Why the Trinity is a False Doctrine

[Wgw]

I understand that. However, the Catholic Church is not without it's own inaccuracies. I was informing him that while non-Trinitarianism is a pretty unsound doctrine, he also follows a somewhat unbiblical belief system.

That's debateable, and indeed there exists an entire subforum of General Theology to debating that issue. I would prefer it if Trinitarian Christians preferred to focus on what we have in commom when debating non-Trinitarians.

 

[Goatee]

I understand that. However, the Catholic Church is not without it's own inaccuracies. I was informing him that while non-Trinitarianism is a pretty unsound doctrine, he also follows a somewhat unbiblical belief system.

Unbiblical only by how you perceive it!

 

[cgaviria]

Father, Son and Holy Spirit are Biblical. John chapters 13 thru 17, the end of Matthew 28, John's First Epistle, etc. contain numerous references to Father, Son and Holy Spirit working together in fulfilling the Divine purpose.

I've doctrinally proven that the son was created by the Father, and that holy spirit was created by the Son, and that holy spirit isn't one being, but many, because holy spirits are angels, and to each believe is given one holy spirit to guide him from within the body. These doctrinal reasons crumble apart the doctrine of the trinity which skews understanding of the Father being the only being that has never been created, yet creating the son as an exact mirror and representation of himself to then go on and create all life. This is also not to mention the discrepancies of the 1 John trinity verse existing only in a few very late manuscripts out of hundreds, and the matthew 28 verse contradicting 7 other passages to baptize in the name of Jesus Christ. The doctrine of the trinity is a false doctrine without a doubt.

 

[Commander Xenophon]

I've doctrinally proven that the son was created by the Father, and that holy spirit was created by the Son, and that holy spirit isn't one being, but many, because holy spirits are angels, and to each believe is given one holy spirit to guide him from within the body.

You presented an argument, not doctrinal proof. Your argument does not properly take into account John 1:3, for reasons I have explained (compare the original Greek with that of Acts 17:25. You also see, to reject Matthew 28:19, which negates your argument from the viewpoint of canonical Scripture.

These doctrinal reasons crumble apart the doctrine of the trinity which skews understanding of the Father being the only being that has never been created, yet creating the son as an exact mirror and representation of himself to then go on and create all life.

What is interesting here is that your description of the Son as an emanation of the Father is actually closer to Gnostic cosmology, for example, Valentinism or modern day Yazidism.

This is also not to mention the discrepancies of the 1 John trinity verse existing only in a few very late manuscripts out of hundreds, and the Matthew 28 verse contradicting 7 other passages to baptize in the name of Jesus Christ. The doctrine of the trinity is a false doctrine without a doubt.

All surviving Greek manuscripts have Matthew 28:19 as we know it. I read your argument on this point and it was not compelling.

Are you now by the way casting doubt on the authenticity John ch. 1?

 

[cgaviria]

You presented an argument, not doctrinal proof. Your argument does not properly take into account John 1:3, for reasons I have explained (compare the original Greek with that of Acts 17:25. You also see, to reject Matthew 28:19, which negates your argument from the viewpoint of canonical Scripture.



What is interesting here is that your description of the Son as an emanation of the Father is actually closer to Gnostic cosmology, for example, Valentinism or modern day Yazidism.



All surviving Greek manuscripts have Matthew 28:19 as we know it. I read your argument on this point and it was not compelling.

Are you now by the way casting doubt on the authenticity John ch. 1?

I've already proven that John 1:3 is mistranslated. "Things" was added to the translated text, not part of the original words. Panta was the original word, which means "all" and only "all". Next, Matthew 28:19 I've already proven is a forgery, because it contradicts 7 other scriptures that all things are to be done in the name of Jesus Christ alone, not in the name of the trinity. Therefore, regardless of what manuscript proof anyone wants to argue about, the spuriousness of that verse is already evident. And especially it being that the other counterpart 1 John trinity verse is also an absolute forgery that even trinitarians admit. It really baffles me how you people don't realize this. You guys are stuck in your own traditions, not realizing that this teaching in itself contradicts many scriptures, even the Genesis account. Wake up!

 

[Commander Xenophon]

I've already proven that John 1:3 is mistranslated. "Things" was added to the translated text, not part of the original words. Panta was the original word, which means "all" and only "all".

Panta means "all" or "all things" you claimed it had the meaning of "all life."

Strictly speaking, "things" in "all things" is contextually redundant, in that all and everything are synonymous, and the Koine Greek "panta" conveys this sense (hence, for example, pantheism, which means "everything is God").

Next, Matthew 28:19 I've already proven is a forgery, because it contradicts 7 other scriptures that all things are to be done in the name of Jesus Christ alone, not in the name of the trinity.

That's not proof, it's an unsubstantiated opinion based on what amounts to higher criticism. Without manuscript evidence, higher criticism can be used to make any desired claim about the NT, which is why we have books asserting the entire Gospel of John is a forgery, and endless debates over the authenticity of various epistles and so on, which are purely subjective and based on opinion.

Proof, actual proof, requires solid evidence, and not a subjective opinion about what a text should say, based on how I feel or how you feel about consistency. It is known that there are verses in the Bible that to the layman seem to contradict other verses.

I think that by "7 other verses" you want to include the Longer Ending of Mark, which unlike Matthew 28:19, is of dubious authenticity.

Therefore, regardless of what manuscript proof anyone wants to argue about, the spuriousness of that verse is already evident. And especially it being that the other counterpart 1 John trinity verse is also an absolute forgery that even trinitarians admit.

1 John 5:7-9 is not well attested in terms of manuscript evidence, but that does mot mean it is necessarily a forgery, any more than Mark 16:9-20 or the Woman Caught in Adultery pericope in John are necessarily forgeries.

It really baffles me how you people don't realize this. You guys are stuck in your own traditions, not realizing that this teaching in itself contradicts many scriptures, even the Genesis account. Wake up!

You yourself are insisting that an important verse is not Scripture, because you disagree with its implications relative to liturgical practice. Your argument contradicts Matthew 28:19, it contradicts John 1:3, and you want to delete the former and rewrite the latter in order to support your doctrinal position.

 

[cgaviria]

Panta means "all" or "all things" you claimed it had the meaning of "all life."

Strictly speaking, "things" in "all things" is contextually redundant, in that all and everything are synonymous, and the Koine Greek "panta" conveys this sense (hence, for example, pantheism, which means "everything is God").



That's not proof, it's an unsubstantiated opinion based on what amounts to higher criticism. Without manuscript evidence, higher criticism can be used to make any desired claim about the NT, which is why we have books asserting the entire Gospel of John is a forgery, and endless debates over the authenticity of various epistles and so on, which are purely subjective and based on opinion.

Proof, actual proof, requires solid evidence, and not a subjective opinion about what a text should say, based on how I feel or how you feel about consistency. It is known that there are verses in the Bible that to the layman seem to contradict other verses.

I think that by "7 other verses" you want to include the Longer Ending of Mark, which unlike Matthew 28:19, is of dubious authenticity.



1 John 5:7-9 is not well attested in terms of manuscript evidence, but that does mot mean it is necessarily a forgery, any more than Mark 16:9-20 or the Woman Caught in Adultery pericope in John are necessarily forgeries.



You yourself are insisting that an important verse is not Scripture, because you disagree with its implications relative to liturgical practice. Your argument contradicts Matthew 28:19, it contradicts John 1:3, and you want to delete the former and rewrite the latter in order to support your doctrinal position.

This isn't so, because if all things had indeed been created by Jesus Christ, then I dare you to explain how water existed before he began speaking? Go ahead, lets see what you come up with. I'll address your other statements after you address this one.

 

[rakovsky]

CF Forums teaches Trinitarianism:
http://www.christianforums.com/help/faith/

 

[Commander Xenophon]

This isn't so, because if all things had indeed been created by Jesus Christ, then I dare you to explain how water existed before he began speaking? Go ahead, lets see what you come up with. I'll address your other statements after you address this one.

Are you now seeking to claim these waters were uncreated? The Mormons falsely hold that God merely organized existing matter. I hope you aren't going to argue dualism on that level.

 

[cgaviria]

Are you now seeking to claim these waters were uncreated? The Mormons falsely hold that God merely organized existing matter. I hope you aren't going to argue dualism on that level.

You haven't answered my question.

 

[rakovsky]

CF Forums says:
"Faith groups that deny the full, eternal deity of Jesus Christ or His incarnation whereby He, as God, took on human flesh (becoming fully God and fully man in one person), are considered non-Christians at CF."
(SEE THE HELP PAGE)

Denying Trinitarianism is kind of on the same scale of Christianity as Jehovah's Witnesses and Muslims.

Muslims call Him "Messiah" Jesus and all, but they don't think He is uniquely God.

What do you think?

 

[rakovsky]

You haven't answered my question.

He is just trying to find abstract reasoning to say Jesus is not God. When you get into such an abstract level as saying whether Jesus could create water before He was born in the universe physically you get onto such a level of hypothetical debates that you cant prove things unlless you accept basic premises like the Bible.

God "said" let there be light, and Jesus is the Word, so Jesus was there before Creation "saying things" as the "Word".
etc.

It's very philosophical.
Philo the nonChristian thinker preceded Christianity and got into alot of this kind of thought about the Logos.

 

[rakovsky]

Are you now seeking to claim these waters were uncreated? The Mormons falsely hold that God merely organized existing matter. I hope you aren't going to argue dualism on that level.

Who knows. Some people can argue anything even if it doesnt make sense.

 

[rakovsky]

Peace, CGav,

I wish you the best in life. Be happy. Love Jesus and God.

 

[cgaviria]

CF Forums says:
"Faith groups that deny the full, eternal deity of Jesus Christ or His incarnation whereby He, as God, took on human flesh (becoming fully God and fully man in one person), are considered non-Christians at CF."
(SEE THE HELP PAGE)

Denying Trinitarianism is kind of on the same scale of Christianity as Jehovah's Witnesses and Muslims.

Muslims call Him "Messiah" Jesus and all, but they don't think He is uniquely God.

What do you think?

Trinitarianism is a catholic doctrine, not an original doctrine of Jesus Christ nor the apostles. I've already explained why in various other posts, which I can gladly share with you.

In respect to the CF rules, they have created this "controversial" category for believers like me to share concerning these matters. How do I know this? Because they've told me directly. So I'm telling you what they've told me. Non-trinitarian teachings can be taught and shared here. And also, you'll notice that this category is also for "non-nicene" christians.

 

[rakovsky]

Trinitarianism is a catholic doctrine, not an original doctrine of Jesus Christ nor the apostles. I've already explained why in various other posts, which I can gladly share with you.

In respect to the CF rules, they have created this "controversial" category for believers like me to share concerning these matters. How do I know this? Because they've told me directly. So I'm telling you what they've told me. And also, you'll notice that this category is also for "non-nicene" christians.

Oh well, they dont count nonNicene as Christian. Trinitarianism is catholic because catholic means the whole faith. The whole faith of Christianity teaches Trinitarianism - that Jesus is God.

Some people don't want to be standard Christians and would rather make the Bible say what they want and it's hard to convince them. There is not much to do about that. Just try to move on.

Peace bro.

 

[cgaviria]

He is just trying to find abstract reasoning to say Jesus is not God. When you get into such an abstract level as saying whether Jesus could create water before He was born in the universe physically you get onto such a level of hypothetical debates that you cant prove things unlless you accept basic premises like the Bible.

God "said" let there be light, and Jesus is the Word, so Jesus was there before Creation "saying things" as the "Word".
etc.

It's very philosophical.
Philo the nonChristian thinker preceded Christianity and got into alot of this kind of thought about the Logos.

He won't find any logical reasoning. Anyone I present this question gets stomped with it. And there are many more questions that stomp trinitarians. The doctrine of the trinity has no basis in scripture nor in sound biblical wisdom. Its a doctrine created by man.

 

[rakovsky]

He won't find any logical reasoning. Anyone I present this question gets stomped with it. And there are many more questions that stomp trinitarians. The doctrine of the trinity has no basis in scripture nor in sound biblical wisdom. Its a doctrine created by man.

Let's say that Trinitarianism is fully biblical and that Jesus tried to make people think he was a divine being like Paul wrote. So what? Does that prove it is really true?

 

[Hoghead1]

Imagican, Arius and his followers argued that Christ was not Deity. Indeed, Christ could not be Deity, as God cannot suffer or change.

 

[cgaviria]

Let's say that Trinitarianism is fully biblical and that Jesus tried to make people think he was a divine being like Paul wrote. So what? Does that prove it is really true?

Jesus is indeed divine. But not because he has always existed like the Father, but because he was created and made divine by the Father. The doctrine of the trinity does not have understanding on how the Father creates beings that image himself and give them authority and power, to act as God in creation.