Why the Trinity is a False Doctrine

[Wgw]

Sounds like modelism

It is fairly classically Modalist / Sabellian, roughly the opposite of the Arian or semi-Arian / Pneumatomachian error of the OP.

 

[Fireinfolding]

That always clears things right up

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Listen, either Jesus Christ is an exact copy of the Father, or he is a lesser image and expression of the Father. Scripture teaches he is the latter, so take it or leave it.

Since Judaism and then from it Christianity have always been monotheistic, am unclear how someone could believe Scripture teaches polytheism. So as for me I would leave that notion as absurd.

I know the charge of polytheism in this thread is attempted to be avoided by claiming one is promoting only the worship of what is being called the one supreme god said to be the father (think Zeus or Jupiter) through a lessor god said to be Jesus. By most reckoning that is still at least two gods involved in ones worship which qualifies as polytheism.

Scripture has a lot to say about polytheism, Scripture which is obviously being left to adopt this proposed view as an alternate to the allegedly false Trinity doctrine. I would leave such a view as un-Christian.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

That always clears things right up

Ok call it heresy, only three syllables. Does that make it less funny?

I prefer calling what it was called the first time someone thought it clever to change the teachings of Jesus through His Apostles.

 

[Commander Xenophon]

Yes, cgaviria has said he is sinless.

Forgive me, but I don't see how any participant in this discussion can possibly claim that. We are all sinners, which is why this thread and others like it have periodically undergone cleanups by the mods, and why there is a palpable sense of loathing and bitterness in many posts from persons on either side.

 

[Tiny Bible]

Sounds like modelism

No idea what that is as far as a sound like.
Rather, my post is from scripture and uses scripture .


Editing to add: I double checked to make sure my understanding on the periphery of the definition of Molinism was correct.
Having done so it is my opinion, and since I wrote the post you critiqued as sounding like Molinism, it is not at all a reflection of that doctrine.

 

[Fireinfolding]

Ok call it heresy, only three syllables. Does that make it less funny?

I prefer calling what it was called the first time someone thought it clever to change the teachings of Jesus through His Apostles.

Well, I will not answer you, but I am not allowed to tell you why I cant respond to you (but would like to give you the courtesy to state that without giving the reason).

 

[DrBubbaLove]

No idea what that is as far as a sound like.
Rather, my post is from scripture and uses scripture .


Editing to add: I double checked to make sure my understanding on the periphery of the definition of Molinism was correct.
Having done so it is my opinion, and since I wrote the post you critiqued as sounding like Molinism, it is not at all a reflection of that doctrine.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion. The post is what it is

 

[Hoghead1]

If you have Jesus as a lesser God, then you have no Trinity. What you have, instead, is the Father being God and then the Son and Spirit as lesser divine entities sent by him.
Also, it is problematic if Genesis intends Christ to be in teh picture. it is a purely Jewish document, and Judaism does snot accept Christ as God or the Messiah. The plurality, implied in Gen. 1:26, is probably a residual of polytheism.

 

[Tiny Bible]

That always clears things right up

Spin Julie, spinnnnnn!
There should be an animated gif of that scene where she's singing, "the hills are alive with the sound of muuuuusic...." , and then spins right off the edge of the mountain behind her. (Waiting for retort from someone saying, so a Christian wants to see an animated death gif featuring Julie Andrews? In three, two one.... )

“Don't use words too big for the subject. Don't say infinitely when you mean very; otherwise you'll have no word left when you want to talk about something really infinite.” C.S Lewis.

Unfortunately, it also seems to happen in threads that revolve around Exegisis that the charge of heresy inevitably enters in. Using big words is sometimes a method of at once appearing as an authority who can rightly make the charge based on what is presumed that person's knowledge of the so called heresies they accuse a poster of. It's meant to minimalize their targeted posters remarks and influence others to ignore what that individual accuser deems is unworthy of respect. And should therein be something that, labeled by them as heresy, is the central focus of future posts that will then devalue further that targeted posters prior remarks. Essentially , the accuser intends to shut someone out of the discussion with their accusation of heresy.
Unfortunately, that's a tactic that is employed in topics like those that encompass Exegesis, Soterology, and other scriptural subjects and very often by those cannot objectively discuss the topic without throwing daggers at those who do not hold their own views on the issue.
Typically that method is cause to say the accuser has voluntarily lost the argument by conceding they cannot discuss without branding opponent views as heresy.
It isn't heresy to disagree with the individual. It's common sense at times.

Nothing I have said is heresy. In fact it can be noted by the objective reader that it is all supported by scripture. Which is linked or already known by the Christian Bible reader.

 

[Wgw]

Forgive me, but I don't see how any participant in this discussion can possibly claim that. We are all sinners, which is why this thread and others like it have periodically undergone cleanups by the mods, and why there is a palpable sense of loathing and bitterness in many posts from persons on either side.

Abba Sarmatas said, 'I prefer a sinful man who knows he has sinned and repents, to a man who has not sinned and considers himself to be righteous.'

 

[Wgw]

Everyone is entitled to an opinion. The post is what it is

And tautological statements are tautological.

 

[Hoghead1]

"Big words," however, are part and parcel of any serious theological discussion. Terms like "modalist" or"Sabellianism" denote major aspects of the history of the Trinity. If one is not familiar with these terms and what they stand for, then one is not fully prepared to discuss the Trinity. The think to do is to look up and read about such terms, not fuss about them.

 

[Berean777]

I understand that they do believe it. And yet they don't consider the application of the world, "Monotheism" , as pertains to that category in which Christianity falls.
Yes, Jesus did exist as God incarnate. Jesus was the son of God because that terminology refers to a sire.God is a Holy Spirit so that covers what some imagine are two separate entities of states of being in scripture. Jesus came as God in flesh to show that this material world is transitory and those who are imbued, or basically for those who are born of mortals, channel the power of God through the imbuing of the Holy Spirit can do all that Jesus did. As Jesus told people.

Further, the plural pronouns aren't used in scripture so as to truly identify a three fold being. Jesus was flesh which he cast off after death so as to show his spirit, the spirit of God, for 40 days after his resurrection. Resurrection. Yeshua("deliverer") conquered the flesh. He did that because he was God wearing flesh.Jesus' father was God. He was delivered through a mortal woman, Miryam. (מִרְיָם).
Jesus was not a man. He was God appearing as a man. The Old Testament informed one cannot look upon God, a spirit if we also recall scripture, and live. Quite the predicament if God intends to offer salvation to the lost mortals on earth by delivering his new testimony, testament, in person.
However, encased in flesh it was accomplished.

Jesus=Yeshua stated in first person in John 6:51,”I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever;” ["I am", is found also in John 8:23,John 14:6, John 15:5, *More scriptures*)
A man can't promise that. But God did. And when we recall the Old Testament and Exodus 3:14 God refers to himself first "person" so that Moses could understand. "I am that I am..." . Jesus=Yeshua was reiterating what the Jews of his time would know was scripture in that "Old Testament".
He wasn't saying, "I'm Jesus, a mere man, and I am the living bread...." . No man was or is. Only God is the bread of life. The Biblical meaning of bread is the food of life. Which is God.

Yeshua=Jesus then as the son of man is exactly that. He appeared as the son of Joseph and Miryam/Mary. But he was telling people in his preaching that he was I am. And God being a spirit, of course a holy spirit, was Jesus wearing flesh. Therefore while there was one man delivering God's message it was actually the spirit of God delivering his holy message to man. There was only one. Otherwise, it is a fallacy for any Christian to claim Christianity is monotheistic. (a single all powerful God).

Here's a worldly secular example anyone here can relate to. What's your name? What do you do for a living? Do you have a family?
OK. So, let's sum those up then. (Example) "You" (impersonal 'you') are Steve Fakeperson, who has a wife and three children and works for General Motors as an Executive Officer.
Steve Fakeperson
Husband-Father
Executive Officer

Are you three people? Or are you one who is in relationship with three other duties?

Yeshua=Jesus in the New Testament told his disciples he always spoke in parables so that not all would understand. Jesus also said in other scripture that the well do not need a physician only the sick. Paraphrasing of course.
Those who needed him were those for whom his words would have meaning. He spoke in parables, riddles of sorts, so that those who were chosen by him(God), which was related in other scripture as The Elect, would find their way to him. (no one comes to the Father save through ...the Father ...who sent himself. I.E. John 14:6)

What is sad is that in discussions like this it doesn't remain an impersonal debate or dialog concerning Exegesis. Rather, while every Christian who enters into such a discussion is personally involved in faith, it seems to become an adversarial situation wherein it is inferred what is actually taking place is an attempt to reduce, alter, or revoke, someone's personal faith. Be it in matters of this subject, those who hold the Trinity is true and Biblical. Or those who do not believe the Trinity is true and supported by scripture.

I think that is why very often it happens that such threads are closed. Because what should remain impersonal and simply a dissection if you will of Exegesis invariably evolves into an adversarial stand off among participants.

For my part, Trinity is man-made due to errant or even intentional misunderstanding, or distortion respectively, of scripture. Not by those in this thread I must emphasize. But rather of early forefathers of the churches, or those invested in the exclusive pursuit of teaching the Trinity doctrine.

This isn't to say I'm here thinking I'll change Trinitarian's mind. Rather, I think what is important, and as far as my participation goes, is that we look behind the words and to the spirit of I am's message.
If we accept that the ancient Hebrew scripture was the origin of our Christian faith today, because the Messiah in the Hebrew sacred texts was fulfilled according to our faith in the coming of Yeshua=Jesus, then we have to, I think, accept the method that was used in the writing of the ancient Hebrew scripture.
Meaning, words weren't simply words.

Words had meaning, numbers had meaning, names had meaning. And they all painted a picture for the faithful that unfolded in a perfect tapestry of truth in the message behind what was written on the scrolls.

There was a reason Yeshua=Jesus walked the earth for 40 days after he resurrected from the grave that should have been the end for the flesh.
There was a reason he fasted for 40 days, etc... It's the meaning of 40 in the ancient Hebrew Tanakh.
Recalling Jesus saying, again, why he spoke in parables I think we have to look deeper than what we imagine is simply a relating of the number 3 in matters of days in the tomb, when Jesus was in the tomb for three days. Why there were three women bearing witness of his crucifixion at the foot of the cross. And then the Trinity (3) doctrine and what the difference is to mean between those 3's for us as Christians.

(I realize I wrote a book there but the spirit moved me and it had to be said. If you've read this far, respect. And thank you for your patience.)

The Holy Spirit in the old testament, is said to be Holy, Holy and Holy thrice. This means that the indivisible and infinite Holy Spirit is the one God (John 4:34).

The Trinitarians don't say that there are three Holy Spirits, rather they look up to the one infinite being, who within himself exists coeternally and coequally a taxonomy of three distinct personas.

The epic love story of the Father for the Son and who is witessed and narrated by the Holy Ghost, is one that predates creation, therefore it is before time began. The love story existed in a timeless and immaterial state of being. As the one being says I Am the Alpha and Omega, the first and the last of my kind.

When the Living Word was made flesh, he had to have become fully man, in order for his resurrection into the eternal Son to be realised. That is, how he would provide the path as the last Adam, for man to follow in his footsteps, to then be what he is in the post resurrection, glorified form. This means that he has to have come as a man in place of our previous father Adam and to have taken his place, to then bring to fruition a new creation. This new creation cannot be realised, if the risen Lord did not follow through from the man form he took on, by then raising that same form, into an incorruptible heavenly form.

Full Preterist believe that the Living Word when ascending up in heaven, reverted to becoming a Spirit. This assertion then denies a physical resurrection of the dead and is at odds with the old testament belief of the physical resurrection of the dead.

In this respect the same being preexisting creation has three personas, where the persona of the Word took the form of the man Jesus of Nazareth, to permanently take upon him the glorified form that the apostles believed to inherit after the death of the earthly body. To say that the Living Word is not a man is true and also not true at the same time, because in order for the Living Word to put on the glorifed heavenly form, he had to become fully man and in this respect, he would make a permanent dwelling for humanity after death, in his Father's house with many rooms.

In conclusion the one Godbeing must have distinct personas operating simultaneously and timelessly, even before creation.

 

[Hoghead1]

Was th3e OT polytheistic? Was Moses polytheistic? These are key questions to which there are no clear answers. The Ten Commandments, for example, do not deny teh existence of other Gods, just that they shouldn't be worshipped. Often in the ancient world, a people would honor the existence of more than one god, but follow the guidance of only one. So, do the Ten Commandments mean these other gods don't exist or simply that they are not to be followed? Also, another ancient practice was to jump back and forth between monotheism and polytheism. Hence, Aristotle, for example, speaks of teh Unmoved Mover, then says there could be 44 or 55 Unmoved Movers. Epictetus speaks interchangeable of the gods or God.

 

[Fireinfolding]

You can have God as the greater John 14:28 being the Head of Christ 1 Cr 11:3 who is the Word and have a Holy Ghost

God who spake by Moses said he would put his words in Jesus mouth Duet 18:18 and that he would speak what was commanded him. Likewise did Jesus say he did not speak of himself John 12:49 but had received commandment concerning what he should say and what he should speak.

And likewise of the Holy Ghost which goes out from God even as through Christ would also not speak of himself

John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

In subjection one to another

Mark 12:36 For David himself said by the Holy Ghost, The LORD said to my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool.

Mark 12:37 David therefore himself calleth him Lord; and whence is he then his son? And the common people heard him gladly.

David calls the Son of God by the Holy Ghost that

1 Cr 15:27 For he (the LORD) hath put all things under his (the Son's) feet. But when he (the LORD) saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.

 

[Hoghead1]

The problem, Berean777, is that if you take of the social theory of the trinity, the notion that there are three distinct personalities, then really you are positing three gods and so polytheism.
Also, teh doctrine of teh two natures of Christ, affirmed at the Council of Chalcedon in 451, presents problems. Accordingly, only teh human nature could suffer, whereas the divine nature, the God part of Christ, is passionless and therefore cannot experience any emotion, most especially suffering. If so, then both God and man appear but separate parts of some larger, all-inclusive whole, that includes each and yet transcends any one of them. That being teh case, what do you call this larger whole? An even knottier problem here is how we can have any kind of faith in a blissfully indifferent, dispassioned Deity.

 

[Hoghead1]

The flaming that goes on here and elsewhere on this site id largely due to the fact that many posters did not have a solid adult education in theology and do not know how to go about a theological debate. I don't mean to put people down, but that is the truth.

 

[Berean777]

We cannot aspire to be called Sons of God, if the Living Word didn't become fully man at the incarnation. That is why his raised form showed the marks of the human form that he took on.

For God so loved the world that he literally gave his Son to permanently co-inhabit with his created beings as the Emmanuel. This then distinguishes the persona of the Father and the Spirit from the Son, albeit the Son is the same infinite being, who is now in the world, whereas before creation he existed within the taxonomy of the one infinite Spirit as a distinct persona/consciousness.

 

[Berean777]

The problem, Berean777, is that if you take of the social theory of the trinity, the notion that there are three distinct personalities, then really you are positing three gods and so polytheism.
Also, teh doctrine of teh two natures of Christ, affirmed at the Council of Chalcedon in 451, presents problems. Accordingly, only teh human nature could suffer, whereas the divine nature, the God part of Christ, is passionless and therefore cannot experience any emotion, most especially suffering. If so, then both God and man appear but separate parts of some larger, all-inclusive whole, that includes each and yet transcends any one of them. That being teh case, what do you call this larger whole? An even knottier problem here is how we can have any kind of faith in a blissfully indifferent, dispassioned Deity.

God choose the persona of the Son to co-inhabit creation as the Son who is given (Isaiah 9:6). In this respect the persona of the Son has to be clothed with the experiences of a man, in order for the transition from the first Adam to the Last Adam to take place, which would ultimately adopt humanity into sonship. If it was any other way, then we cannot aspire to be sons of God.