Why the Trinity is a False Doctrine

[Fireinfolding]

Yes, different angels have different commands and different purposes. Not every angel inhabits every man, as there are angels that are given charge to help in other matters that do not require for the angel to be inside the body. We see examples of this in the book of Acts, where while even Paul had a holy spirit inside him, there was another angel that freed him from his prison. There are angels that are given charge over assemblies of God as a whole, and also assigned to people as well. I suspect that the amount of angels probably exists in the billions, which is how the authorities in the heavens, which also now includes Jesus Christ sitting at the right hand of the power, can keep up in being aware of what's going on with the billions of men that exist on the earth, through the hand of these angels that are constantly all around the earth, observing the actions of men, and if any indeed do follow after God.

Thanks cgaviria at least I have a better idea of where you are coming from.

 

[Albion]

It's good to know there's a forum where this topic can be discussed.

I would agree the Trinity is a false teaching. In the Old Testament we're told "our God is one." And that God is a spirit. And Jesus said that when "we" have seen him we have seen the Father.

I think most of us understand that last point as being similar to what we mean when we say something like "If you've seen one ______, you've seen 'em all." Of course, we do not mean that the listener has literally seen ALL of whatever that might refer to. It's an expression, that's all.

But as for the Bible's teaching that our God is one, you are right that this is explicitly stated. However, it's also explicitly stated that the Father is God, Christ is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. How do you reconcile that, especially when the Bible's use of personal pronouns for each of these rules out thinking that the reference is just to different qualities of the same being?

 

[Strong in Him]

Predestination has much to do with the trinity, because in your skewed understanding of how God works, you then do not understand who the Father truly is and how he operates in his creation.

I do indeed know who the Father is - Jesus revealed him to us.

You haven't answered my question.

 

[Harfelugan]

Having control of your own spirit goes without saying, so surely Paul would not have made mention of this unless referring to the spirit inside the prophet causing the utterance. Holy spirit is not an omnipresent being, as it has finite knowledge just as Jesus has finite knowledge. Holy spirit is therefore a distinct being given to each.

Paul is addressing confusion in the church because of multiple prophets in the church speaking at the same time, this goes without saying in the context of this text, so surely Paul is making mention of this because as the context gives him nothing else to address. You err in addressing the Spirit as not omnipresent because he leads us into all truth and God is truth. The best you can do is to say he has access to the omnipresence of God by proxy. Otherwise the Spirit couldn't reveal truth. If you can say he has access to God's omnipresence by proxy you have just described the process of distinct unity in the Godhead.

 

[Harfelugan]

It's good to know there's a forum where this topic can be discussed.

Agreed

And that is where God in his grace and mercy will I believe step in and save those who cleave to this falsehood. God knows. And he knows that people have been led wrong for centuries. I believe he will pardon that when people have him in their mind and are indwelt by his Holy Spirit.

Great brave post.

Agreed, at the end of our disagreement we should acknowledge that our salvation doesn't rely on our comprehension of the Godhead.

 

[Albion]

Agreed, at the end of our disagreement we should acknowledge that our salvation doesn't rely on our comprehension of the Godhead.

It might. To redesign the Trinity into something else could constitute believing in a non-existent god. Certainly, demoting Christ to an enlightened human or an angel would do that, so other redefinitions could do so as well.

To accept the triune nature of God but not fully comprehend how that is or how to define it would be a different matter, of course.

 

[Harfelugan]

You do know, at the Council at Nicaea, Arius was 'not' the only Bishop that held the same views of Christ? And these were reading the same scriptures as those that insisted that their views were wrong.

Well of course, the matter at hand was one purpose the council was called. There were many Bishops siding with Arius, If we could look at the dispersion of both parties we would see that there were regional boundries separating them. Arius and his followers arrived in history after the Church was well established. His views don't show up in the writings of earlier Church fathers. The Church had been the religion of the state for years before Arius took his theology mainstream. Massive numbers of pagans had been coming into the Church bringing with them ideas of God derived while they had been Pagans. It was only a matter of time before even some Bishops acquired these ideas as many had been Pagans themselves. What Arianism did was to take the concept of God from the Pagans and graft them into Christianity. If the Arians had won the day in the Council Christianity would have been short lived because the Pagan concept of God had been dying out for centuries as civilization progressed into Pagan lands. This was why Arianism was so popular among the new territories that came into Christianity. The Pagan concept of God was only a short step from Arianism. Just leave one High God and making everything else into angels.

While Christ has existed since 'in the beginning', it's obvious that there was a time 'before in the beginning' referred to in the Bible. For if God is eternal, there was obviously 'no in the beginning' pertaining to God.

Time itself is an object of creation, there was no time before the beginning because there was no such thing as time before Gen. 1:1. What had occurred before the beginning is incomprehensible to time based beings.

So, 'in the beginning' is an obvious reference to 'that which pertains to us'. God offers a 'story' about that which took place in the creation of 'that which pertains to us'. And it starts with 'in the beginning'. Which could better be offered as: "In the beginning of that which pertains to the reader". For the story was offered to those 'reading it'.

And then consider that Christ is the "Light" of this world. And the first act of creation performed by God was: "Let there be Light".

Very creative, do you allow anyone to interpret scripture this liberally or just one of your own persuasion. I don't refer to those of your persuasion as nut jobs, but I can say that if this is your interpretative process there is no theological argument that you couldn't defend with it. This method is dangerous in the hands of nut jobs.

The idea that Christ was 'created', 'begotten', 'sired', 'made' or whatever term one chooses is not 'made up' by those opposed to either God or Christ. The Bible actually states that Christ was 'begotten'. It was 'men' that came along and tried to alter the meaning of the word 'begotten'.

Begotten is an English word that basically means "comes forth", which nullifies it as a proof for either side. Only the words interpretation within the entire context of scripture can bring light to the proper exegesis. Cherry picking proof texts and forcing them into a theological system shows a pretext of the one presenting them.

So it's really not that difficult to see where the idea of Christ, The Son of God, being 'begotten' or 'created' or 'made'. It's actually more Biblical than the idea that Christ is 'equal' to God without a 'beginning'. Men made up this idea of Christ being equal to God. And a pagan Emperor decided that in his Empire, from the day it was determined, all those in his Empire would accept what these 'men' decided to set down on paper as 'law' and requiring all to believe that Christ is equal to God.

The Emperors decree lasted only as long as his life and was superceded to Arianism by his decendents for many years. Resulting in Athanashus exile on 5 occasions. Justin, who secretly despised all Christians and set both parties against themselves for fun, revived Paganism as acceptable state religion. The battle wasn't won by empirical decree but years of persistence by the majority view. Through intense theological debate and the outcome of Arian abuses preformed upon Christianity and the population of the world. Which cleared the way for the arrival of Islam. Arianism burned itself out. Because at it's core it was only paganized Christianity.

 

[Goatee]

If one believes in Jesus then one believes in what he said. Jesus believed in the Apostles and filled them with the Holy spirit. This has remained with the church since day one. To pick a quote or two or three to suit your understanding / beliefs and twist things is just plain madness.

Jesus warned to be wary of false prophets and i think that lots of people have tried to twist the teachings of the Catholic church over the 2,000+ years and thus drastically veer off from the 'true' teachings of Jesus and the Apostles!

People pick and choose what 'they' want from the Bible!

cgaviria

This video will explain the truth to you:

 

[Tiny Bible]

I think if someone wants to argue they believe the teachings of Jesus, then they should be equally honest in realizing that Jesus never said a thing about Purgatory. But that is a teaching of the Catholic church as well. And it is also untrue.

Three natures of God is a holdover from the Roman's polytheistic pagan traditions. When the Old Testament predates the Nicene Creed that Pagan Constantine helped author, because he remained Pagan until his conversion just prior to his death and in his own way fulfilled what was later Pascal's wager in his own sense, and that what became a contract that dictated how one is to believe in Christ and his teachings,Constantine apparently wasn't aware of Deuteronomy 6:4.
Tri-theism that is Catholicism isn't what Jesus taught. And the Christian is obligated to believe in Jesus words not the church that arrived to contradict most of what he said.

 

[Goatee]

I think if someone wants to argue they believe the teachings of Jesus, then they should be equally honest in realizing that Jesus never said a thing about Purgatory. But that is a teaching of the Catholic church as well. And it is also untrue.

Three natures of God is a holdover from the Roman's polytheistic pagan traditions. When the Old Testament predates the Nicene Creed that Pagan Constantine helped author, because he remained Pagan until his conversion just prior to his death and in his own way fulfilled what was later Pascal's wager in his own sense, and that what became a contract that dictated how one is to believe in Christ and his teachings,Constantine apparently wasn't aware of Deuteronomy 6:4.
Tri-theism that is Catholicism isn't what Jesus taught. And the Christian is obligated to believe in Jesus words not the church that arrived to contradict most of what he said.

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/purgatory

 

[cgaviria]

If one believes in Jesus then one believes in what he said. Jesus believed in the Apostles and filled them with the Holy spirit. This has remained with the church since day one. To pick a quote or two or three to suit your understanding / beliefs and twist things is just plain madness.

Jesus warned to be wary of false prophets and i think that lots of people have tried to twist the teachings of the Catholic church over the 2,000+ years and thus drastically veer off from the 'true' teachings of Jesus and the Apostles!

People pick and choose what 'they' want from the Bible!

cgaviria

This video will explain the truth to you:

Can it not be said that you guys are mad in picking out two verses that have been demonstrated to be forgeries, in which the entire teaching of the trinity trinity resides and have based an entire doctrine about it against original sound teaching of scripture? Look at even the council of Nicaea even when the doctrine of the trinity came forth into existence, there were even catholics from within the council who themselves opposed the new teaching because this was not the original teaching of the apostles.

 

[cgaviria]

Paul is addressing confusion in the church because of multiple prophets in the church speaking at the same time, this goes without saying in the context of this text, so surely Paul is making mention of this because as the context gives him nothing else to address. You err in addressing the Spirit as not omnipresent because he leads us into all truth and God is truth. The best you can do is to say he has access to the omnipresence of God by proxy. Otherwise the Spirit couldn't reveal truth. If you can say he has access to God's omnipresence by proxy you have just described the process of distinct unity in the Godhead.

Holy spirit doesn't lead everyone to truth buddy, he only leads those whom he inhabits into all truth. When holy spirit inhabits you, it is always evidenced by a sign, like speaking in different languages and prophesying. Not everyone is inhabited by holy spirit, that is ridiculous to suggest that. Now, it is the Father that does lead people to truth, and then once they come to full repentance, he then grants the gift of holy spirit.

 

[Strong in Him]

Can it not be said that you guys are mad in picking out two verses that have been demonstrated to be forgeries, in which the entire teaching of the trinity trinity resides

The doctrine of the Trinity is not based on two verses -as I have said. It is Scriptural - you don't agree with that fact, but it's true.
It is not a good idea to take two verses, or even just one, from Scripture and create a doctrine from them, or it. Fortunately, that's not what's happened here.

Do you believe Jesus was, and is, God?

 

[Harfelugan]

Holy spirit doesn't lead everyone to truth buddy, he only leads those whom he inhabits into all truth. When holy spirit inhabits you, it is always evidenced by a sign, like speaking in different languages and prophesying. Not everyone is inhabited by holy spirit, that is ridiculous to suggest that. Now, it is the Father that does lead people to truth, and then once they come to full repentance, he then grants the gift of holy spirit.

Please show me where I wrote that everyone is led into truth by the Holy Spirit. These were my words, " he leads us into all truth and God is truth". Us is a distinct group within everybody, us are those whom he inhabits. Your reaching for any straws you can find to pull on. You didn't address how your interpretation can be reconciled into the context of the text. Which is a group of prophets bringing confusion due to a personal lack of self control.

Oneness entered Pentecostalism after the movement was well established, was always a tail and never a head. Oneness has been rejected by the majority of Pentecostals from the start of it's existence. Tongues and prophesy were manifested by Pentecostal Trinitarians well before oneness came on the scene. What rock have you been hiding under?

 

[Imagican]

Very true.

You guys are certainly taking a lot upon yourself in making such bold statements. First, I do believe that it is against the TOS to say someone is not a 'Christian' that claims to be a 'Christian'. Second, since you have chosen this path, show us one line of scripture that backs up such a claim.

See how dangerous this doctrine truly is? That it would lead someone to judge their neighbor in such a manner.

And this is the main reason that I shun the label 'Christian'. Too many people that believe too many 'different' things use it. Or MIS use it. To the point that I don't even like being associated with the label.

I would offer this, beware of making such judgments by comparing the followers of Christ to 'man made doctrines'.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Imagican]

The doctrine of the Trinity is not based on two verses -as I have said. It is Scriptural - you don't agree with that fact, but it's true.
It is not a good idea to take two verses, or even just one, from Scripture and create a doctrine from them, or it. Fortunately, that's not what's happened here.

Do you believe Jesus was, and is, God?

So you say. But you say it's scriptural but are unable to produce one line of scripture that defines 'trinity'.

Yet I can show many that utterly refute the very 'idea' of 'trinity'. I can show clearly where the Son is not equal to the Father. Plenty that show that the Son is 'not' eternally begotten. He was begotten 'once' like everything else that has ever been begotten. I can show that the Son Himself was abandoned by God while hanging upon the cross.

Yet you cannot offer a single line of the Bible that defines 'trinity'.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Goatee]

You guys are certainly taking a lot upon yourself in making such bold statements. First, I do believe that it is against the TOS to say someone is not a 'Christian' that claims to be a 'Christian'. Second, since you have chosen this path, show us one line of scripture that backs up such a claim.

See how dangerous this doctrine truly is? That it would lead someone to judge their neighbor in such a manner.

And this is the main reason that I shun the label 'Christian'. Too many people that believe too many 'different' things use it. Or MIS use it. To the point that I don't even like being associated with the label.

I would offer this, beware of making such judgments by comparing the followers of Christ to 'man made doctrines'.

Blessings,

MEC

Thing is, when someone makes a statement which is 'against' what is a belief of a Christian then the assumption is always going to be that they 'not' a Christian themselves!

There are a lot of 'Man made doctrines' floating about!

 

[Imagican]

What defines a 'Christian'? A man made set of laws? Or someone that professes to believe in Christ and treats their neighbors as themselves?

See, you are trying to say that men can define what a Christian is according to their own beliefs. Yet I have found this to be the same manner in which one group finds another to be 'lesser humans' than themselves. You know, like Hitler insisting that his 'race' was better than all others and because of this, all other races should be their 'slaves'.

I have never found that particular teaching in the Bible. What I have found is Christ stating, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone".

Maybe instead of taking the stance, "We know the truth and everyone else is lost", you may find it more beneficial to pay attention to those others so that you may learn from them as well.

And it is this I have stated over and over that most attempt to deny: Denominationalism does this very thing: it insists that 'it' is the only correct path and all others are 'lost'. While they won't openly state it in public like has been offered here where two have actually accused others of being 'non Christian' because of their differences in belief, it is the only logical conclusion. Why else would there be 'more than one denomination' if it weren't for 'each' believing their 'way' is correct and everyone else's path is 'wrong'?

So in essence, denominationalism does more to 'separate' than it does to unite. And it's like a virus that once it takes hold, it's almost impossible to get rid of. Raise someone in a particular denomination and they will often separate themselves from their families or friends than abandon their denomination.

And the example we have here: One group labeling another 'non Christian' simply because the other group doesn't follow their 'man made theology'. What a shame. Treating the 'children of God' in a vicious manner simply because one group doesn't follow the same 'men' as themselves.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

Does this in any way separate us from our Lord and Savior? Does it change the fact that "no one can reach the father except through Christ? I understand one thing perfectly.
John 3:16
16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

The rest is open to interpretation and has been for 2000 years. Does it matter to God that we can or can not figure out wither he is one entity or three.? I don't thunk so. If I'm in error place tell me, but as far as I'm concerned, he sets on the thrown of the world and I give him praise for everything.

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

Thing is, when someone makes a statement which is 'against' what is a belief of a Christian then the assumption is always going to be that they 'not' a Christian themselves!

There are a lot of 'Man made doctrines' floating about!

There is also a lot of people out there who wrap the scriptures around their beliefs. I'm not saying anyone here has ever done it, but it surely is something to be aware of.