Why the Trinity is a False Doctrine

[nomadictheist]

He was in the beginning with God because he was created in the beginning, duh.

If he existed before the beginning, the scripture would've said, he existed before the beginning. In fact, the word would've declared Jesus a brother, not a son, a son does not come at the same time as a father. Hello?

A human son does not come the same time as a father. Your entire line of reasoning rests on this human relational understanding. Why do you insist on putting human limitations on God and denying the truth revealed in His word?

The scripture does not say that He was created in the beginning. It says He was in the beginning. In fact, it says He "was God." You say He was created in the beginning. Both statements cannot be true. Either He was in the beginning with God (and was God) and through Him all things were created and without Him not one thing was created that was created, or He was created in the beginning. Both cannot be true.

One is in scripture. The other is not. When those are the options I have, I choose the option that is in scripture.

 

[Goatee]

John 14:9Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (RSVCE)
9 Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and yet you do not know me, Philip? He who has seen me has seen the Father; how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?

 

[Goatee]

John 1Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (RSVCE)
The Word Became Flesh
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.2 He was in the beginning with God; 3 all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made.

 

[Goatee]

He was in the beginning with God because he was created in the beginning, duh.

If he existed before the beginning, the scripture would've said, he existed before the beginning. In fact, the word would've declared Jesus a brother, not a son, a son does not come at the same time as a father. Hello?

Sarcasm......and you claim to be free from sin!

 

[cgaviria]

A human son does not come the same time as a father. Your entire line of reasoning rests on this human relational understanding. Why do you insist on putting human limitations on God and denying the truth revealed in His word?

The scripture does not say that He was created in the beginning. It says He was in the beginning. In fact, it says He "was God." You say He was created in the beginning. Both statements cannot be true. Either He was in the beginning with God (and was God) and through Him all things were created and without Him not one thing was created that was created, or He was created in the beginning. Both cannot be true.

One is in scripture. The other is not. When those are the options I have, I choose the option that is in scripture.

God created the relation of a father and a son, so it stands to reason if he made it so, that in then calling Jesus his son, that the way he created this relation also relates to the way he called Jesus. God speaks wisely, and anyone who is wise understands these things.

 

[Goatee]

God created the relation of a father and a son, so it stands to reason if he made it so, that in then calling Jesus his son, that the way he created this relation also relates to the way he called Jesus. God speaks wisely, and anyone who is wise understands these things.

Is that scripture based then?

 

[nomadictheist]

God created the relation of a father and a son, so it stands to reason if he made it so, that in then calling Jesus his son, that the way he created this relation also relates to the way he called Jesus. God speaks wisely, and anyone who is wise understands these things.

God also created the relationship between husband and wife, and declares that the church is the bride of Christ.

Based on your understanding that we should understand everything God says by a human relationship, does this mean that you also believe that in the new heaven and new earth the church will enter into a contractual sexual relationship with Jesus? Because I certainly don't...

A son is not just a "descendant" of a father. A son is a subordinate, one who is of the same nature and being. In fact, if you go deeper than your shallow idea of sonship as "coming after," a son is one who bears the image of a father.

When you stop seeking to interpret everything to mean that Jesus came after the Father you gain understanding. When you continue to seek to interpret everything to say that Jesus was a creature, you must twist verses until they become unrecognizable and incoherent.

 

[cgaviria]

God also created the relationship between husband and wife, and declares that the church is the bride of Christ.

Based on your understanding that we should understand everything God says by a human relationship, does this mean that you also believe that in the new heaven and new earth the church will enter into a contractual sexual relationship with Jesus? Because I certainly don't...

A son is not just a "descendant" of a father. A son is a subordinate, one who is of the same nature and being. In fact, if you go deeper than your shallow idea of sonship as "coming after," a son is one who bears the image of a father.

When you stop seeking to interpret everything to mean that Jesus came after the Father you gain understanding. When you continue to seek to interpret everything to say that Jesus was a creature, you must twist verses until they become unrecognizable and incoherent.

The union of husband and wife does indeed foreshadow the union of Jesus Christ and church, however, it is not a sexual as you so speak to try to disprove the wisdom behind God calling Jesus his son. The church is not literally a woman that will have sex with Jesus Christ, use your brain here buddy.

 

[nomadictheist]

The union of husband and wife does indeed foreshadow the union of Jesus Christ and church, however, it is not a sexual as you so speak to try to disprove the wisdom behind God calling Jesus his son. The church is not literally a woman that will have sex with Jesus Christ, use your brain here buddy.

Neither is God literally a flesh and blood creature who had a sexual union with an opposite sex flesh and blood creature and produced offspring. Use your brain here, buddy.

 

[Strong in Him]

The Father has no need for the Son, or anyone for that matter, this is where you are in error. The Father has chosen the Son, but he has no need for the Son, but chose to make him Lord and God over his creation for his own good pleasure. So yes, there is one true God, the Father, but he has made Jesus Christ, as a representation of himself, who is also God, and they both act as one, but they are not literally one person, they are two distinct beings, with the Father being the one true God.

There was nothing in my post, # 661, about the Father needing the Son. I wanted you to tell me the Scripture which says that God MADE, or created, Jesus.

Then I also made a point that there is only one God - ONE. You previously said that there are two; God and Jesus. There is only ONE God, as the teaching of the Old and New Testaments clearly shows.

The Father does not need anyone or anything. To say that he needs someone or anyone, including Jesus Christ, is already a doctrinal error.

I believe that God doesn't need anything - I've already said he is all powerful and all sufficient.
My post said nothing about God needing anyone, you brought that up in your response.

 

[Goatee]

The union of husband and wife does indeed foreshadow the union of Jesus Christ and church, however, it is not a sexual as you so speak to try to disprove the wisdom behind God calling Jesus his son. The church is not literally a woman that will have sex with Jesus Christ, use your brain here buddy.

Nasty....Another horrible remark when you state you are sin free!

 

[cgaviria]

Neither is God literally a flesh and blood creature who had a sexual union with an opposite sex flesh and blood creature and produced offspring. Use your brain here, buddy.

No, but he is, however, declared to be a son, just as it was spoken in scripture,

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.

Perhaps God will allow you to see, perhaps not. I, however, will not carry on with endless arguments with people that do not wish to listen to sound reason and sound doctrine.

 

[cgaviria]

There was nothing in my post, # 661, about the Father needing the Son. I wanted you to tell me the Scripture which says that God MADE, or created, Jesus.

Then I also made a point that there is only one God - ONE. You previously said that there are two; God and Jesus. There is only ONE God, as the teaching of the Old and New Testaments clearly shows.



I believe that God doesn't need anything - I've already said he is all powerful and all sufficient.
My post said nothing about God needing anyone, you brought that up in your response.

Alright. If you wish to gain wisdom and see scripturally how I am right about Jesus Christ being birthed into existence, then read my study on it, http://www.wisdomofgod.co/2015/12/1...-also-began-only-the-father-has-no-beginning/ . Learn well.

 

[Goatee]

No, but he is, however, declared to be a son, just as it was spoken in scripture,


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.

Perhaps God will allow you to see, perhaps not. I, however, will not carry on with endless arguments with people that do not wish to listen to sound reason and sound doctrine.

Again, this is your very own take on scripture! I have not seen one eminent theologian state what you do. Can you explain that?

eonial......What does that mean as i see you use it here:

http://www.wisdomofgod.co/2016/01/3...knowledge-and-predetermination-of-the-father/

Quote:
These sons of God to be revealed will be eonial gods that will rule upon the earth for the eon of the thousand years. So, what is the way to attain this incredible authority, this eonial life, this immortality, this glorification? Unquote

 

[civilwarbuff]

Alright. If you wish to gain wisdom and see scripturally how I am right about Jesus Christ being birthed into existence, then read my study on it, http://www.wisdomofgod.co/2015/12/1...-also-began-only-the-father-has-no-beginning/ . Learn well.

Since you are wrong here why would we believe you got it right in your study? Wrong is still wrong no matter where it is located.....

 

[cgaviria]

Since you are wrong here why would we believe you got it right in your study? Wrong is still wrong no matter where it is located.....

Then don't read it. I am not here to argue with people with the likes of you.

 

[Goatee]

Then don't read it. I am not here to argue with people with the likes of you.

When you say 'Likes of you', what does that mean exactly? Is that yet another bad tasting remark from a man who claims to be free from sin and yet is able to come out with these tasteless remarks?

 

[cgaviria]

Again, this is your very own take on scripture! I have not seen one eminent theologian state what you do. Can you explain that?

eonial......What does that mean as i see you use it here:

http://www.wisdomofgod.co/2016/01/3...knowledge-and-predetermination-of-the-father/

Quote:
These sons of God to be revealed will be eonial gods that will rule upon the earth for the eon of the thousand years. So, what is the way to attain this incredible authority, this eonial life, this immortality, this glorification? Unquote

Eonial means something that lasts for eons, or very long time. Not all things eonial are eternal, such as eonial hills, eonial fire, but the eonial things that are indeed also eternal are eonial life since whoever has eonial life never dies, and the eonial kingdom of Christ, as this is a kingdom that will never end nor be destroyed.

 

[nomadictheist]

No, but he is, however, declared to be a son, just as it was spoken in scripture,


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.

Perhaps God will allow you to see, perhaps not. I, however, will not carry on with endless arguments with people that do not wish to listen to sound reason and sound doctrine.

This is your interpretation, which clashes with the rest of scripture, and is therefore, not true.

Shall we look at the context?

It says that Jesus "did not exalt Himself to becoming high priest, but was appointed by Him who said to Him, 'You are my Son. Today I have begotten you."

So the context of this verse shows us that this statement has to do with Jesus becoming a high priest. And how does the scripture tell us that Jesus became a high priest?

"7 In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverence. 8 Although he was a son, he learned obedience through what he suffered.9 And being made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him,10 being designated by God a high priest after the order of Melchizedek."

So I acknowledge that God (the Word, Jesus) becoming flesh and dying on the cross is an unfathomable mystery. This is what we are told by the scriptures. I do not try to explain it after the philosophy of mankind, because I know that God's ways are higher than ours and His thoughts are higher than ours. What He has declared to us in His written word is truth, and no manmade philosophy can change that truth.

As has been shown already, Jesus was already with God in the beginning. That is what the scriptures say. I believe the scriptures when they tell me that every single thing that was created was created through Jesus. I believe the scriptures when they say that Jesus became flesh, and through the process of becoming flesh, suffering, and dying also became mankind's high priest. I won't pretend that I understand it. I am far too simple for that. But what God has revealed, this I believe.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Jesus Christ is exact image because there is no image of God that has as much power as he, that even through him has all life being created, and even he brings forth judgment upon the entire world. No other image of God has this incredible authority and power, therefore, he is indeed the exact image of God. The elect, are only merely tiny images of God, who reflect lesser measures of authority in the kingdom to come on earth.

The exact image of Perfection would be Perfection (God). I would agree as would many throughout the history of Christianity that the Son is the exact image of the Father and that exactness also goes to why both Father and Son (and Holy Spirit) are God.
Am unclear how one can claim something is an exact image but not an exact image. Even if one says Jesus has a lot of authority and power, unless that matches the Father then this view cannot claim it sees Jesus as the "exact" image of the Father. Clearly this view has Jesus being less than exact image of God - which is why it is able to call Jesus a lessor god. If something is less than a certain thing then there is no way to call it an "exact" image of that thing. It is by definition something less - and that is captured in this by the label "lessor god". Clearly and repeatedly the position taken in this thread to supposedly debunk the Trinity Doctrine is that the Son is less than an "exact" image of God.