Why the Trinity is a False Doctrine

[rakovsky]

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

Yes, it's just an old heresy.
But so what? Even Arius claimed Jesus was some special kind of supernatural person unlike any other.
So how did he know that? He just believed the Bible as he read it?

 

[rakovsky]

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.

OK, so why do you think Jesus is now divine after God made him that way? Because you are a Bible believer? Because you believer whatever the Bible says?

 

[cgaviria]

OK, so why do you think Jesus is now divine after God made him that way? Because you are a Bible believer? Because you believer whatever the Bible says?

Indeed, the prophecies of old have pointed to this Jesus Christ that became born of a virgin, and his life fulfilled many olden prophecies, and his death and resurrection was witnessed by many. And the outpouring of holy spirit with power was also witnessed by many. He is indeed the son of God that pre-existed and everything he has spoken is the truth.

 

[Hoghead1]

That is not an accurate account of the Trinity, Cgaviria. The traditional concept is that Christ was begotten and no made, meaning Christ exists eternally. There never was a time when Christ didn't exist. A favorite metaphor for this was that the Son and Spirit are like sunlight coming from the sun (Father). Just as there was never a time when the sun existed without sunlight, so, too, Christ and the Spirit are eternal beings, having no beginning.

 

[rakovsky]

Indeed, the prophecies of old have pointed to this Jesus Christ that became born of a virgin, and his life fulfilled many olden prophecies, and his death and resurrection was witnessed by many. And the outpouring of holy spirit with power was also witnessed by many. He is indeed the son of God that pre-existed and everything he has spoken is the truth.

Where does it say Jesus was born of a virgin in the Old Testament? And how do you know they were honest and fully sane witnesses and that 50 years later the gospel writers retold the facts exactly right?

If you are saying he is a son of a preexisting God or that Jesus preexisted, you are well on the way to catholic theology.

 

[Hoghead1]

The Trinity, Rakobsky, has roots in Scripture, true. However, it is generally recognized as an extra-biblical doctrine. Many of the Trinitarian terms, such as the homoousios (of one essence) are not at all in teh Bible.

 

[cgaviria]

Where does it say Jesus was born of a virgin in the Old Testament? And how do you know they were honest and fully sane witnesses and that 50 years later the gospel writers retold the facts exactly right?

If you are saying he is a son of a preexisting God or that Jesus preexisted, you are well on the way to catholic theology.

Here is the prophecy in Isaiah,

Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel. (Isaiah 7:14 [NIV])

These men did not speak out of their own will, but as holy spirit moved them to speak. Holy spirit is a real being, not just some figure of speech. Whoever has holy spirit can indeed prophesy.

 

[rakovsky]

The Trinity, Rakobsky, has roots in Scripture, true. However, it is generally recognized as an extra-biblical doctrine. Many of the Trinitarian terms, such as the homoousios (of one essence) are not at all in teh Bible.

Baptize all nations in the name of the Trinity, it says.
Arians are stuck arguing that it doesn't mean they combine into one even though it has a nice ring to it.

 

[rakovsky]

Here is the prophecy in Isaiah,


These men did not speak out of their own will, but as holy spirit moved them to speak. Holy spirit is a real being, not just some figure of speech. Whoever has holy spirit can indeed prophesy.

So what is so miraculous? "Maidens" (It doesn't say virgin) often give birth, and if you read the rest of the chapter Isaiah lists other completely normal random things as "signs".

And again, how do you know that they have some miraculous ability for predictions? God promised Abraham he would get all the land that God promised him, but it didn't happen. There are plenty of broken predictions.

If you can get up to your Arianism/Adoptionism all the way from the basic 0 faith nonChristian position, you are next door to catholicism.

 

[Commander Xenophon]

Baptize all nations in the name of the Trinity, it says.
Arians are stuck arguing that it doesn't mean they combine into one even though it has a nice ring to it.

@cgaviria argues, against all manuscript evidence, that Matthew 28:19 is a forgery.

 

[rakovsky]

@cgaviria argues, against all manuscript evidence, that Matthew 28:19 is a forgery.

OK. So how does he know anything else is not a forgery in the Bible?
Maybe Isaiah's ending section is a forgery too. That's what many scholars think.

Does he think there was an actual prophet named Jonah who was swallowed by a whale/fish and who converted Nineveh even though we have no secular record of that?
He is stuck accepting plenty of forgeries as really "inspired" just because they are in the Bible, so he might as well go "catholic".

 

[Commander Xenophon]

You haven't answered my question.

This is because I don't need to; John 1:3 says our Lord created all things. Not all life, but all things. The words "Let there be light" can be attributed to Him; if anything was created before those words, it could also be attributed to Him, for by Him, all things were made.

 

[Commander Xenophon]

OK. So how does he know anything else is not a forgery in the Bible?
Maybe Isaiah's ending section is a forgery too. That's what many scholars think.

This is a legitimate objection to arguments from higher criticism being used to reject Scripture. Whereas one can complain about the lack of consistent manuscript evidence in favor of 1 John 5:7, the Adultery pericope, or the Longer Ending of Mark, there is no evidence to cast doubt on Matthew 28:19.

 

[rakovsky]

This is because I don't need to; John 1:3 says our Lord created all things. Not all life, but all things. The words "Let there be light" can be attributed to Him; if anything was created before those words, it could also be attributed to Him, for by Him, all things were made.

Maybe he will say thats a forgery too?

How does he know Moses wrote the whole Torah or is that forgery too?

 

[rakovsky]

This is a legitimate objection to arguments from higher criticism being used to reject Scripture. Whereas one can complain about the lack of consistent manuscript evidence in favor of 1 John 5:7, the Adultery pericope, or the Longer Ending of Mark, there is no evidence to cast doubt on Matthew 28:19.

Why can't he just imagine that the evidence exists or create it ex nihilio?

 

[cgaviria]

This is because I don't need to; John 1:3 says our Lord created all things. Not all life, but all things. The words "Let there be light" can be attributed to Him; if anything was created before those words, it could also be attributed to Him, for by Him, all things were made.

You're affirming that light was not the first thing Jesus Christ created and that somehow he brought water into existence before his first utterance? How very contradictory and nonsensical. This is why it is difficult to reason with people like you, you refuse to see the how unsound your own reasonings are.

 

[Commander Xenophon]

Maybe he will say thats a forgery too?

How does he know Moses wrote the whole Torah or is that forgery too?

He says John 1:3 is mistranslated. I disagree, because panta means "all" or "all things," whereas he seems to want it to mean "all life", which is different (see Acts 17:25, panin zoen).

I am going to look at an Interlinear Peshitta and the Vulgate on John 1:3 for purposes of comparison.

 

[Hoghead1]

There seems to be some confusion here on what Arius did nor did not say. Let me try and clarify matters. Arius had been educated in the tradition o f Paul of Samosata, Bishop of Antioch, who had been excommunicated for denying teh humanity of Christ. Paul asserted that God cannot appear on earth and so cannot have become human in Christ. Lucian, a follower of Paul, argued that what became human in Christ was a second essence created by God but distinct from God. The primary objective of Arius was to insure the unity, simplicity, and radical transcendence of God. To in any way identify the Logos with God would destroy the aloofness of teh Creator by attributing change and suffering to God. Though the Son may surpass all other created beings, he remains a created being and not God. Hence, Athanasius wrote that "because of his coming down...and looking upon him as having suffered...they do not believe him as the incorruptible Son of teh Incorruptible Father." Instead, Athanasius taunted, they ask: "How dare you to say that the one having the body is the proper word of teh Father's essence, so that he endured such a thing as this (i.e., the Cross)? How can he be Logos or God, he who slept as a man and wept?" Thus, Arius writes: "There is not a triad equal in glories; their substances are unmixed with each other...The essences of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are separate in nature, and are estranged, unconnected alien, and without participation in each other... They are utterly dissimilar from each other with respect to both essences and glorifies to infinity."

 

[Commander Xenophon]

You're affirming that light was not the first thing Jesus Christ created and that somehow he brought water into existence before his first utterance? How very contradictory and nonsensical. This is why it is difficult to reason with people like you, you refuse to see the how unsound your own reasonings are.

How is "water" not covered by "all"? John 1:3 by your own admission means, if nothing else, our Lord created "all."

This question though is also kind of inane, in that our Lord is God. All actions attributable to God are attributable to our Lord.

 

[rakovsky]

He says John 1:3 is mistranslated. I disagree, because panta means "all" or "all things," whereas he seems to want it to mean "all life", which is different (see Acts 17:25, panin zoen).

I am going to look at an Interlinear Peshitta and the Vulgate on John 1:3 for purposes of comparison.

Of course. But maybe you underestimate the power of the will and of visionary-ism. Maybe he "knows" that it's a mistranslation even if in normal circumstances he would not care and just accept the translation?

I did that once too with a translation for awhile that I didn't like, but then I gave up.