Why the Trinity is a False Doctrine

7xlightray · Jan 15, 2016

cgaviria said:
May I ask what exactly you are trying to say? You are being slightly vague.

I'm sorry, I mean we are complete in him through his death and resurrection.

And he became head of all principality and power when he sat down at the right hand of God. Passages like Ephesians 1:20-21, and Heb. ch. 1 and 2 if you understand that this is speaking of after his resurrection, and the passages the writer of Heb. quotes from is after his resurrection like Psalm 2:7 and 2 Samuel 7:12-16 and Psalm 45 if you understand Jesus is the scepter of righteousness. Scepter refers to a ruler of Israel Genesis 49:10; Numbers 24:17. Jesus is Gods scepter sitting on the LORDs throne.

Also "world" in Heb 1:6 is not speaking of at his birth, but when he enters heaven. In the KJV, four words are translated into “world” oikoumenē, kosmos, aiōn and gē. Hebrews uses three of these words oikoumenē, kosmos, and aiōn. The one used in Heb 1:6 is oikoumenē, and has the meaning of, as an example; the Roman world. And the writer of Heb tells us what he meant by world [oikoumenē] in Heb 2:5 “For He has not put the world [oikoumenē] to come, of which we speak.” He just gave us the definition of what he meant by “world [oikoumenē],” and even says, “the world to come, of which we speak.” When the heavenly kingdom comes down. This is the only two times the writer uses these words in Heb.

Was that what you were referring to?

Harfelugan · Jan 15, 2016

Imagican said:
See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.
These words themselves ought to warn you 'against trinity': 'tradition of men'. For in truth, that is all 'trinity' is: a tradition of men created separately from anything that the apostles ever taught. Men, hundreds of years after the death of Christ created this 'tradition'. And a 'tradition' that more resembles previous pagan religions than anything taught by 'any' prophet, Christ or the apostles.
So who has chosen the 'tradition' of men over the simplicity that is Christ Jesus? Who has chosen to place a label upon Him that He never offered nor did any of His apostles?
MEC

It is obvious that where both positions stand, One or Triune, neither can prove that they aren't speaking from tradition. Both claim to speak from scripture and will never agree on interpretation. Where your position stands it must continue to struggle against the flow or be consumed by the other position. The Triune position doesn't need to struggle because the orthodox position has persisted from the earliest era of Christianity. Above, you quote the usual One position rhetoric that Trinitarians created their tradition separately from anything that the apostles ever taught. Creating this tradition hundreds of years after the death of Christ. What this tells me is that you are ignorant of the development of Christianity in General and espouse statements as truth that you haven't investigated for veracity. Ignorance is bliss, but you shouldn't build ignorance into the foundation of your Oneness defense. Athenagoras, A.D. 177 was the first to defend the doctrine of the Trinity. Also around the end of the second century Theophilus, bishop of Antioch, A church with definite ties to apostolic teaching, wrote a work named "Apology" in defense of the Trinity. This is the first extant text to use the Greek word trias (triad) for the three-persons Godhead. John is said to have written his Gospel in 93 A.D., meaning the trinity was established as a mainstream doctrine as early as 84 years after the last canonical book of the Bible. If you know the timeframe it takes to establish a doctrine you should understand that it preceded the defense of said doctrine. Meaning less than 84 years after the Gospel of John. Close enough that a claim could be made it was apostolic teaching. I'm conjecturing that the apostles taught this doctrine as they interpreted their inspired writings. At least it was highly probable.

As an aside Tatian (110-172), a student of Justin Martyr, wrote Oratio ad Graecos ("Words to the Greeks"). This book denounced Greek Philosophy and mythology. Ante-Nicean Fathers who used Philosophy used it to denounce Greek philosophy. As an apology that their pagan opponents would comprehend, just like we use philosophy, science and other prominent contemporary ideology in our day. This isn't a legitimate attack on Trinitarians but a mistruth that has been repeated so long that some people have come to believe it.

Imagican · Jan 16, 2016

Harfelugan,

While I appreciate you comments, it is you that has chosen a path beyond ignorance in my opinion. For you have attempted to indicate that you believe that 'trinity' existed from the 'beginning' of Christianity.

The Catholic Church, those responsible for the creation and introduction of 'trinity' even openly admit that the word 'trinity' wasn't even 'mentioned' in regards to Christianity until long after the death of Christ. That means that it was impossible for the apostles to teach something that hadn't even been 'dreamed up' yet.

If you choose to go to "New Advent", The Catholic Encyclopedia, you'll find that even the earliest mentions of the word were 'not' about the trinity, but a completely different 'triune nature' of God. It was not a formula involving 'three persons' in one God, but more along the lines of the three characteristics of God. The Son wasn't even a part of it.

It took hundreds of years for this doctrine to become the 'doctrine' that it is today. And even among those that have accepted it today, if you ask 100 different 'trinitarians' what 'trinity' is, you'll get 100 'different' definitions.

Is that really the method that God has shared revelation in 'truth'? Everyone inspired to believe in 'something different'?

And then there is this:

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

I don't know what these words mean to you, but I certainly understand what they mean as offered.

They mean that Godhead is not something that we can 'create' of our own device. That we shouldn't even 'think' upon those lines.

Yet all one needs to do is google 'trinity', (an obvious attempt to define Godhead), and then click 'images', to find hundreds upon hundreds of 'graven images' of 'trinity'. And those that profess to believe in and follow 'trinity' treat it as if it is more valuable than gold or silver. Most 'act' like it's the most important doctrine in Christianity. Yet it's not even mentioned in the Bible.

Formed by men intent upon the use of philosophy and mythology and everything else that went into it's formation. While those in the beginning most likely professed it to be divinely inspired, I can honestly offer that what has been revealed to me is exactly what I offer in utter disagreement with the doctrine. God has 'only' revealed Himself to me as Himself. And the Son of God has never revealed Himself to me to be God. He is the Son of God. Exactly who He stated He was/is two thousand years ago. He is the same today as He was then only possessing more 'glory' upon His resurrection by His Father: God.

And look at what 'trinity' has introduced into Christianity. The Jews, the Arabs, almost every other group of people on the planet consider it to bring 'Polytheism' into Christianity. When God, from the very beginning, revealed Himself to be 'one'. Uncompounded, no 'other' God like Him.

Yet most other gods throughout history have been 'multi part gods'. You know, like three in one or many in one. A 'head god' and then 'all others'.

The Bible tells us that God is 'the' God of Christ. Not once does it offer: "Christ is God". The feeble attempt to use John 1 as evidence of 'trinity' doesn't add up. Too much other scripture plainly points to a different concept than the one 'trinitarians' attempt to use to 'prove trinity'. John 1 does no such thing. No mention of 'three in one' in John 1. No matter how hard one attempts to stretch it, skew it, twist it or bend it, there is 'no trinity' in John 1.

But if you read the 'rest' of John 1, you will find that there are many passages that speak directly in opposition to such a doctrine.

'Trinitarians' try and use "I and the Father are one" as some sort of evidence of 'trinity'. But if you read the Book of John, you'll find that more than once are we offered that Christ's greatest wish is for 'us' to be one with both Him and His Father: God.

So from the 'trinitarian' position of 'one', that would make 'us' God as well. Then that would destroy the idea of 'trinity'. For then there would be millions of persons in 'one God'.

Anyone that tries to attempt to indicate that 'trinity' existed in the 'beginning of Christianity' destroys any sense of credibility in their words. Even those that created the idea and introduced it into Christianity openly admit that it did 'not' exist in the minds or hearts of those 'in the beginning'. It couldn't have. For it took hundreds of years for it to be formed and then 'tweeked out' to it's present state.

Yet what I offer is straight out the Bible. No twisting, no bending, no alteration whatsoever. For I have no desire to 'create a religion'. I am but a simple man with simple understanding. And 'trinity' ain't a part of anything I have found or been offered conviction of through all the years I've been reading God's Word. In fact, upon praying and studying, it has been revealed to me that there is no such thing as 'trinity' except in the minds and hearts of those who have come to believe in it. It certainly doesn't exist in the Bible.

Blessings,

MEC

Wgw · Jan 16, 2016

Imagican said:
Harfelugan,

While I appreciate you comments, it is you that has chosen a path beyond ignorance in my opinion. For you have attempted to indicate that you believe that 'trinity' existed from the 'beginning' of Christianity.

Which it did.

The Catholic Church, those responsible for the creation and introduction of 'trinity'

Not true; this doctrine originated with the Holy Apostles.

even openly admit that the word 'trinity' wasn't even 'mentioned' in regards to Christianity until long after the death of Christ. That means that it was impossible for the apostles to teach something that hadn't even been 'dreamed up' yet.

Once again, @Imagican resorts to an argument from ontology, which is a logical fallacy that proves nothing. By this same unreasonable argument, the Christian faith did not exist until certain Antiochene persons began calling us Christians.

If you choose to go to "New Advent", The Catholic Encyclopedia,

A notoriously obsolete and unreliable encyclopedia which is in no sense a depository of official Roman Catholic doctrine. Vatican.va is their official website.

However, the RCs do not speak with any specific authority on Trinitarian matters; they are one of four ancient churches which believes in this doctrine.

you'll find that even the earliest mentions of the word were 'not' about the trinity, but a completely different 'triune nature' of God. It was not a formula involving 'three persons' in one God, but more along the lines of the three characteristics of God. The Son wasn't even a part of it.

Untrue.

It took hundreds of years for this doctrine to become the 'doctrine' that it is today. And even among those that have accepted it today, if you ask 100 different 'trinitarians' what 'trinity' is, you'll get 100 'different' definitions.

This is something you like to say a great deal, but it is entirely inaccurate. In posting in Controversial Theology, I have encountered precosely two, one of which was posted by a certain member who may be mentally ill, who has problems with reading comprehension, who has not posted recently, and who we should pray for. Everyone else. and there must have been more than a hundred by now, has been on the same page.

Is that really the method that God has shared revelation in 'truth'? Everyone inspired to believe in 'something different'?

Certainly not, which is why we should unite in the Trinitarian faith contained in the Nicene Creed.

I have previously observed how all Trinitarian members in CT, save one, have been on the same page; more than a hundred in total. Their identities can be ascertained by seeing who liked each other's posts on the subject. They all share a common definition of the Trinity, a common doctrine.

On the other hand, every single non-Trinitarian member seems to have their own divergent doctrines. We have Sabellians, Soccinians, Arians, and indeed the Arian members can't agree on a single unified expression or hermeneutic on, for example, the nature of the Holy Spirit. There is no unity.

So according to your own argument, we should reject the non-Trinitarian belief and embrace a faith in the Holy Trinity.

And then there is this:

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

I don't know what these words mean to you, but I certainly understand what they mean as offered.

As do I: they are a rejection of Pagan idolatry.

They mean that Godhead is not something that we can 'create' of our own device. That we shouldn't even 'think' upon those lines.

A good thing we don't.

Yet all one needs to do is google 'trinity', (an obvious attempt to define Godhead), and then click 'images', to find hundreds upon hundreds of 'graven images' of 'trinity'.

I shall first address the error of fact, and then the error of logic:

If you refer to the Orthodox icons sometimes referred to as "the Trinity," these depict three archangels, and are a metaphor. It is forbidden in Orthodox iconography to depict God the Father, and thus icons of the entire Trinity are prohibited.

There are various paintings done which seek to depict the Trinity, by various artists in the West, but these are uncanonical.

Bearing in mind that I am not an iconoclast, let us assume for a moment that iconoclasts are right and icons are idols: if you seek to argue that because an icon of something exists, one should not believe in it, you would be forced to reject belief in our Lord.

Thus your argument fails according to its own terms.

And those that profess to believe in and follow 'trinity' treat it as if it is more valuable than gold or silver.

Gold and silver cannot buy eternal life; they have no intrinsic value.

Most 'act' like it's the most important doctrine in Christianity.

It may very well be the most important doctrine. Certainly it is important enough for cf.com to base its statement of faith on it.

Yet it's not even mentioned in the Bible.

It is, actually; see John 1:1-14, Matthew 28:19, etc.

Formed by men intent upon the use of philosophy and mythology and everything else that went into it's formation.

Not true; St. Athanasius expressly rejects various Pagan philosophers such as Plato and Epicurus in the first chapter of De Incarnatione.

Furthermore, there is no trace of Pagan mythology in it.

While those in the beginning most likely professed it to be divinely inspired, I can honestly offer that what has been revealed to me is exactly what I offer in utter disagreement with the doctrine. God has 'only' revealed Himself to me as Himself. And the Son of God has never revealed Himself to me to be God. He is the Son of God. Exactly who He stated He was/is two thousand years ago. He is the same today as He was then only possessing more 'glory' upon His resurrection by His Father: God.

We can't accept this as evidence, in that we have no way to verify the authenticity of your personal experience.

And look at what 'trinity' has introduced into Christianity. The Jews, the Arabs, almost every other group of people on the planet consider it to bring 'Polytheism' into Christianity.

There are many Arab or Arabic-speaking Christians: the Orthodox of the Jerusalem Patriarchate, the Antiochians, the Melkites, the Maronites, the Copts, the Arab Christians of the Latin Rite, the Chaldeans, many members of my church, etc. Christianity is the second largest religion among Arabic speakers after Islam.

However, if your argument is that the Trinity is to be rejected because Jews and Muslims reject it, or people of other faiths erroneously regard it as polytheistic, I woild counter that the degree to which Christians are persecuted by the Islamic State, Al Qaeda, various Hindu nationalists in India, and other non-Christians, for a belief in the unique deity of the Trinity, is a compelling reason to accept it as the True Faith.

When God, from the very beginning, revealed Himself to be 'one'. Uncompounded, no 'other' God like Him.

Which is what Trinitarians believe. We believe God to be simple, uncompounded and singular in essence.

Yet most other gods throughout history have been 'multi part gods'. You know, like three in one or many in one. A 'head god' and then 'all others'.

This is neither true nor relevant. In fact, the only belief system remotely like the Trinity is the Trimurti system of Hinduism, one of several alternate interpretations, which was adopted many centuries after the Nicene Creed became the creed of the St. Thomas Christians in India. I believe the Brahmins borrowed the concept in order to attempt to consolidate and wield influence over Vaishnavism and Shivaism; in which they were unsuccessful.

The Bible tells us that God is 'the' God of Christ. Not once does it offer: "Christ is God". The feeble attempt to use John 1 as evidence of 'trinity' doesn't add up.

It does, actually. Although we have numerous other proof texts.

Too much other scripture plainly points to a different concept than the one 'trinitarians' attempt to use to 'prove trinity'. John 1 does no such thing. No mention of 'three in one' in John 1. No matter how hard one attempts to stretch it, skew it, twist it or bend it, there is 'no trinity' in John 1.

What John 1:1-14 refers to is the Incarnation of our Lord. The divinityof the Holy Spirit is attested to elsewhere.

But if you read the 'rest' of John 1, you will find that there are many passages that speak directly in opposition to such a doctrine.

Not true.

'Trinitarians' try and use "I and the Father are one" as some sort of evidence of 'trinity'. But if you read the Book of John, you'll find that more than once are we offered that Christ's greatest wish is for 'us' to be one with both Him and His Father: God.

This is the very premise of Christian salvation. By making ourselves living icons of the Holy Trinity, we unite ourselves with God according to energy. Our Lord however is united with God according to essence; he is God (John 1:1).

So from the 'trinitarian' position of 'one', that would make 'us' God as well.

That is correct; by grace and according to energy, rather than by nature according to essence. St. Athanasius himself wrote "God became man so that man might become god."

Then that would destroy the idea of 'trinity'. For then there would be millions of persons in 'one God'.

No, it would not, in that we do not become God according to essence. Here you conflate theosis with apotheosis.

Anyone that tries to attempt to indicate that 'trinity' existed in the 'beginning of Christianity' destroys any sense of credibility in their words.

No, rather, the reverse is true; anyone who rejects this is either misinformed or is trying to score points against the apostolic faith.

Even those that created the idea and introduced it into Christianity openly admit that it did 'not' exist in the minds or hearts of those 'in the beginning'. It couldn't have. For it took hundreds of years for it to be formed and then 'tweeked out' to it's present state.

This is not even remotely true; the fury against Arius at Nicea, we see, for example, in St. Nicholas of Myra, stemmed from the idea that he was seeking to alter or destroy the ancient faith.

Yet what I offer is straight out the Bible. No twisting, no bending, no alteration whatsoever.

I could accept this statement, if your posts, like this one, consisted purely of scripture; as it happens, they consist primarily of your interpretations of Scripture blended with various historically incorrect or logically fallacious remarks about ecclesiastical history, and accounts of your own personal religious experiences.

For I have no desire to 'create a religion'.

Good.

I am but a simple man with simple understanding. And 'trinity' ain't a part of anything I have found or been offered conviction of through all the years I've been reading God's Word.

This is an appeal to ignorance, along with somewhat disagreeable rhetorical flourishes (please do not subject us to "ain't" or other examples of low vernacular, which are beneath you and entirely inappropriate in a serious theological discussions).

In fact, upon praying and studying, it has been revealed to me that there is no such thing as 'trinity' except in the minds and hearts of those who have come to believe in it.

More private revelation.

It certainly doesn't exist in the Bible.

It does; seek and you will find.

Imagican · Jan 16, 2016

redleghunter said:
There is much difference with the use of 'divine' and 'full' 'filling' 'filled' in the Greek compared to full Deity and dwell.

A breakdown. When the disciples were referred to as filled with, full of the Holy Spirit these are the words used:

plērēs: πλήρης plḗrēs, play'-race; from G4130; replete, or covered over; by analogy, complete:—full.

As in Acts chapter 6:3:

Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full G4134 of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.

So we have above and in many places in the OT and NT the Holy Spirit or Spirit of God upon, being filled with, but nothing compares to the following.

Compare Colossians chapter 2:9

For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form,

Deity: theotēs: the state of being God, Godhead

This is the only use of 'theotes' in the NT Greek Lexicon. Nowhere else do we see it used to clearly denote the Deity bodily dwelling in Christ Jesus. No other instance of someone being filled with the Spirit of God or Holy Spirit uses this distinct use of 'theotes.' Some come close but all refer to the Divine Nature of God.

As noted by Synonyms of the New Testament :: Richard C. Trench:

But in the second passage (Col. 2:9) St. Paul is declaring that in the Son there dwells all the fulness of absolute Godhead; they were no mere rays of divine glory which gilded Him, lighting up his person for a season and with a splendour not his own; but He was, and is, absolute and perfect God; and the Apostle uses θεότης to express this essential and personal Godhead of the Son; (https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/trench/section.cfm?sectionID=2)

The following is by permission of Dr. Gary Butner ThD.

The Kenosis of Jesus Christ
by Gary Butner, Th.D.

The Kenosis of Jesus Christ: Does Philippians 2:5-8 State Christ Emptied Himself of His Deity?
“Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.”Phil 2:5-8 NASB1995

What happened in the Incarnation of Christ? Did He empty Himself of deity and become a mere man who was previously God, man minus God, a man-God? Did He continue as both fully God and fully man, a God-man?
There are two basic views Bible scholars have of the Philippians passage. The first is the Kenotic Theory, and states that Christ emptied Himself of the relative attributes of Omnipotence[1], Omniscience[2], and Omnipresence[3], which only deity possesses. This view clearly denies the Biblical doctrine of the Immutability[4] of Christ as found in Hebrews 13:8.[5]
The Kenotic Theory was first scientifically formulated by Thomasius in Germany, [6](1860 to 1880) and later by theologians in England (1890 to 1910). Prior to that no recognized teacher in the first 1,800 years of church history, including those who were native speakers of Greek, thought that "emptied himself" in Philippians 2:7 meant the Son of God gave up some of his divine attributes.

The Philippians passage does not say that Christ "emptied himself of some powers" or "emptied himself of divine attributes" or anything like that. The words “of His deity” simply are not in the passage. The Kenotic Theory is based on an assumption regarding what “emptied” means and references, not upon what the Bible actually says.
Regarding verse 7, the UBS Handbook Series states, “The verb "to empty" has given rise to the so-called "kenotic" theory of incarnation. Undue theological exploitations have cast a heavy shadow on its meaning. It should be said at the outset that the verb must be understood metaphorically, not metaphysically. It says nothing about Christ stripping himself of his divine attributes as has sometimes been suggested.”
AND
”The verb ‘to empty’ is used elsewhere in the Pauline Epistles four times (Rom 4:14; 1 Cor. l:17; 9:15; 9:3), and in each instance it is used metaphorically in the sense of ‘to bring to nothing,’ ‘to make worthless,’ or ‘to empty of significance.’ (from the UBS Handbook Series. Copyright (c) 1961-1997, by United Bible Societies)
The second view is known as the Hypostatic Union, and states Christ continued in the Incarnation as fully God and became fully man.

The Hypostatic Union is and has been the orthodox view received by Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestant New Testament scholars throughout the ages, and later by those in the Restoration Movement. This is confirmed in the creeds and writings of the early church fathers. While the churches of Christ and Christian Churches do not accept human creeds as having the authority of Scripture, the majority of Restoration scholars do accept the creedal statements as faithfully reflecting the Bible. See Creeds

In contrast to the Kenotic view, the Bible clearly teaches that Jesus most certainly claimed to be God while on earth. (cf. John 3:13; 5:18; 10:33; 17:5). “I tell you the truth,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!” John 8:58 Here Jesus declared Himself to be Yahweh, i.e., the God of the Old Testament. I AM, is one of the names of God, and also states Christ is present in eternity outside of time. It was recognized by the Jews as a title of deity (see Ex. 3:14; cf. Isa. 44:6; 47:8). The high priest's reaction to Jesus' use of the title, in Mark 14:61-63, suggests that he considered Jesus' utterance of it as being a blasphemous claim to deity.

Explicit statements of the NT indicate that Jesus retained his divine nature and attributes (Matt.1:23; 11:27; Mark 1:1; John 3:13 AV; 14:9; Rom. 1:4). Examples of Jesus manifesting divine attributes include: omniscience (John 4:16-19; 2:24,25; 6:64; Luke 5:4-6), omnipresence (Matt. 18:20; 28:20; John 3:13), and omnipotence (Luke 4:39; 8:54-55; Matt. 8:26,27).

"To say that Jesus surrendered even one divine attribute is to say that Jesus is less than God, and therefore not God at all! See, if God is deprived of even one attribute, then He is not fully deity. Of course, references to His deity abound in Scripture (John 1:1; 20:28; Rom. 9:5; Col. 2:9; Tit. 2:13; Heb. 1:8). And by the way, this is not only affirmed by the Bible, it's clearly affirmed by the creeds." Hank Hannagraf, CRI Perspective CP1207

Critical to a correct understanding of the kenosis passage is a proper exegesis of verse 6. “Who, although being essentially one with God and in the form of God [possessing the fullness of the attributes which make God God], did not think this equality with God was a thing to be eagerly grasped or retained,” The Amplified Bible

The Greek has two words for form, morphē and schēma. Paul connects the stronger morphē with theou (God) in verse 6. Morphē is the essential form, which never alters; schēma is the outward form which changes. Some versions translate schēma as fashion. The essential morphē of a human being is humanity and this never changes; but his schēma is continually changing. A baby, a child, a boy, a youth, a man of middle age, an old man always have the morphē of humanity, but the outward schēma changes all the time.[7] The essential morphē of Christ’s deity never changed. Likewise, Hebrews 13:8 (NIV) states, “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.” These confirm the doctrine of the immutability of God, and makes a literal emptying inconceivable.

The schēma of Jesus’ humanity did change starting at the Incarnation, at His birth, later as He grew physically, at the crucifixion, and finally when he received His glorified body at the resurrection.

One cannot be 25%, 50%, or even 99.9% God. To be anything less than all that God has declared Himself to be, is to not be God. In John 5:18, “Jesus said to them, ‘My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I, too, am working.” For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.” NIV The Greek word for “equal” defines things that are exactly the same in size, quantity, quality, character, and number. (Bauer’s lexicon) In every sense, Jesus is equal to God and constantly claimed to be so during His earthly ministry (cf. John 5:18; 10:33, 38; 14:9; 20:28; Heb. 1:1–3).

The text does describe what Jesus did in this "emptying": he did not do it by divesting himself of any of his attributes but rather by " taking the very form (morphē) of a servant," that is, coming to live as a man, and "being found in human form (schēma), he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross (Phil. 2:8). Thus, the context itself interprets this "emptying" as equivalent to "humbling himself" and taking on a lowly status and position. Thus, the NIV, instead of translating the phrase, “He emptied himself," translates it, "but made himself nothing" (Phil. 2:7 NIV). The emptying includes change of role and status, not essential attributes or nature.

Rather than asserting the right to enjoy a glorious visage (i.e., as in the transfiguration), Jesus rather knew that the objective of the Father called for his humbling. And that, indeed, for us to be able to interact with him, the humbling would be needed. It was for US that Jesus took on this schēma.

Obviously, a man who was God (man-God), and one who is both fully God and fully man (God-man) at the same time are two different beings. Furthermore, the Kenotic Jesus does not speak with the same authority to his followers as the Christ of the Bible. One is fallible and voices his ideas and opinion, whereas the Christ of the Bible speaks to His followers with absolute certainty. (by permission of Dr. Gary Butner evidenceforjesuschrist.org)

All this 'sounds good' I guess. If you insist upon trying to convince yourself of Jesus being God.

But Christ openly stated that what He possessed was 'given Him' by God, His Father. He doesn't once offer that He 'is' God. In fact, if we take the words of the Bible as they are offered, it is perfectly clear that the Father 'is' God. No doubt, no controversy, no other understanding. The Father 'is' God.

So when Christ states that the Father is 'greater' than the Son, it is real simple to clearly see that Christ is offering that The Father is 'God' and being God, is 'greater than the Son'.

And how about this: The Father and Son now 'sit' together. But the Son sits at the 'right hand' of God. And not a single mention of the Holy Spirit sitting at the other 'hand' of God. Only mentioned are the Son sitting at the 'right hand' of the Father: God.

So without any further need of discussion is the 'fact' that the Father 'is' God. God 'is' the Father. Impossible to even debate that issue. So the terms Father and God, God and Father are interchangeable. Anytime the term Father is used, anytime the term God is used, we 'know' without any doubt that these are the 'same'.

And we 'know' that the Son is 'not' the Father. That plainly illustrates that the Son is 'not' God.

I find it amusing that so many seem to insist upon denial when it comes to the 'truth'. The world in and of itself is opposed to the 'truth'. Why do you suppose that the word "Son" is used in reference to Christ? And all indications are that since He was 'begotten', He was the Son of God.

That means that the Son was present 'in the beginning' when God said, "Let us create man in our image". That means He was also the Son when Mary gave birth to her child. He was the Son at that time as well.

And He remains the Son to this day and always. Jesus will always be the Son of God. For at this present time, the Son sits at the 'right hand' of the Father: God.

And how deceptive would the Bible be to offer this? The Son sitting at the 'right hand' of the Father: God. If the Son were indeed God, how deceptive to 'state' that the Son now sits at the 'right hand of God'?

And the term 'begotten'. Show us where the Bible offers a 'different' definition of 'begotten' in regards to the Son. Show us where the Bible offers a different definition.

Begotten means the same in every reference to it in the Bible. No 'alternate' definition offered in the Bible. Only in the words of men intent upon trying to defend an idea 'imagined' by themselves does there exist a different definition of 'begotten'. The Bible does 'not' offer any such concept as 'eternally begotten'. The Son was 'begotten once' and only once. That is His distinction: The 'only' Begotten Son of God. All other sons were born of flesh. The "only begotten Son of God" was obviously begotten in 'Spirit'. The exact nature of the 'creation' of the Son isn't offered to us. But we 'are' informed that He was 'indeed': "Begotten". That means that without any doubt to those that accept the word as offered, there was a 'time' before the Son's existence. In order to 'be begotten', there must be a time before being 'begotten'. "Eternal generation", 'eternally begotten'? Not in the Bible. Merely a figment of the imagination of those that 'made up' these terms or phrases. An attempt to make 'trinity' fit into their imagination. For is Christ was 'created' or 'formed' or 'born' or 'begotten', then 'trinity' is destroyed. And Christ Himself defines Himself as: 'the beginning of the creation of God'. That means that some time 'in the beginning' of creation, Christ was 'first formed': begotten.

At least that's what the Bible says. I'm not really interested in the 'teachings of men'. For I am certain that there is not a single 'man' on the planet that is able to bring about 'my' Salvation.

Blessings,

MEC

Imagican · Jan 16, 2016

redleghunter said:
What was the nature of Jesus Christ before the Resurrection if not the fullness of the Godhead bodily was present?

It's not a matter of the terminology offered in the Bible. I simply do not accept 'your' interpretation of it.

All the fullness of the Godhead 'bodily' does not force me to believe it means that Jesus is God. God is able to 'fill' whatever He chooses with His Spirit. If He chose to, He could fill you or I with all the fullness of the Godhead 'bodily'. That wouldn't make you or I God.

Christ said that those that had 'seen' Him had 'seen' the Father. But we KNOW that Jesus is 'not' the Father. 'Trinity' doesn't even teach that the Son is the Father.

So it obviously means something different than many interpret it to mean.

It is my belief that Christ was referencing the 'power' and the 'truth'. What Christ offered in power, (ability to heal, walk on water, cast out demons, turn a few loaves and few fishes into enough to feed thousands, raise the dead), and the 'truth' of the words He offered, it was 'these things' that represented His Father. And those that witnessed these 'miracles' in a symbolic manner, witnessed the 'source' of the power. The 'source' of the 'truth'. Christ represented the Father to the extent that He was able to state: "Those that have witnessed the power given 'me' has witnessed the 'source' of the power". For we 'know' that the Son is 'not' the Father. No one has ever seen the Father at any time. The Only Begotten Son has declared Him.

God is 'not' three persons. God is God. Plain and simple. So simple a child can understand it. But try 'trinity' on a child and see what kind of understanding they come away with. No more than those that try and teach the child.

For there is no understanding in a 'mystery' other than the understanding that a 'mystery exists'.

Blessings,

MEC

Imagican · Jan 16, 2016

Jesus Christ has been the Son of God since begotten. He was the Son of God while instrumental in creation and He was the Son of God born in the flesh and He is the Son of God presently sitting at the 'right hand of God'.

Blessings,

MEC

Imagican · Jan 16, 2016

nomadictheist said:
Perhaps others have already mentioned this, but you seem to be omitting some major sources when it comes to the trinity doctrine:

1. We see all three of the persons of the triune God present at the baptism of Jesus:
And when Jesus was baptized, immediately he went up from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest on him;17 and behold, a voice from heaven said, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.” (Matthew 3:16-17)
This account can also be found in Mark chapter 1 and Luke chapter 3, with the same wording for the Holy Spirit descending on Jesus and the voice from heaven declaring Jesus to be the Son.

Not a single person has argued against Christ being God's Son.

2. Jesus claims equality with God:
Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.”9 Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?" (John 14:8-9 emphasis my own)
So the Jews said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?”58 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” (John 8:57-58) (Note that when Jesus says "I am," He is specifically using the Jewish word that we translate "Yahweh," or the name given to Moses by God)

I am is not the same as "I Am". In this you err. So Christ is not giving the 'same name'. You attempt to deceive in a manner that the interpreters wouldn't even attempt. The "I am" that Christ used was 'not' a proper noun. It was a statement as in "I existed before Abraham". I find it amusing that you would even attempt to state that He was using the 'same name' as God. Nice try though.

And once again, 'trinity' doesn't even teach that the Father and Son are the 'same'. So the concept that those that had 'seen Christ' had 'seen the Father' obviously means something different than those witnesses 'literally' seeing the Father.

3. The Holy Spirit is a He, and was bestowed in the early church by the laying on of hands by the apostles:
Now when the apostles who were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them, 15 who, when they had come down, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit. 16 For as yet He had fallen upon none of them. They had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then they laid hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit. (Acts 8: 14-17)

4. The Holy Spirit is singular, is a person, and is not Jesus:
And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you. (John 14:16-17, emphasis my own)

You cannot say with any more authority than anyone else exactly what the 'nature' of the "Holy Spirit" is. You are simply guessing. Using a masculine pronoun does not make something what you say it does. I can call a 'ship' a 'she' but that doesn't mean it actually possess the attributes of a 'female' animal or plant.

I'll tell you what, since you seem to believe you have 'magical powers' to see things as they truly are: Explain to us what a 'Spirit' is. Tell us what you 'know' of 'spirit'. What it 'looks' like, what it feels like, what it is in it's very essence.

See, you are not gifted with 'magical powers'. You are 'just a man' like the rest of us. So your attempt to label the Holy Spirit as a 'person' only exists through what 'other men' have told you to believe. Nothing in the Bible offers that the Holy Spirit is a 'man' or 'person' or anything of the sort. It's also referred to as 'the Comforter'. But you certainly would refer to it as a 'blanket' now would you? Why not? If 'he' means a 'person', then why not a Comforter a quilt?

Let me ask this: Is God a 'person'? How about 'three persons'?

Blessings,

MEC

Imagican · Jan 16, 2016

Wgw,

You continually refute everything I offer concerning the history of 'trinity'. But only a refutation. Never once have you offered any sort of 'proof' of your refutation. Just your own words denying what I have offered.

Concerning the 'first' use 'ever' recorded concerning the word 'trinity'. I say that the word in reference to 'Christianity' was 'never' recorded until well over a hundred years after the death of Christ. Not a 'single apostles' ever mentioned the word.

And the first usage was in reference to three distinct characteristics of God. Nothing about the Son or the Holy Spirit.

If you have some other evidence to offer, by all means, present it. But simply refuting what others offer without anything to back it up other than your own words, exactly where does 'your history' come from?

Unless you have evidence contrary to what I have stated, it is obvious that you are offering nothing but your own words.

So, I challenge you: Not to simply refute what I offer, but to show evidence of the first recorded use of the term 'trinity'.

Blessings,

MEC

nomadictheist · Jan 16, 2016

Imagican said:
You cannot say with any more authority than anyone else exactly what the 'nature' of the "Holy Spirit" is. You are simply guessing. Using a masculine pronoun does not make something what you say it does. I can call a 'ship' a 'she' but that doesn't mean it actually possess the attributes of a 'female' animal or plant.

I'll tell you what, since you seem to believe you have 'magical powers' to see things as they truly are: Explain to us what a 'Spirit' is. Tell us what you 'know' of 'spirit'. What it 'looks' like, what it feels like, what it is in it's very essence.

See, you are not gifted with 'magical powers'. You are 'just a man' like the rest of us. So your attempt to label the Holy Spirit as a 'person' only exists through what 'other men' have told you to believe. Nothing in the Bible offers that the Holy Spirit is a 'man' or 'person' or anything of the sort. It's also referred to as 'the Comforter'. But you certainly would refer to it as a 'blanket' now would you? Why not? If 'he' means a 'person', then why not a Comforter a quilt?

Let me ask this: Is God a 'person'? How about 'three persons'?

Blessings,

MEC

Because you put your initial comments inside my quote, they don't show here. But here's the problem:

Jesus was speaking in Hebrew/Aramaic. John was writing in Greek. Therefore, we don't have the exact words of Jesus, save the Greek translation of them which would look like "ego eimi" in our letters. This is the same translation that the Septuagint started God's statement "I Am that I Am" (Exodus 3:14) with. It is interesting, if not telling, that the Septuagint translates the Hebrew "Hayah Hayah" (transliterated into English characters since I don't have a Hebrew alphabet) into "ego eimi ho on" (I am the one who is). This is, as many scholars have said, not a literal translation of the Hebrew into Greek. It then goes on to translate the "Hayah" (some scholars transliterate this word ehyeh into English) that follows in Exodus 3:14b as "Ho on" (the one that is). However, this is an interpretational translation of the Hebrew.

Scholars who reason along your lines attempt to say that because Jesus did not say "Ho on," the Septuagint translation used in the second part of Exodus 3:14, He was not, in fact, using the name by which God told Moses to announce Him to the Jewish people. Here are the problems with that argument:

1. As stated before, Jesus would have been speaking Aramaic or Hebrew - most likely Hebrew, as that was still the sacred language of the time. Therefore, He didn't actually speak the Greek words "ego eimi." This was how John wrote them.

2. The Septuagint was first translated in the third century A.D., which means that John would not have been familiar with the the Septuagint's rendering of Exodus 3:14. He would have used the Greek words that most closely fit the Hebrew with which he was familiar.

But even agreeing that we cannot know for sure what He said, this doesn't change the rest.

For example, the references to Jesus as God, already shown in John 1.

Now for the rest.

You deliberately try to confuse the argument by attempting to imply that the reference to God as existing in three "persons" is a reference to God existing as three human persons. It is not. In this case, the word, as it always has, refers to a being with distinct personality. The reference is not, as you try to imply, an attempt to claim that we understand the fullness of God and His existence as Spirit. Rather, it is a way to put into human terms a concept that is beyond the grasp of our understanding.

When I say the Holy Spirit is a He, not an it, it is because that is how Jesus refers to Him. I am not saying that He walks around on earth with male genitals, I am simply attributing to Him the personal pronoun by which Jesus called Him.

But in addition to Jesus calling the Holy Spirit by a personal pronoun, there are other scriptural evidences of His distinct "personality."

1. He can be grieved (Ephesians 4)
2. He intercedes on our behalf before God (Romans 8)
3. He teaches us what we ought to say (Luke 12)
4. He can be lied to (Acts 5)
5. He comforts (John 14)
6. He convicts (John 16)
7. He testifies (John 15)

There are others, but the point is that Jesus' use of a personal pronoun to refer to the Holy Spirit is not a case of personification, as your calling a ship "she" is.

Wgw · Jan 16, 2016

Imagican said:
Wgw,

You continually refute everything I offer concerning the history of 'trinity'. But only a refutation. Never once have you offered any sort of 'proof' of your refutation. Just your own words denying what I have offered.

The word "refute" does not mean what you think it does; to refute is to disprove, which I believe I have done.

Concerning the 'first' use 'ever' recorded concerning the word 'trinity'. I say that the word in reference to 'Christianity' was 'never' recorded until well over a hundred years after the death of Christ. Not a 'single apostles' ever mentioned the word.

And the first usage was in reference to three distinct characteristics of God. Nothing about the Son or the Holy Spirit.

If you have some other evidence to offer, by all means, present it. But simply refuting what others offer without anything to back it up other than your own words, exactly where does 'your history' come from?

Unless you have evidence contrary to what I have stated, it is obvious that you are offering nothing but your own words.

So, I challenge you: Not to simply refute what I offer, but to show evidence of the first recorded use of the term 'trinity'.

Blessings,

MEC

Once again, you employ a fallacious argument from ontology. The history of the word "trinity," which was first used, so far as we know, in the Latin form "trinitas," by Tertullian, is not relevant. The word does not matter; what matters is the doctrine it refers to: the unity and deity of God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19).

Imagican said:
Jesus Christ has been the Son of God since begotten. He was the Son of God while instrumental in creation and He was the Son of God born in the flesh and He is the Son of God presently sitting at the 'right hand of God'.

Blessings,

MEC

Trinitarians do not disagree, in general, with the above statement. Perhaps I might suggest you take the time to inform yourself on what we in fact believe, rather than attacking a strawman of our faith.

Wgw · Jan 16, 2016

Imagican said:
All this 'sounds good' I guess. If you insist upon trying to convince yourself of Jesus being God.

But Christ openly stated that what He possessed was 'given Him' by God, His Father. He doesn't once offer that He 'is' God. In fact, if we take the words of the Bible as they are offered, it is perfectly clear that the Father 'is' God. No doubt, no controversy, no other understanding. The Father 'is' God.

Not true; our Lord repeatedly declares His divinity in various passages we have been over.

So when Christ states that the Father is 'greater' than the Son, it is real simple to clearly see that Christ is offering that The Father is 'God' and being God, is 'greater than the Son'.

No, rather, this refers to the Father being greater owing to paternity.

And how about this: The Father and Son now 'sit' together. But the Son sits at the 'right hand' of God. And not a single mention of the Holy Spirit sitting at the other 'hand' of God. Only mentioned are the Son sitting at the 'right hand' of the Father: God.

Irrelevant; we know of the deity of the Holy Spirit from other texts.

So without any further need of discussion is the 'fact' that the Father 'is' God. God 'is' the Father.

Once again, you use the word "fact" very loosely, so loosely that in this case it refers to something one cannot logically belief if one accepts the canonical New Testament as offered.

Impossible to even debate that issue.

I seem able to debate it just fine, thank you; indeed I have consistently prevailed in these debates since September, and I expect I shall continue to do so for as long as it remains of interest.

So the terms Father and God, God and Father are interchangeable.

They are interchangeable to the extent Jesus Christ or the Holy Spirit are interchangeable with the word God.

Anytime the term Father is used, anytime the term God is used, we 'know' without any doubt that these are the 'same'.

And we 'know' that the Son is 'not' the Father. That plainly illustrates that the Son is 'not' God.

Both the Father and the Son are God. They are distinct prosopa, but are coessential; of one essence. The Father is God, rhe Son is God, but the Father is not the Son.

I find it amusing that so many seem to insist upon denial when it comes to the 'truth'. The world in and of itself is opposed to the 'truth'.

Indeed, which is why I find your earlier objection to the Trinity based on Jewish and Islamic objections to it so fundamentally wrong.

Why do you suppose that the word "Son" is used in reference to Christ? And all indications are that since He was 'begotten', He was the Son of God.

He was and is always the Son, begotten, not made, before all ages.

That means that the Son was present 'in the beginning' when God said, "Let us create man in our image". That means He was also the Son when Mary gave birth to her child. He was the Son at that time as well.

And He remains the Son to this day and always. Jesus will always be the Son of God. For at this present time, the Son sits at the 'right hand' of the Father: God.

The Son is also God.

And how deceptive would the Bible be to offer this?

I don't know; have you tried asking it? "Good morning, Mr. Bible, how deceptive are you feeling, today?" I joke of course, but I find your anthropomorphic reference to sacred Scripture most amusing; in general, I have not encountered intentional deception from inanimate objects.

The Son sitting at the 'right hand' of the Father: God. If the Son were indeed God, how deceptive to 'state' that the Son now sits at the 'right hand of God'?

Not any more "deceptive" than stating an omnipresent deity can be sat next to. It is not deception; it is the interpretation of a spiritual experience by St. Stephen the Protomartyr and others.

And the term 'begotten'. Show us where the Bible offers a 'different' definition of 'begotten' in regards to the Son. Show us where the Bible offers a different definition.

You are the one attempting to claim our Lord was created, in opposition to the idea of His generation.

Begotten means the same in every reference to it in the Bible. No 'alternate' definition offered in the Bible. Only in the words of men intent upon trying to defend an idea 'imagined' by themselves does there exist a different definition of 'begotten'.

I agree. It is impossible to say that which has been begotten, using a Biblical definition of the term, has also been created by its begetter.

The Bible does 'not' offer any such concept as 'eternally begotten'. The Son was 'begotten once' and only once. That is His distinction: The 'only' Begotten Son of God. All other sons were born of flesh. The "only begotten Son of God" was obviously begotten in 'Spirit'. The exact nature of the 'creation' of the Son isn't offered to us.

It is not offered to us in any sense; John 1:3 precludes our Lord being a creature; the phrase "Firstborn of all creation" implies Lordship over the created cosmos as opposed to being a creatuee per se.

But we 'are' informed that He was 'indeed': "Begotten". That means that without any doubt to those that accept the word as offered, there was a 'time' before the Son's existence.

No, because this contradicts John 1:3; time is a "thing" and therefore our Lord created it.

In order to 'be begotten', there must be a time before being 'begotten'. "Eternal generation", 'eternally begotten'? Not in the Bible. Merely a figment of the imagination of those that 'made up' these terms or phrases. An attempt to make 'trinity' fit into their imagination. For is Christ was 'created' or 'formed' or 'born' or 'begotten', then 'trinity' is destroyed. And Christ Himself defines Himself as: 'the beginning of the creation of God'. That means that some time 'in the beginning' of creation, Christ was 'first formed': begotten.

Herein, you demonstrate the risks of anthropomoprhology, and fall back on special pleading, which is also a logical fallacy. For previously you had admitted, presumably owing to His lack of a divine mother (St. Mary, the Theotokos, bore Him, but He was not conceived before Genesis 1:1 in her human womb), that His generation was "not offered to us," implying an admission of ots extraordinary nature. Herein, however, you propose that this generation must follow the same temporal constraints as a human conception, which it obviously does not.

At least that's what the Bible says. I'm not really interested in the 'teachings of men'. For I am certain that there is not a single 'man' on the planet that is able to bring about 'my' Salvation.

Why not, in that case, believe in John 1:1-14 literally, admit the deity of our Lord, and reject the false doctrines of Arius?

Dkh587 · Jan 16, 2016

Imagican said:
Wgw,

You continually refute everything I offer concerning the history of 'trinity'. But only a refutation. Never once have you offered any sort of 'proof' of your refutation. Just your own words denying what I have offered.

Concerning the 'first' use 'ever' recorded concerning the word 'trinity'. I say that the word in reference to 'Christianity' was 'never' recorded until well over a hundred years after the death of Christ. Not a 'single apostles' ever mentioned the word.

And the first usage was in reference to three distinct characteristics of God. Nothing about the Son or the Holy Spirit.

If you have some other evidence to offer, by all means, present it. But simply refuting what others offer without anything to back it up other than your own words, exactly where does 'your history' come from?

Unless you have evidence contrary to what I have stated, it is obvious that you are offering nothing but your own words.

So, I challenge you: Not to simply refute what I offer, but to show evidence of the first recorded use of the term 'trinity'.

Blessings,

MEC

That poster is steeped deeply in man-made doctrine. There's no point in debating with that poster because he/she will only spout off what the Catholic church teaches even when it's clearly in contradiction to the Scriptures

Wgw · Jan 16, 2016

Dkh587 said:
That poster is steeped deeply in man-made doctrine.
There's no point in debating with that poster because he/she will only spout off what the Catholic church teaches even when it's clearly in contradiction to the Scriptures

"That poster" is not Roman Catholic and never has been.

redleghunter · Jan 16, 2016

Imagican said:
All this 'sounds good' I guess. If you insist upon trying to convince yourself of Jesus being God.

But Christ openly stated that what He possessed was 'given Him' by God, His Father. He doesn't once offer that He 'is' God. In fact, if we take the words of the Bible as they are offered, it is perfectly clear that the Father 'is' God. No doubt, no controversy, no other understanding. The Father 'is' God.

So when Christ states that the Father is 'greater' than the Son, it is real simple to clearly see that Christ is offering that The Father is 'God' and being God, is 'greater than the Son'.

And how about this: The Father and Son now 'sit' together. But the Son sits at the 'right hand' of God. And not a single mention of the Holy Spirit sitting at the other 'hand' of God. Only mentioned are the Son sitting at the 'right hand' of the Father: God.

So without any further need of discussion is the 'fact' that the Father 'is' God. God 'is' the Father. Impossible to even debate that issue. So the terms Father and God, God and Father are interchangeable. Anytime the term Father is used, anytime the term God is used, we 'know' without any doubt that these are the 'same'.

And we 'know' that the Son is 'not' the Father. That plainly illustrates that the Son is 'not' God.

I find it amusing that so many seem to insist upon denial when it comes to the 'truth'. The world in and of itself is opposed to the 'truth'. Why do you suppose that the word "Son" is used in reference to Christ? And all indications are that since He was 'begotten', He was the Son of God.

That means that the Son was present 'in the beginning' when God said, "Let us create man in our image". That means He was also the Son when Mary gave birth to her child. He was the Son at that time as well.

And He remains the Son to this day and always. Jesus will always be the Son of God. For at this present time, the Son sits at the 'right hand' of the Father: God.

And how deceptive would the Bible be to offer this? The Son sitting at the 'right hand' of the Father: God. If the Son were indeed God, how deceptive to 'state' that the Son now sits at the 'right hand of God'?

And the term 'begotten'. Show us where the Bible offers a 'different' definition of 'begotten' in regards to the Son. Show us where the Bible offers a different definition.

Begotten means the same in every reference to it in the Bible. No 'alternate' definition offered in the Bible. Only in the words of men intent upon trying to defend an idea 'imagined' by themselves does there exist a different definition of 'begotten'. The Bible does 'not' offer any such concept as 'eternally begotten'. The Son was 'begotten once' and only once. That is His distinction: The 'only' Begotten Son of God. All other sons were born of flesh. The "only begotten Son of God" was obviously begotten in 'Spirit'. The exact nature of the 'creation' of the Son isn't offered to us. But we 'are' informed that He was 'indeed': "Begotten". That means that without any doubt to those that accept the word as offered, there was a 'time' before the Son's existence. In order to 'be begotten', there must be a time before being 'begotten'. "Eternal generation", 'eternally begotten'? Not in the Bible. Merely a figment of the imagination of those that 'made up' these terms or phrases. An attempt to make 'trinity' fit into their imagination. For is Christ was 'created' or 'formed' or 'born' or 'begotten', then 'trinity' is destroyed. And Christ Himself defines Himself as: 'the beginning of the creation of God'. That means that some time 'in the beginning' of creation, Christ was 'first formed': begotten.

At least that's what the Bible says. I'm not really interested in the 'teachings of men'. For I am certain that there is not a single 'man' on the planet that is able to bring about 'my' Salvation.

Blessings,

MEC

I believe you overlooked the information I provided that Jesus Christ is both Son of God and Son of man.

We will see attributes of both in Holy Scriptures for a very clear reason. One cannot be taken without the other.

If Jesus Christ is not fully God and fully man, then using Scriptures you can only come to another conclusion which I believe is erroneous...That He was a demi-god. That is unless you believe Jesus was actually the son of Joseph.

So who is the father of Jesus in your studies of Scriptures?

We have to determine that before considering your propositions.

redleghunter · Jan 16, 2016

Imagican said:
It's not a matter of the terminology offered in the Bible. I simply do not accept 'your' interpretation of it.

All the fullness of the Godhead 'bodily' does not force me to believe it means that Jesus is God. God is able to 'fill' whatever He chooses with His Spirit. If He chose to, He could fill you or I with all the fullness of the Godhead 'bodily'. That wouldn't make you or I God.

Christ said that those that had 'seen' Him had 'seen' the Father. But we KNOW that Jesus is 'not' the Father. 'Trinity' doesn't even teach that the Son is the Father.

So it obviously means something different than many interpret it to mean.

It is my belief that Christ was referencing the 'power' and the 'truth'. What Christ offered in power, (ability to heal, walk on water, cast out demons, turn a few loaves and few fishes into enough to feed thousands, raise the dead), and the 'truth' of the words He offered, it was 'these things' that represented His Father. And those that witnessed these 'miracles' in a symbolic manner, witnessed the 'source' of the power. The 'source' of the 'truth'. Christ represented the Father to the extent that He was able to state: "Those that have witnessed the power given 'me' has witnessed the 'source' of the power". For we 'know' that the Son is 'not' the Father. No one has ever seen the Father at any time. The Only Begotten Son has declared Him.

God is 'not' three persons. God is God. Plain and simple. So simple a child can understand it. But try 'trinity' on a child and see what kind of understanding they come away with. No more than those that try and teach the child.

For there is no understanding in a 'mystery' other than the understanding that a 'mystery exists'.

Blessings,

MEC

You gave me opinion. I provided ample evidence of the use of Deity or Godhead and how it is only used for Jesus Christ in the NT. Contrasted to how the disciples were filled with the Holy Spirit. The words selected in the Greek by Paul are not a mistake.

Elsewhere in the NT the use of divine is used to describe heavenly attributes. However we have Deity or Godhead for use to describe the Nature of Christ Jesus.

You wrote that off as a post resurrection attribute of Jesus Christ. So I ask again, what was the Nature of Jesus Christ at His Crucifixion when He was reconciling us to The Father.

BeStill&Know · Jan 16, 2016

http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Names_of_G-d/Trinity/trinity.html
From these teachings The Trinity is a Hebrew concept.

Wgw · Jan 16, 2016

BeStill&Know said:
http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Names_of_G-d/Trinity/trinity.html
From these teachings The Trinity is a Hebrew concept.

Kabbalah I assume? If so, note the idea of sephirot postdates Christianity, although it does attest to the validity of the Nicene faith.

BeStill&Know · Jan 16, 2016

Wgw said:
Kabbalah I assume? If so, note the idea of sephirot postdates Christianity, although it does attest to the validity of the Nicene faith.

Sorry I don't understand? I didn't read anything about Kabbalah. I'm not familiar concerning the Nicene faith. I'll Google it. But it sounds for later than the original Jewish writings. I'll Goggle
sephirot as well and see what it has to do with the Hebrew tongue.

Harfelugan · Jan 16, 2016

Imagican said:
Harfelugan,

While I appreciate you comments, it is you that has chosen a path beyond ignorance in my opinion. For you have attempted to indicate that you believe that 'trinity' existed from the 'beginning' of Christianity.

Actually it has.

Imagican said:
The Catholic Church, those responsible for the creation and introduction of 'trinity' even openly admit that the word 'trinity' wasn't even 'mentioned' in regards to Christianity until long after the death of Christ. That means that it was impossible for the apostles to teach something that hadn't even been 'dreamed up' yet.

Correct, in that you will only accept the specific word trinity. Take that need for a specific word out of your statement and it is completely false.

Imagican said:
If you choose to go to "New Advent", The Catholic Encyclopedia, you'll find that even the earliest mentions of the word were 'not' about the trinity, but a completely different 'triune nature' of God. It was not a formula involving 'three persons' in one God, but more along the lines of the three characteristics of God. The Son wasn't even a part of it.?

Triune nature, three characteristics of God. S Not sounds like doctrinal formulation to me. You would be just as antagonistic with these words for the synonymity they entail. Doctrinal formulation implies a foundational starting point. Not acknowledging this says more about your state of denile than the accuracy of your statements.

Imagican said:
It took hundreds of years for this doctrine to become the 'doctrine' that it is today. And even among those that have accepted it today, if you ask 100 different 'trinitarians' what 'trinity' is, you'll get 100 'different' definitions.

Many doctrines have taken hundreds of years to develop and look much different than their early formulations. Should we discount them as well?

Imagican said:
Is that really the method that God has shared revelation in 'truth'? Everyone inspired to believe in 'something different'?

God isn't the author of confusion. And it looks as if you can find the only confusion in this thread by reading the non-Trinitarian participants. Each presupposes Christ differently.

Imagican said:
And then there is this:

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

I don't know what these words mean to you, but I certainly understand what they mean as offered.

They mean that Godhead is not something that we can 'create' of our own device. That we shouldn't even 'think' upon those lines.

You are speaking gibberish. The grammer itself doesn't support it. Therefore your interpretation is incorrect. However you are correct in that the Godhead isn't something we can 'create' of our own device. Yet there is the word Godhead, and if it is biblical then the definition will be contained within the context of Scripture. Therefore we define it from the context of scripture. That's how doctrines are formulated.

Imagican said:
Yet all one needs to do is google 'trinity', (an obvious attempt to define Godhead), and then click 'images' , to find hundreds upon hundreds of 'graven images' of 'trinity'. And those that profess to believe in and follow 'trinity' treat it as if it is more valuable than gold or silver. Most 'act' like it's the most important doctrine in Christianity. Yet it's not even mentioned in the Bible.

Seems as if your the one obsessing. If we obsess over the Trinity it's because that's how Christians are supposed to relate to the concept of God.

Imagican said:
Formed by men intent upon the use of philosophy and mythology and everything else that went into it's formation. While those in the beginning most likely professed it to be divinely inspired, I can honestly offer that what has been revealed to me is exactly what I offer in utter disagreement with the doctrine. God has 'only' revealed Himself to me as Himself. And the Son of God has never revealed Himself to me to be God. He is the Son of God. Exactly who He stated He was/is two thousand years ago. He is the same today as He was then only possessing more 'glory' upon His resurrection by His Father: God.

You have been successfully refuted by several within this thread on the philosophy and mythology accusation. It's time to stop beating the dead horse. Or show something more than just the accusation. And now your presenting your subjective feelings as authoritive.

Imagican said:
And look at what 'trinity' has introduced into Christianity. The Jews, the Arabs, almost every other group of people on the planet consider it to bring 'Polytheism' into Christianity. When God, from the very beginning, revealed Himself to be 'one'. Uncompounded, no 'other' God like Him.

Yes, and would they convert to Christianity if they could just hear your argument. I suppose they are just using any argument they can. Just like you have been doing.

Imagican said:
Yet most other gods throughout history have been 'multi part gods'. You know, like three in one or many in one. A 'head god' and then 'all others'.

Incorrect again. In the Illiad the head god was hyphenated around 50 times yet is never considered anything like what you claim. Perhaps you should research it instead of just googling it.

Imagican said:
The Bible tells us that God is 'the' God of Christ. Not once does it offer: "Christ is God". The feeble attempt to use John 1 as evidence of 'trinity' doesn't add up. Too much other scripture plainly points to a different concept than the one 'trinitarians' attempt to use to 'prove trinity'. John 1 does no such thing. No mention of 'three in one' in John 1. No matter how hard one attempts to stretch it, skew it, twist it or bend it, there is 'no trinity' in John 1.

Again you are correct, only in that your grammar demands a specific wording. And you become incorrect by every other means of interpretation. Your interpretation is invalid based on a flawed hermenuatic.

Imagican said:
Anyone that tries to attempt to indicate that 'trinity' existed in the 'beginning of Christianity' destroys any sense of credibility in their words. Even those that created the idea and introduced it into Christianity openly admit that it did 'not' exist in the minds or hearts of those 'in the beginning'. It couldn't have. For it took hundreds of years for it to be formed and then 'tweeked out' to it's present state.

Correct only if you are looking for the specific wording. Roman Catholicism only harnessed Christiandom after 800A.D.. Of course you would use them. As shown by another poster early Christianity consisted of more than Roman Catholicism.

Imagican said:
Yet what I offer is straight out the Bible. No twisting, no bending, no alteration whatsoever. For I have no desire to 'create a religion'. I am but a simple man with simple understanding. And 'trinity' ain't a part of anything I have found or been offered conviction of through all the years I've been reading God's Word. In fact, upon praying and studying, it has been revealed to me that there is no such thing as 'trinity' except in the minds and hearts of those who have come to believe in it. It certainly doesn't exist in the Bible.

Blessings,

MEC

I'll give you the simple part. Yes, everything you've offered is strait out of the bible. That is the only way of effectively twisting, bending, and altering scripture. You haven't created a religion, you've debased a faith. Christianity isn't about religion and has never been a religion. Perhaps when you discover this you will abandon your faulty hermanutic and receive real revelation.

Why the Trinity is a False Doctrine

Newbie

Newbie

old dude

Pray For Brussels!

old dude

old dude

old dude

old dude

old dude

Alive in Christ

Pray For Brussels!

Pray For Brussels!

Well-Known Member

Pray For Brussels!

Thank You Jesus!

Thank You Jesus!

Well-Known Member

Pray For Brussels!

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency