in the beginning'.

Which we cannot do without ignoring John 1:1-14 and numerous other verses.

 

[7xlightray]

7x,

It would seem that you have placed quite a bit of thought into what you offered. But I can't help but ask this: "How is one that doesn't yet exist, 'sent' to do something?

For over and over Christ stated that He was 'sent' by the Father. I don't understand how one that doesn't yet exist can be 'sent'.

And we also have the words offered by Christ that the words He offered were not His own but given Him by the Father. And that the things that He did were things He had witnessed of the Father. Both these indicative of Christ existing in Heaven previous to becoming 'flesh'.

And then we have the 'clincher': the Bible states that Christ witnessed Satan being 'cast out' of Heaven. Watched him fall like a 'shooting star'. Don't know how that would be possible unless He preexisted in Heaven. Preexisted His physical birth.

Blessings,

MEC

Hi Imagican,

Not totally sure what scriptures you are referring to, or how they would cause us to come to the conclusion that Jesus must have existed before his birth, but lets see if I'm on the right track...

Jesus came forth (from the Father, born of the Father), and was sent. When did Jesus start preaching the good new about the kingdom? After his baptism. What about Jeremiah 1:5-6? Maybe this will even be helpful Isaiah 55:10-11. There is also Jesus is the bread that came down from heaven, Jesus is the spiritual man born of God from heaven speaking the word of God, the word of life, does not mean a person came down from heaven.



Jesus grew in wisdom and became strong in the spirit. To “see” in scripture does not necessarily mean literally seeing with the physical eye. What did Jesus mean when he said, “you seen me you seen the Father?” Is he not referring to God's character, not actually physically seeing the shape of Christ.

John 6:45-46 does this mean if we don't audibly hear the voice of God we can't come to Christ? So, we must come to Jesus to see the Father, because Jesus was the spiritual man with a spiritual mind; the words “seen” in verse 46 are (3708. horaó - properly, see, often with metaphorical meaning: "to see with the mind" (i.e. spiritually see), i.e. perceive (with inward spiritual perception); to discern clearly (physically or mentally); in an emphatic sense, of Christ, who has an immediate and perfect knowledge of God without being taught by another, John 1:18; John 6:46)), and Moses was not taught by another. Also when Jesus said, only he has seen the Father, he means only he truly knows the Father intimately, and has the full truth to reveal, even far more then Moses. Moses also was sent, and seen God, did Moses preexisted? Although, did Moses actually see God on the mountain, or an angel, because no one has seen (2300. theaomai - look upon, view) God at any time [1 John 4:12; Exodus 33:20]? There is also 1 John 3:6 and 3 John 1:11.

To understand what Jesus is referring to in John 5:37 when he speaks of form, or shape, read Numbers 12:6-8 Then He said, “Hear now My words: if there is a prophet among you, I, the Lord, make Myself known to him in a vision; I speak to him in a dream. Not so with My servant Moses; he is faithful in all My house. I speak with him face to face, even plainly, and not in dark sayings; and he sees the form of the Lord.

To see God's form, or shape is to know him, not that Moses actually saw Him. Moses not only heard, but understood, he perceived the things spoken to him. God made sure Moses understood. Visions and dreams are not so easily discernible, if you recall Peter trying to understand the four corner sheet with unclean things on it.



And as for “the words He offered were not His own but given Him by the Father,” would this mean Balaam Numbers 22:38 and Moses preexisted, or all the other prophets? Deuteronomy 18:18. Maybe this will also be helpful...

Exodus 4:15 And thou (Moses, Jesus) shalt speak unto him (Aaron, disciple), and put words in his (disciple) mouth: and I (God the Father) will be with thy (Moses, Jesus) mouth (John 14:10), and with his (disciple) mouth, and will teach you (Jesus) what ye shall do. 16 And he (disciple) shall be thy (Jesus) spokesman unto the people: and he (disciple) shall be, even he (disciple) shall be to thee (Jesus) instead of a mouth, and thou (Jesus) shalt be to him (disciple) instead of God.

Jesus knew the scriptures, and he quickly learnt.



Not sure what scripture you are referring to when you stated, “Bible states that Christ witnessed Satan being 'cast out' of Heaven. Watched him fall like a 'shooting star',” or how this would prove Jesus preexisted. Maybe if you could give me some scripture, and show me your point, because this is very vague.

 

[Strong in Him]

Come on now. The Bible doesn't capitalize the 'a' in 'am' nor the 'm'. What it offer is: 'Before Abraham, I am'.

And the Jews picked up stones to stone him to death, for blasphemy, (John 8:59).
In chapter 10, the Jews asked Jesus if he was the Christ, and Jesus replied "the miracles I do in my Father's name speak for me" (John 10:25.) He said also that no one could snatch his sheep from his Father's hand and that he and the Father are one - and they picked up stones to stone him for blasphemy.

The Jewish leaders understood very well what Jesus meant by his words, and they wanted to kill him for blasphemy - claiming to be equal to God.

 

[7xlightray]

If one rejects canonical Scripture.



There is actually: John 1:3.



So, adoptionism.



And herein you simply come across as having no understanding of the doctrines of the Incarnation or hypostatic union. Our Lord died according to His humanity; the divine essence of God did not die.



A spoken word cannot become incarnate.



By this standard, "Before Abraham was, I AM" counts as proof of our Lord's divinity (Exodus 3:14-15).

Hi Wgw,

“So, adoptionism.”

No, Jesus was born of God, God was his Father, and his God.

“There is actually: John 1:3”

That's how you chose to interpret it, you are assuming the Word was the person Jesus before verse 14. It was the Father in Christ, manifesting Himself in Christ, and we did not receive the Father that was in Christ, 2 Corinthians 5:18-21; John 14:10. The Word became a tree, so is a tree God? Did it always exist?


Let's see if we can shorten this up some. What part of the Son of God remained God at His incarnation, body, soul, Spirit?

 

[Hoghead1]

It appears that everyone here is wrestling with the problem of the Trinity. My view is that we need to rethink this whole doctrine, as it has been a total disaster since day one. The Arians argued that Christ cannot be God, as God cannot suffer, change, etc., whereas Christ did. The "orthodox" simply acerbated this situation by adopting the same image of God and then arguing Christ was split into two conflicting natures, a human nature, which could suffer, and a divine nature, which could not. The Council of Nicaea did not define what it meant to be of one essence with the Father. Did this mean the Father also suffered? Well, that was ruled out as a major heresy. The creed says nothing about the Deity of the Spirit. A social theory of the trinity often predominated. God was seen as a cosmic society of three distinct personalities who all agreed with one another. If so, asked Gregory of Nyssa, what aren't there three Gods like there would be three men? His answer is that they work together in a unity far grater than anything we could attain. However, to many, including myself, that is still polytheism. The early church based its doctrine of God, its concept or picture of what Go dis like in his own nature, largely on certain major schools of Hellenic philosophy, not Scripture. Hence, Good was defined as wholly simple, immutable, nonrelational. The problem, then, was how to introduce the highly complicated relational machinery of the Trinity into a wholly simple and nonrelational being. My view, then, is that we need to go back and rethink our concepts of God's nature and attributes.

 

[Hoghead1]

The traditional view, Strong in Him, was that Christ existed eternally.

 

[Maurious Paul]

Since Trinity does not exists at all...

 

[Wgw]

It appears that everyone here is wrestling with the problem of the Trinity.

Not this one.

My view is that we need to rethink this whole doctrine, as it has been a total disaster since day one.

If by "total disaster," you mean "the greatest blessing to fall upon the human race," then sure.

The Arians argued that Christ cannot be God, as God cannot suffer, change, etc., whereas Christ did. The "orthodox" simply acerbated this situation by adopting the same image of God and then arguing Christ was split into two conflicting natures, a human nature, which could suffer, and a divine nature, which could not.

What you describe here is so far from Orthodoxy, that even Nestorius would have rebuked you. Our Lord is not divided; there is no conflict beteeen the human and divine; the human nature is an image of the divine and it is owing to this hypostatic union that humanity is restored and glorifiee. God became man so that man might become god, wrote St. Athanasius; the entire point of the incarnation, of the hypostatic union, is the obviation of this division.

The Council of Nicaea did not define what it meant to be of one essence with the Father. Did this mean the Father also suffered? Well, that was ruled out as a major heresy. The creed says nothing about the Deity of the Spirit.

Not true; the revised creed of 381 specifically refers to the Spirit as "Lord," and this clause was added to counter Pneumatomachianism (Macedonianism).

A social theory of the trinity often predominated. God was seen as a cosmic society of three distinct personalities who all agreed with one another. If so, asked Gregory of Nyssa, what aren't there three Gods like there would be three men? His answer is that they work together in a unity far grater than anything we could attain. However, to many, including myself, that is still polytheism.

Which is simply an error on your part, and an uncharitable view at that.

The early church based its doctrine of God, its concept or picture of what Go dis like in his own nature, largely on certain major schools of Hellenic philosophy, not Scripture.

Not true; there are several sharp differences between Hellenic ideals of God and the Christian theological concept.

Hence, Good was defined as wholly simple, immutable, nonrelational. The problem, then, was how to introduce the highly complicated relational machinery of the Trinity into a wholly simple and nonrelational being. My view, then, is that we need to go back and rethink our concepts of God's nature and attributes.

So because the early Church used, in your (misinformed) opinion, Hellenic philosophy, it is somehow inherently wrong, and we should therefore reinvent our theology based on conte,porary philosophy, which as it happens, if we use your own posting history on this site as a reference, would require us to reject much of sacred scripture.

I find this approach wrongheaded; we must conform to the apostolic faith, and not seek to conform the apostolic faith to our own insignifigant contemporary secular considerations.

 

[Maurious Paul]

I shall give you a verse,

"...which God will bring about in his own time--God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen." - 1 Timothy 6:16(NIV)

The context of the verse is that the The Father is "Immortal" and not "anyone else". But as far as we know Son of God had been "Mortal" once. Let me give another proof,

"...I say this because many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist." - 2 John 1:7(NIV)

And see yourself that anyone who don't believe that Son of God came into this world as "Mortal" is the deceiver and the antichrist. And conclusion is that God can't be mortal but his son was a mortal once(now he is immortal and can't be mortal anymore). This blows up the concept of trinity and proves that it is Man-made fiction. That's all.

 

[Strong in Him]

It appears that everyone here is wrestling with the problem of the Trinity.

I think most people are trying to counter the view that it is a false doctrine.

My view is that we need to rethink this whole doctrine, as it has been a total disaster since day one.

How?

The Council of Nicaea did not define what it meant to be of one essence with the Father. Did this mean the Father also suffered?

The creed makes a point of emphasising the deity of Christ - to answer the Arian heresy that was being taught at the time.
Jesus is, "God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, of one being with the Father". (We always said 'one being' in our church.)
The eternal Word, who was God and with God in the beginning, (John 1:1-3) became flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:14.)
Jesus was fully man and fully God.

The Father suffered because he gave his only Son for us. The Son, through whom all things were made, was rejected, beaten and killed by his creation.

The creed says nothing about the Deity of the Spirit.

It says that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son and, together with the Father and the Son, is worshipped and glorified. The Spirit is from the Father and the Son. In Scripture he is always referred to as "The Spirit of the Lord", "The Spirit of God" and on one occasion "the Spirit of Jesus" - the Lord says, "I will put MY Spirit in them". God the Father is divine; how could his Spirit not be?

A social theory of the trinity often predominated. God was seen as a cosmic society of three distinct personalities who all agreed with one another. If so, asked Gregory of Nyssa, what aren't there three Gods like there would be three men? His answer is that they work together in a unity far grater than anything we could attain. However, to many, including myself, that is still polytheism.

If there were 3 separate Gods; very close, but still individual gods, then it would be. But there is only ONE God, so all 3 divine persons - Father, Son and Holy Spirit - must be one.
Like I said, it's very hard to understand and wrap our finite minds around it, and I guess that most of us want things that we can fully understand; all mysteries and loose ends tied up. But we can't put God in a box! There will always be FAR more to him, and of him, than we can ever grasp or comprehend; in this life anyway, all will be revealed when we meet him.
This is the essence of faith, saying, "Lord I can't see or fully understand, I can't work it out or give a slick answer or formula, but I know enough about you and your works to trust you." Imo, this is what God wants from us; people who will have faith in, and trust, him. Jesus said, "blessed are those who have not seen and yet still believe", (John 20:29).

The early church based its doctrine of God, its concept or picture of what Go dis like in his own nature, largely on certain major schools of Hellenic philosophy, not Scripture.

The early church had been with Jesus for 3 years, been taught by him and seen his miracles and resurrection - so they had seen the Father.

The problem, then, was how to introduce the highly complicated relational machinery of the Trinity into a wholly simple and nonrelational being.

Only if you take the view that there is nothing at all in Scripture about the deity of the Father, the Son and the Spirit and that some future church decided it would be a good idea to create such a doctrine to try to answer any charge of polytheism. The problem with THAT is they must have had to rewrite Scripture as well, otherwise we wouldn't have the verses and passages that we do have.

My view, then, is that we need to go back and rethink our concepts of God's nature and attributes.

Scripture reveals God to us and tells us everything we need to know about him. Scripture says that God is love. We would not know this if God had not shown that love by acting or doing something - and first of all he created the world, then he stepped in to save it when human beings, the pinnacle of his creation, messed it all up. He could have washed his hands of all of us; everything could have died in the flood, or he could have destroyed the earth and started agin with people who did not disobey him. But instead he sent Jesus. The apostle John says that this is the definition of love; that God loved us though we didn't love him, and that Jesus died for sinners, (1 John 3:16; 1 John 4:8-10.)

Jesus, the living Word - foretold in the OT and revealed in the New has revealed God to us.

 

[Strong in Him]

The traditional view, Strong in Him, was that Christ existed eternally.

Yes. Jesus is the eternal Word who was with God the Father, at creation, in the beginning, before he was made flesh, born and lived among us.
That's what Scripture says, which I guess is why it's the traditional view.

 

[ImAllLikeOkWaitWat]

Not sure what scripture you are referring to when you stated, “Bible states that Christ witnessed Satan being 'cast out' of Heaven. Watched him fall like a 'shooting star',” or how this would prove Jesus preexisted. Maybe if you could give me some scripture, and show me your point, because this is very vague.

He is talking about revelation 12:9. However he is wrong about the time frame of where Jesus is. Revelation 12:9 is during the tribulation not before he was born or his resurrection. So understanding that Jesus would be in heaven when this battle takes place it is no clincher at all.

 

[Strong in Him]

Maybe one of the non-Trinitarians could answer a question

He is talking about revelation 12:9.

Yet in Luke 10:18 Jesus tells his disciples, "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven."

 

[Hoghead1]

I don't think we are on the same page when it comes to the classical Christian model of God as he is in his own nature. So let me clarify a bit.




To provide some relevant background, most Christians assume there is only one model of God, one official picture of what God is like in his own nature. At present, that is definitely not true. There are at least two, classical theism and neo-classical theism, also termed process theology. Most Christians the traditional Christian model of God (classical theism) came directly out to the pages of Scripture. Absolutely not true. Let's go way back in history for a moment. The Greeks had a real appetite for metaphysics, for inquiring into what is the basic structure of reality. Is it all mind? Matter? It it changeable? In contrast, metaphysics was of little or no interest to the ancient Hebrews. The Bible, for example, tells us very little of how God is actually built. Is God all immaterial? Material? What? As the church worked its way up into the educated classes of the Greco-Roman world, it had to provide some kind of metaphysical system and level of discussion in order to survive. So the church fathers freely incorporated Hellenic concepts into their description of God. Although there were many different schools of Hellenic philosophy, the Greeks as a whole had real trouble wit the physical world of time, change,relativity, and matter. More than one major school argued that change in any form, most especially movement, was a logical impossibility and therefore dos not exist. Plato was a dominant force here, arguing that the world of time and change is just a big illusion and the major source of all suffering and evil. The truly divine, “the really real,” was a wholly immaterial world of static perfection, totally immutable, wholly simple, wholly detached form the evil world of time and change.



Once these Hellenic notions were incorporated into Christianity, God was defined as void of body, parts, passions, compassion, wholly immutable, omnipotent, without even the shadow of motion, the supreme cause, never the effect. I am listing almost verbatum here the description form the major creeds,s such as the Westminster Confession, and the writings of the major church fathers, such as Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, etc. Granted, they spoke of God's love, but it was a totally cold, unemotional love. Both Anselm and Aquinas insisted that although God might seem to us to be compassionate, he defiantly is not, in his own nature. Since God has no passion (emotion), then he could have no compassion, either. Unlike human love, God's love was totally minus any sympathy or empathy. God could have no emotion, because emotions are changes in bodily state, and God does not have a body and God does not change. Not to suffer is better than to suffer, hence, God as the most perfect being was wholly incapable of suffering, or experiencing any other negative emotion. Suggesting in any way the the Father suffered was ruled out as a major heresy.



In the 20-century, this model began to be seriously questioned. It really didn't seem at all compatible with a God of love at all. At best, it seems to present a picture of God as a Ruthless Moralist, Ruling Caesar, and Unmoved Mover. Also, it seemed incompatible with out modern understanding of realty, the really real,as in a constant state of flux and also relativistic,where entities are not ever solitary, but emerge out of their relationships with others. The Greeks enshrined the values of the immune and the immutable,and this also was in question. Why should it be seen as a weakness that we have needs? Why should God be seen as weak of it or she also has needs? What's wrong with God experiencing genuine pain and suffering? How can anyone other than a suffering God help? If God can't change in any way whatsoever, then saint or sinner, it's all the same to God,who remains blissfully indifferent to the world. But who can put any real faith in an indifferent Deity? If God could be just as happy,whole, and complete without a universe as with one,then why did he bother to create one and how is it to have any real significance I the life of God, when it contributes absolutely nothing to him?



The result was a new model of God in which God and the universe are mutually interrelated. God grows as the world goes. God is the supreme effect as well as cause. My favorite metaphor here is that the universe is the body of God. I can't find any other that does justice to God's radical sensitivity to all things. There is a direct, immediate flow of all creaturely feelings into God, and a direct immediate flow of God's feelings into creatures. Hence, God radically transcends us, as we are total strangers to the empathic responsiveness exhibited by God. Now, there is much more to say here, but I feel I should stop for now. If you have any questions, feel free to ask.