Why the Trinity is a False Doctrine

[7xlightray]

Wouldn't the most obvious question rather be "Why did they take up stones to throw at him if your thinking is the same as theirs?"

They wanted to know, if he was trying to suggest, he was greater then their father Abraham, because if you were Abraham's descendant, you were of the promise, saved, and would be in the resurrection. Jesus is telling them they are not of Abraham, and they need to come to him for life. He is telling them they are not saved. Look what happened after, they tried to kill, and did kill the believers, and were trying to force the Law on them. They were threatened, and were being told they had it all wrong, by the uneducated. They did not think the believers were suggesting they were God either, but they still wanted to kill them.

 

[nomadictheist]

Wow! Got busy in here.


I'm referring to Jesus existing before Abraham. You claim he was the God, and say this is what is meant by “I AM.” I'm saying he was the word before Abraham, as in the one to come, so he is before, and greater then Abraham. There is a difference in the word was God, to that of Jesus was God. Jesus is greater then Abraham, Jesus was spoken to Eve, this was the plan of God. Jesus is the word of life made flesh “God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself [2 Corinthians 5:19].” It was the God the Father that was in Christ. The fullness of the Father was expressed through Christ - I'm talking about How God thinks, judges, loves, and so forth. I see no evidence that the “I AM” of John 8:58 is the “I AM” of Genesis, for this same “I AM,” Jesus spoke in John 8:24 and the Jew say nothing, nor pick up stones to kill him. So, the words Jesus spoke that are translated “I AM” could not specifically refer to Yhvh.

24 Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am [egō eimi] He [“He” has been add to the text], you will die in your sins.”
25 Then they said to Him, “Who are You?”​

Here they did not understand these words to mean the name of Yhvh.

58 Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM [egō eimi].”
59 Then they took up stones to throw at Him

All we could get from this, is that Jesus was saying he existed before Abraham. Nothing to suggest Jesus is saying he is the “I AM.”

​

Have already addressed this. As I said before, Jesus was not speaking Greek. The written language is Greek.

What suggests Jesus' usage of the name God declared to Moses is twofold: the phraseology and the response. Jesus didn't say "before Abraham I was." He said "before Abraham, I am." If He merely meant to say that He existed before Abraham, then He would have said that.

Also, suggesting that He had existed before Abraham would not be a claim worthy of picking up stones in itself. Suggesting that He was equal with God, as the Jews frequently realized He was doing, was what they considered worthy of the charge of blasphemy.​

Furthermore, according to your interpretation of the Bible, Jesus didn't exist before Abraham anymore than anyone present there did, since you say Jesus existed before Abraham only as an "idea" in the mind of God.

The question is how was he before, and greater then Abraham? You say he was God, though scripture shows over and over, and proves he was/is not. Yet many hold onto a few scriptures which could be construed into he is God.

It is not "a few scriptures" that teach us that Jesus is God. It is many. Several (not all) have been listed before.

If you receive the testimony of the Pharisees, then you must also believe Jesus broke the Sabbath and had a demon, and therefore still in your sins. Did the Pharisees try to falsely accuse him? Or did they speak the truth concerning him? Do you accept their testimony, or Jesus testimony, because Jesus said clearly, the Father is the only true God? The scriptures, over and over, reveal the only true God. And the scriptures reveal, over and over, in many different ways, and in clear statements that the Father is the only true God. Which the trinity does not do. Once we grasp things like Jesus is the beginning of the new creation, for there are scriptures which do make it sound like Jesus is the only true God, but we have to be careful of the context, or wording, like “And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace [Isaiah 9:6]. Notice it says “will be called”, or “shall be called”, not “is called.” Jesus is the father of the new creation. The Father did all this, and the ages to come, for His Son.

Jesus didn't claim that He didn't break the Sabbath on every occasion that He was charged with it. If you read the text, His response to the Pharisees asking why His disciples were doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath is that the "Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath." Thanks for bringing up another point where Jesus claims to be God.

Are you referring to “And behold, one like the son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven! he came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before Him. Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom?” If he is brought near, and before the Ancient of days, he can't be the Ancient of days.

Are you saying God became flesh, or are you saying that he dwelt in flesh? As in, he put on flesh, because there is a difference between putting on flesh, and became flesh. And the word became flesh. How can God become flesh and die? He can't, so, this must refer to the power of God as it speaks of Jesus conception.

You say that He can't. The Bible disagrees.

We both agree Jesus was a man. When it comes to God, you say, he is The God. I say, he is God, in that he was the image of God, that he was like God in every way, except Gods nature, for Jesus was tempted, and died, then after resurrection he received Gods nature. And is this not how God wants us to be, and will be one day?

Are you saying we all will be God? That we will be equal with Jesus and God once we receive our resurrected bodies?

If you are, I suggest you read Revelation again, because in the new heaven and the new earth only God the Father and God the Son are mentioned as being the objects of worship.

 

[civilwarbuff]

They wanted to know, if he was trying to suggest, he was greater then their father Abraham, because if you were Abraham's descendant, you were of the promise, saved, and would be in the resurrection. Jesus is telling them they are not of Abraham, and they need to come to him for life. He is telling them they are not saved. Look what happened after, they tried to kill, and did kill the believers, and were trying to force the Law on them. They were threatened, and were being told they had it all wrong, by the uneducated. They did not think the believers were suggesting they were God either, but they still wanted to kill them.

Where is your argument supported in scripture?.....otherwise it is just your unsupported opinion.

 

[nomadictheist]

Yes it does, in John 1:1. The word is also the Spirit, and the Spirit is God.

Hebrews 4:12 For the word [logos] of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two edged sword,
Ephesians 6:17 and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word [rhéma] of God:​

As for John 1, they chose to interpret it as “He” instead of “it,” and sometimes “He” instead of “this,” though sometimes they do put “The same.”

Compare these verses speaking of the logos...

John 6:60 (KJV) Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This [G3778 – houtos – Οὗτος: Demonstrative Pronoun, Nominative, Masculine, Singular] is an hard saying [G3056 – logos]; who can hear it [G846 – autou – αὐτοῦ: Personal / Possessive Pronoun, Genitive, Masculine, 3rd Person, Singular]?

John 1:2 (KJV) The same/He [G3778 – houtos – Οὗτος: Demonstrative Pronoun, Nominative, Masculine, Singular] was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him [G846 – autou – αὐτοῦ: Personal / Possessive Pronoun, Genitive, Masculine, 3rd Person, Singular]; and without him [G846 – autou – αὐτοῦ: Personal / Possessive Pronoun, Genitive, Masculine, 3rd Person, Singular] was not any thing made that was made.​

So no question, this is how it could, and should read, seeing as it is referring to word-logos, and word-logos is not a person, in and of itself...

John 1:1-3 (KJV)
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 This was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by it; and without it was not any thing made that was made.

This is what you call deceptiveness.

The word "Houtos" in the Greek can be translated "he, she, it, this, the same," yes. However, the interpretation is determined by the context. They didn't just "decide" to interpret it "he." They interpreted it based on the fact that the Word - Who was God - was later revealed to be Jesus - thus "he," not "it."

You can see this usage in the very same passage... "There was a man sent from God. His [Auto] name was John. He [Houtos] came as a witness..."

Therefore, your "proper reading." Is only proper if you assume that the Word and Jesus are not the same and the word was therefore not a person. Which, since the Word was revealed to be Jesus, means your "proper reading" is entirely improper.

 

[Albion]

They wanted to know, if he was trying to suggest, he was greater then their father Abraham, because if you were Abraham's descendant, you were of the promise, saved, and would be in the resurrection. Jesus is telling them they are not of Abraham, and they need to come to him for life..

...which pretty much substantiates the thinking of those Christians who interpret this stoning as meaning that they considered his words to be a claim of divinity, wouldn't it?

 

[Commander Xenophon]

Somehow my interpretation of "I was before Abraham" doesn't apply but yours does?

The problem is your interpretation does not agree with what the text actually says. It does not say "I was before Abraham," but "Before Abraham was, I AM."

We are both affirming the same thing, except you are taking Jesus' I AM declaration even further back before "the beginning", which is not so. Do you not realize that,


Today means day one of creation. Jesus became a son at day one of creation because that is the day he was birthed into existence, and thus the day that God became a father to him, as God was not a father to him before this because Jesus Christ did not exist before the beginning.

Here again you read something into the text which isn't there. The Psalm does not say "Day one of creation;" it has a meaning similar to "I AM" in terms of the present text.

It was at this time that Jesus Christ also became I AM, because I AM means I EXIST, it is a simple affirmation of existence as a being as the Father is a being that exists.

I AM is in the present tense. No created being could logically use it to refer to themselves in the past; our Lord either spoke using ridiculous grammar, or attested to His uncreated nature, to His deity.

My main objection to your argument, is that you simultaneously reject or alter various verses you disagree with, and read into other verses meanings which are not actually present. It feels like you are trying to rewrite the Bible in order to suit your unique theological perspective, as opposed to simply accepting what is actually written.

 

[cgaviria]

The problem is your interpretation does not agree with what the text actually says. It does not say "I was before Abraham," but "Before Abraham was, I AM."



Here again you read something into the text which isn't there. The Psalm does not say "Day one of creation;" it has a meaning similar to "I AM" in terms of the present text.



I AM is in the present tense. No created being could logically use it to refer to themselves in the past; our Lord either spoke using ridiculous grammar, or attested to His uncreated nature, to His deity.

My main objection to your argument, is that you simultaneously reject or alter various verses you disagree with, and read into other verses meanings which are not actually present. It feels like you are trying to rewrite the Bible in order to suit your unique theological perspective, as opposed to simply accepting what is actually written.

“Son” wisely describes a birthing into existence, as a son does not come into existence before a father nor at the same time as a father, but only after a father, and since time did not come into existence until day one of creation in “the beginning”, thus anyone declared to be a son has therefore come into existence from day one of creation or any day onward, and we see this same truth conveyed in this declaration,

I will proclaim the LORD’s decree: He said to me, “You are my son; today I have become your father. (Psalm 2:7 [NIV])

So before “today”, God was not a father to this son, why? Because before “today” the son did not exist to thus be fathered as a son. It was when the son came into existence, “today”, that God then became a father to this son, and since we know that this particular son existed in the beginning, therefore “today” refers to day one in the beginning of creation.

So therefore, Jesus became I AM when he came into existence, which was day one of creation.

 

[Fireinfolding]

The second psalm is mentioned here as it pertains to being begotten

Acts 13:33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

Likewise begotten of the dead

Rev 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

If he were on earth he should not be a priest, and again the place it is said to him this way as well

Heb 5:5 So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee.

Col 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

 

[civilwarbuff]

“Son” wisely describes a birthing into existence, as a son does not come into existence before a father nor at the same time as a father, but only after a father, and since time did not come into existence until day one of creation in “the beginning”, thus anyone declared to be a son has therefore come into existence from day one of creation or any day onward, and we see this same truth conveyed in this declaration,


So before “today”, God was not a father to this son, why? Because before “today” the son did not exist to thus be fathered as a son. It was when the son came into existence, “today”, that God then became a father to this son, and since we know that this particular son existed in the beginning, therefore “today” refers to day one in the beginning of creation.

So therefore, Jesus became I AM when he came into existence, which was day one of creation.

I explained PS 2:7 on post 575....unless you just decided to ignore it....or me....

 

[Goatee]

“Son” wisely describes a birthing into existence, as a son does not come into existence before a father nor at the same time as a father, but only after a father, and since time did not come into existence until day one of creation in “the beginning”, thus anyone declared to be a son has therefore come into existence from day one of creation or any day onward, and we see this same truth conveyed in this declaration,


So before “today”, God was not a father to this son, why? Because before “today” the son did not exist to thus be fathered as a son. It was when the son came into existence, “today”, that God then became a father to this son, and since we know that this particular son existed in the beginning, therefore “today” refers to day one in the beginning of creation.

So therefore, Jesus became I AM when he came into existence, which was day one of creation.

Sorry buddy but i think you are completely lost in 'YOUR' interpretations.

 

[Commander Xenophon]

“Son” wisely describes a birthing into existence,
as a son does not come into existence before a father nor at the same time as a father, but only after a father, and since time did not come into existence until day one of creation in “the beginning”, thus anyone declared to be a son has therefore come into existence from day one of creation or any day onward, and we see this same truth conveyed in this declaration,

The limited usefulness of your anthropomorphology becomes evident when we consider the word "Birthing." Who gave birth to the Son according to His pre-incarnate divine nature? Not our most honorable lady, the Theotokos, as she did not exist on day one of creation.

So before “today”, God was not a father to this son, why?

God the Father is a father to the Only Begotten Logos yesterday, today, and tomorrow. There is no "before."

Because before “today” the son did not exist to thus be fathered as a son. It was when the son came into existence, “today”, that God then became a father to this son, and since we know that this particular son existed in the beginning, therefore “today” refers to day one in the beginning of creation.

So therefore, Jesus became I AM when he came into existence, which was day one of creation.

No, because I AM is present tense. You can't become I AM in the past. Unless, of course, you are uncreated.

 

[Berean777]

Acts 13:33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

Likewise begotten of the dead

Rev 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

Col 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

You have just defined the meaning of the term first born or first begotten by just quoting these versus.

You see how could Jesus be first born from the dead?

In the same way how could Jesus be the first begotten?

Colossians 1:18 defines the term within the context of preeminence. Preeminence doesn't mean he is actually created or that he is the first of the Father's created beings. Rather only begotten and first born points purely to being preeminent amongst all of the Father's creation.

Is Jesus created by the Father?

No.

Is Jesus made preeminent among all of God's creation?

Yes.

Does being preeminant make Jesus a creation of the Father?

No.

The first born of the dead or the only begotten are only titles and not a natural act of the Father actually conceiving another lesser god like the Mormons and JWs believe.

The first born term is even used in the old testament by an earthly father to a younger son, which points to being most favoured of all his sons.

Jesus is most favoured by God the Father because he is made preeminent among all of the created beings.

Does that make Jesus who created all things as declared by John 1:1-4, to be a being created by the Father?

No.

 

[Fireinfolding]

I dont know much about others doctrines, and Im not sure if you are asking me anything, but rather pulling verses and answering your questions, so I wont respond.

This was a thread back in 2011, but it was pretty good when it come to exploring when Jesus was begotten

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/when-was-jesus-begotten.7605535/page-6#post-59165434

 

[Berean777]

I dont know much about others doctrines, and Im not sure if you are asking me anything, but rather pulling verses and answering your questions, so I wont respond.

This was a thread back in 2011, but it was pretty good when it come to exploring when Jesus was begotten

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/when-was-jesus-begotten.7605535/page-6#post-59165434

I am thanking you for providing the definition of the term first born of the dead or the first begotten of creation.

Fortunately for us, the Colossians 1:18 that you quoted amongst others, defines the terms, without me or you having to resort to pulling verses out of context and answering our own questions.

 

[Fireinfolding]

I am thanking you for providing the definition of the term first born of the dead or the first begotten of creation.

Fortunately for us, the Colossians 1:18 that you quoted amongst others, defines the terms, without me or you having to resort to pulling verses out of context and answering our own questions.

I gotcha. Yeah, I am pretty slow to catching on in some of these back and forths, picking up others points, or perceiving whether we might agree or not which is rarely clear to me, unless someone comes out and says it I am rather dense that way.

 

[Berean777]

I gotcha. Yeah, I am pretty slow to catching on in some of these back and forths, picking up others points, or perceiving whether we might agree or not which is rarely clear to me, unless someone comes out and says it I am rather dense that way.

Contrary to preconceived belief that many don't even bother to read scripture versus that CF members quote, I personally find them extremely helpful as a prompting guide, to hone in on definition of terms that are literally spelled out before our eyes, that are so easily overlooked by many who just skim read past them, without paying much attention.

Your post helped me in further contributing to the thread, by just highlighting the fact, that scripture actuality defines the terms first born of the dead or the first begotten of creation.

So thankyou kindly for quoting those versus in your previous post. Preeminence defines the term of first born of the dead and first begotten of creation.

 

[Fireinfolding]

Contrary to preconceived belief that many don't even bother to read scripture versus that CF members quote, I personally find them extremely helpful as a prompting guide, to hone in on definition of terms that are literally spelled out before our eyes, that are so easily overlooked by many who just skim read past them, without paying much attention.

Your post helped me in further contributing to the thread, by just highlighting the fact, that scripture actuality defines the terms first born of the dead or the first begotten of creation.

So thankyou kindly for quoting those versus in your previous post. Preeminence defines the term of first born of the dead and first begotten of creation.

Me too, I hear you there, I cant agree more, good to know (just seems rare). I look for posters that do, Scriptures are great that way .

Sure, may the word of God be glorified always.

God bless you

 

[7xlightray]

Have already addressed this. As I said before, Jesus was not speaking Greek. The written language is Greek.

Were going to start arguing from invisible ghosts? In that case there would be no point in believing any part of Gods Word, and to add to that, it was not written in English either.

You should read Exodus 3:14 in the Septuagint then.

What suggests Jesus' usage of the name God declared to Moses is twofold: the phraseology and the response. Jesus didn't say "before Abraham I was." He said "before Abraham, I am." If He merely meant to say that He existed before Abraham, then He would have said that.

Abraham saw his day and was glad. Jesus said he was before Abraham, in saying this, he is saying he is greater then Abraham, for he was the one to come. Abraham saw that God would provide the lamb, and bring Christ back to life, and even Abraham himself. Keep the verse in context.

Also, suggesting that He had existed before Abraham would not be a claim worthy of picking up stones in itself. Suggesting that He was equal with God, as the Jews frequently realized He was doing, was what they considered worthy of the charge of blasphemy

I've already explained this.

Furthermore, according to your interpretation of the Bible, Jesus didn't exist before Abraham anymore than anyone present there did, since you say Jesus existed before Abraham only as an "idea" in the mind of God.

That is not exactly what I said, also it is only part of what I not exactly said.

It is not "a few scriptures" that teach us that Jesus is God. It is many. Several (not all) have been listed before.

I believed in the trinity for about 25 years, I know the scriptures we used. And they were either taken out of context, or assumed to say something based on belief, not based on all of scripture. I know what it's like to read scripture as a trinitarian, the chapters don't flow naturally. Trinitarians have a few passages which could suggest Jesus is the God, but once one understands the Father is the only God, all throughout scripture it reveals the Father is the only true God, and even states this. I know from scripture I'm standing on solid ground when it comes to this issue.

Jesus didn't claim that He didn't break the Sabbath on every occasion that He was charged with it. If you read the text, His response to the Pharisees asking why His disciples were doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath is that the "Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath." Thanks for bringing up another point where Jesus claims to be God.

What I said was, “If you receive the testimony of the Pharisees, then you must also believe Jesus broke the Sabbath and had a demon, and therefore still in your sins.” So, then are you admitting they misunderstood Jesus?

You say that He can't. The Bible disagrees.

Can you give scripture from the O/T, cause I can, because this is how we know we have the right understanding.

Are you saying we all will be God? That we will be equal with Jesus and God once we receive our resurrected bodies?

We are not going to be the God, but we will be like Him partaking of the divine nature 2 Peter 1:4.

 

[7xlightray]

Where is your argument supported in scripture?.....otherwise it is just your unsupported opinion.

It's in the same chapter, and in the Gospels, and in Acts. Here's one to help get you started Luke 3:7-9

 

[7xlightray]

This is what you call deceptiveness.



The word "Houtos" in the Greek can be translated "he, she, it, this, the same," yes. However, the interpretation is determined by the context. They didn't just "decide" to interpret it "he." They interpreted it based on the fact that the Word - Who was God - was later revealed to be Jesus - thus "he," not "it."

No, it is the Trinitarian assumption. The context calls for “it.”

You can see this usage in the very same passage... "There was a man sent from God. His [Auto] name was John. He [Houtos] came as a witness..."

Ya, the man is not a logos.

Therefore, your "proper reading." Is only proper if you assume that the Word and Jesus are not the same and the word was therefore not a person. Which, since the Word was revealed to be Jesus, means your "proper reading" is entirely improper.

No, the word became Jesus. It does not say Jesus became Jesus, nor does it say God the Son became Jesus. In fact it does not say God became Jesus, it says the word became Jesus, actually became flesh.

1 John 1 explains this, the word of life was manifested in the flesh, and this word of life/eternal life was with the Father, and was the Father. And this word is, God the Father is truth, and we must walk in truth, if we are to have this life. Jesus walked in truth.