Why The Trinity is a False Teaching - Summarized Doctrinal Reasons

[Der Alte]

What you said, did nothing to what I said, in any meaningful way, that I could see.

The words “I had with you.” Jesus is the word, the word was with the Father, and was the Father. And refers to the glory the Father had planed for him. And that word became flesh, and is now returning to the Father.

Isaiah 55

4 Behold, I have given him for a witness to the people, a leader and commander to the people.
5 Behold, thou shalt call a nation that thou knowest not, and nations that knew not thee shall run unto thee because of the Lord thy God, and for the Holy One of Israel; for he hath glorified thee.
10 For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater:
11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

You repeatedly claim that you consider Jesus to be speaking literally in John 17 then you say John 17:5 "refers to the glory the Father had planed [sic] for him. And that word became flesh, and is now returning to the Father." If something said "refers to" something else which has not been stated, then it is not literal! Jesus said "the glory I had with you", He did not say "the glory that you had planned for me." Can you see the difference between these two statements? They do not say/mean the same thing. Jesus did not say, did not imply, did not suggest what you claim.

Look, if Jesus did not preexist as a person, then there is no way it could be figurative.

This does not make sense and does not agree with what you said above.

 

[Anto9us]

Jesus (the Logos) pre-existed as a Person, and as God.

"Before Abraham was - I AM"

 

[7xlightray]

No, that is not what Colossians 2:9 states.



You and I can not claim that we were and/or are God's own personal residence, as to say that God is exactly at home with us, because we were once strangers and we were homeless orphans and without a job, until the true HEIR came and called us into his Father's residence. To the Son it would be and forever was God's own personal residence. We were homeless orphans who were called from the streets friend, to be called into adoption and then and only then, were we called God's people as we entered his residence through his Christ's invitation. The way you are interpreting it is, as if the residence belonged to you all along and that you were never a stranger to that residence.



Seriously, we are not gate crashers are we, that is, we don't break into people's homes unless they invite us in as guests, right?

Unlike Christ we are only guests and can quite easily be kicked out, but the Son will never be kicked out as God's own personal residence.

Here is a gate crasher for you, as an example......

I could use the same kind of imagery. We are the body of Christ. God put Adam into a deep sleep [Christ's death], and made Eve for him, bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh.

My argument is not to say we will be absolutely the same as Christ, or even the same as each other, because as Paul put it, each star differs one from another. And it would only be fitting that Christ should receive more glory, and joy, then anyone. Yet, we cannot forget, nor deny Jesus is the only begotten. And was in the Father, the word made flesh, and that sure does make him different then any other. But even that does not make him the God, for even angels are made different, so, different does not make one the God.

Therefore Christ is the Heir and also God the Father's own personal and exact home, for this is the proper contextual meaning of Katoikeo (2730). We can not make this claim as you have done, so please consider the context and term definition, in relation to the antecedent who is Christ the SEED of PROMISE. So that the Christ is God's home right down to the finest and exact details.

2730 katoikéō (from 2596 /katá, "down, according to," intensifying 3611/oikéō, "dwell, reside") – properly, settle down as a permanent resident, i.e. in a fixed (permanent) dwelling place as one's personal residence; (figuratively) "to be exactly at home."

[The force of the prefix (2596 /katá) suggests "down to the finest, exact details."]

Fullness represents the sum total of the pronoun who is the Godhead, the Godhead being the Father. No one, I mean, not you and neither I or even all the believers together for that matter, can claim that they are the sum total of the Godhead, for this would be blasphemy. The antecedent in Colossians 2:9, who is the Son alone, is the sum total of God the Father.

Cognate: 4138 plḗrōma – "sum total, fulness, even (super) abundance" (BAGD). See 4130 (plēthō).

The embodiment of the fullness of the Godhead is within the definition of pleroma, that is the sum total of what and who God the Father is in all his intrinsic essential qualities, where the Son alone is the Father's own permanent residence eternally. The Son wasn't born to be the own personal residence of God the Father, he always was eternally his residence, unless offcourse you are suggesting that at one time God was homeless.

4985 sōmatikṓs (an adverb, derived from 4984/sōmatikós which is an adjective derived from 4983/sṓma, "body") – bodily (used only in Col 2:9). It refers to "Christ's complete embodiment of the plērōma ('fullness of God')

Col 2:9 is referring to after his resurrection, for one. And it says that the fullness of God is contained in a body. God is contained, housed. All I could suggest, is dwell on this, God contained in a body.

Yes, Jesus is the rightful heir, he is the only begotten, for he was the word of God that came down from heaven, and was wonderfully made. We were made from the earth. But, it was the Father in Christ, the Father's Spirit, not another God, nor another person. It's the Father's Spirit that is in Christ, and the Father takes Jesus Spirit, and puts it in us, but it is the same Spirit, one Spirit, which is the Father's Spirit. The Father works in all.

Ephesians 4:6(KJV) One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

1 Corinthians 15:45 first Adam into a soul, last Adam into a Spirit life giving.

Christ never gave up his wisdom which is linked to his righteousness, rather he temporality took a leave of absense from his greatest office of authority on the Father's throne, by....

humbling himself and by becoming obedient to death-- even death on a cross! (Philippians 2:8)

In essence he came not as the almighty judge of the Old Testament as the Angel of Yahweh's presence (epiphany of Christ), rather he came to serve. There is a vast contrast from his role when he rained down fire on Sodom and Gommorah as compared to the servant form that he took upon himself as the man Jesus of Nazareth.

So, God the Son forgot? If he did, that is a lowering.

Christ is the head of us, this speaks of authority, we are to obey him. The head of Christ is God, this speaks of authority, Christ is to obey God. As Jesus said, my God, and your God, his Father, and your Father. And we are to obey our parents, and certainly obey God. So, Jesus must obey his God and Father.

You may never know the "what", unless you know the "who" (Son) and only then can you see the Father through the Son's intrinsic qualities which are the sum total of the Father's being/nature.

First the Father has to reveal the Son, then the Son will reveal the true God and Father.

2 Corinthians 3:13 And not as Moses, which put a veil over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished:14 But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ. 15 But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart.

 

[7xlightray]

You repeatedly claim that you consider Jesus to be speaking literally in John 17 then you say John 17:5 "refers to the glory the Father had planed [sic] for him. And that word became flesh, and is now returning to the Father." If something said "refers to" something else which has not been stated, then it is not literal! Jesus said "the glory I had with you", He did not say "the glory that you had planned for me." Can you see the difference between these two statements? They do not say/mean the same thing. Jesus did not say, did not imply, did not suggest what you claim.

Which literal way do you understand him?

John 17:11 And now I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you.​

Is this how you understand Jesus, that he was not literally in the world, at that time, and possibly in space, on his way to the Father?

He's not speaking to the Father in dark sayings, the Father understands what he is saying, I understand what he is saying. I myself would talk like that. I take him literally, but I don't force it the way you would have me force it, ...but if you want to take it absolutely literal, as you do in verse 5, without any sense of what he means, then that's your choice.

This does not make sense and does not agree with what you said above.

It makes absolute sense, if you were able to understand what I was saying. If Jesus did not preexist as a person, then what he says in John 17:5 could not be referring to his preexistence as a person.

 

[redleghunter]

I could use the same kind of imagery. We are the body of Christ. God put Adam into a deep sleep [Christ's death], and made Eve for him, bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh.

My argument is not to say we will be absolutely the same as Christ, or even the same as each other, because as Paul put it, each star differs one from another. And it would only be fitting that Christ should receive more glory, and joy, then anyone. Yet, we cannot forget, nor deny Jesus is the only begotten. And was in the Father, the word made flesh, and that sure does make him different then any other. But even that does not make him the God, for even angels are made different, so, different does not make one the God.



Col 2:9 is referring to after his resurrection, for one. And it says that the fullness of God is contained in a body. God is contained, housed. All I could suggest, is dwell on this, God contained in a body.

Yes, Jesus is the rightful heir, he is the only begotten, for he was the word of God that came down from heaven, and was wonderfully made. We were made from the earth. But, it was the Father in Christ, the Father's Spirit, not another God, nor another person. It's the Father's Spirit that is in Christ, and the Father takes Jesus Spirit, and puts it in us, but it is the same Spirit, one Spirit, which is the Father's Spirit. The Father works in all.

Ephesians 4:6(KJV) One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

1 Corinthians 15:45 first Adam into a soul, last Adam into a Spirit life giving.



So, God the Son forgot? If he did, that is a lowering.

Christ is the head of us, this speaks of authority, we are to obey him. The head of Christ is God, this speaks of authority, Christ is to obey God. As Jesus said, my God, and your God, his Father, and your Father. And we are to obey our parents, and certainly obey God. So, Jesus must obey his God and Father.



First the Father has to reveal the Son, then the Son will reveal the true God and Father.

2 Corinthians 3:13 And not as Moses, which put a veil over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished:14 But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ. 15 But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart.

Does your church have a statement of faith outlining your stated beliefs above?

 

[MerriestHouse]

The word morphe is related to inner intrinsic qualities of God, that is his inner essense, that is his very being.

intrinsic
The intrinsic qualities of something have to do with its nature. An intrinsicquality of dogs is that they're loyal.

Anything intrinsic comes from within. Doing a job for only money is not intrinsic. Doing a job because you love it is intrinsic; the motivation comes from within. It's good to treat people as having intrinsic value. If you like someone for intrinsic reasons, then you have no other motivation. The opposite of intrinsic is extrinsic, for things that come from the outside instead of from the inside.

“"form was treated as something intrinsic, as the very essence of the thing"- John Dewey”

Philippians 2:6 "who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,

7 but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross."

As a man, he was in the morphe of God. The word has other Koine Greek meanings such as "status, position and rank." This is evidenced in the use of the same word in verse 7, where Christ is shown to have taken the "status" or "position" of a servant.

 

[7xlightray]

Does your church have a statement of faith outlining your stated beliefs above?

Most churches around here are Trinitarian. This is from my own many years (about 14 years) of study on God. Most was looking into Trinity (though I believed in the trinity for about 25 years before this), Unitarian, and Jesus somehow birthed before all creation, but not created. Even considered, for a very short time, that if he could have been an angel. I always found contradictions with these doctrines. The one thing I would not even give the time of day with, is that he had his beginnings as a person at birth. Until one day very despaired, and at the end of my rope, even considering going back to believing in the trinity again, asked God if trinity was in scripture, if he could show me. My eyes were open to a verse, right after. Looked into Jesus had his beginnings as a person at his birth (although preexisting in God as His word, similar as it speaks of Levi in Abraham), and found Jesus all through the old testament, and scripture just flowed, it was like the veil was taken off.

Why?

 

[DrBubbaLove]

What is the Perfect Image of Himself and is God capable of having that?

 

[redleghunter]

Most churches around here are Trinitarian. This is from my own many years (about 14 years) of study on God. Most was looking into Trinity (though I believed in the trinity for about 25 years before this), Unitarian, and Jesus somehow birthed before all creation, but not created. Even considered, for a very short time, that if he could have been an angel. I always found contradictions with these doctrines. The one thing I would not even give the time of day with, is that he had his beginnings as a person at birth. Until one day very despaired, and at the end of my rope, even considering going back to believing in the trinity again, asked God if trinity was in scripture, if he could show me. My eyes were open to a verse, right after. Looked into Jesus had his beginnings as a person at his birth (although preexisting in God as His word, similar as it speaks of Levi in Abraham), and found Jesus all through the old testament, and scripture just flowed, it was like the veil was taken off.

Why?

I was curious if you fellowshipped with believers of like mind at a church which you agree with their statement of beliefs; or if you did so through self study. You answered above.

 

[Der Alte]

Which literal way do you understand him?

John 17:11 And now I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you.​

Is this how you understand Jesus, that he was not literally in the world, at that time, and possibly in space, on his way to the Father?

He's not speaking to the Father in dark sayings, the Father understands what he is saying, I understand what he is saying. I myself would talk like that. I take him literally, but I don't force it the way you would have me force it, ...but if you want to take it absolutely literal, as you do in verse 5, without any sense of what he means, then that's your choice.

It makes absolute sense, if you were able to understand what I was saying. If Jesus did not preexist as a person, then what he says in John 17:5 could not be referring to his preexistence as a person.

Muddying the water. First let us deal with what Jesus said in John 17:5 then we can discuss what He said later. I have an answer that you are not going to like. Try reading your proof texts in-context.

 

[7xlightray]

So it is your opinion that the Jewish leaders were willing to desecrate the most sacred place in the history of Israel, by murdering Jesus in the temple in front of witnesses, violating at least 15 of their laws just because they didn't understand Him?

Sorry, almost forgot about this post.
Well they did lift him up, with no real charge. They seemed pretty desperate to me.

All of the previous "I am" statements of Jesus are clearly distinguishable from John 8:58. All of the other "I am" statements have a clearly understood predicate. John 8:58, has no understood predicate.

I would have to disagree, it does says something about him. Depending on how one understands him. I have no trouble interpreting it as he was before Abraham, as the word of God. That says something about him. Does not mean though that he is the God, even though he was with, and was God. You were your mother and your father at one time, doesn't make you them.

 

[7xlightray]

Muddying the water. First let us deal with what Jesus said in John 17:5 then we can discuss what He said later. I have an answer that you are not going to like. Try reading your proof texts in-context.

You want me to read John 17:11 in context, but you wont let me read John 17:5 in context. Try reading John 17:5 in context, as I have even shown.

 

[7xlightray]

I was curious if you fellowshipped with believers of like mind at a church which you agree with their statement of beliefs; or if you did so through self study. You answered above.

What about yourself?

 

[Der Alte]

Philippians 2:6 "who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,

7 but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross."

As a man, he was in the morphe of God. The word has other Koine Greek meanings such as "status, position and rank." This is evidenced in the use of the same word in verse 7, where Christ is shown to have taken the "status" or "position" of a servant.

We have a problem here. "Status, position and rank" is a totally bogus, made up "definition. Here is the complete definition of morphe from Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, Danker one of, if not the, most highly accredited Greek lexicon available. Note the terms "status, position and rank" do not appear anywhere.

μορφή ( Hom. +; inscr. , pap. , LXX , Philo , Joseph. ; Sib. Or. 3, 8; 27) form, outward appearance, shape gener. of bodily form 1 Cl 39:3 (Job 4:16 ). Of the shape or form of statues ( Jos. , Vi. 65) Dg 2:3. Of appearances in visions, etc., similar to persons ( Callisthenes [IV BC ] in Athen. 10, 75 p. 452 B Limo;" e[cwn gunaiko;" morfhvn ; Diod. S. 3, 31, 4 ejn morfai`" ajnqrwvpwn ; Jos. , Ant. 5, 213 a messenger fr. heaven neanivskou morfh`/ ): of the church Hv 3, 10, 2; 9; 3, 11, 1; 3, 13, 1; s 9, 1, 1; of the angel of repentance hJ m. aujtou` hjlloiwvqh his appearance had changed m 12, 4, 1. Of Christ (gods ejn ajnqrwpivnh/ morfh`/ : Iambl. , Vi. Pyth. 6, 30; cf. Phil o, Abr. 118) morfh;n douvlou labwvn he took on the form of a slave Phil 2:7 . The risen Christ ejfanerwvqh ejn eJtevra/ morfh`/ appeared in a different form Mk 16:12 . Of the preëxistent Christ: ejn m. qeou` uJpavrcwn although he was in the form of God (on morfh; qeou` cf. Pla ., Rep. 2p. 380 D ; 381 B and C; X ., Mem. 4, 3, 13; Diog. L. 1, 10 the Egyptians say mh; eijdevnai tou` qeou` morfhvn ; Philo , Leg. ad Gai. 80; 110; Jos. , C. Ap. 2, 190; PGM 7, 563; 13, 272; 584.— Rtzst., Mysterienrel. 3 357 f ) Phil 2:6 . For lit. s. on aJrpagmov" and kenovw 1; RPMartin, ET 70, ’59, 183 f ).—JBehm, TW IV 750-67: morfhv and related words. M-M. * ​

http://lareopage.free.fr/a&g/mu/mu-Index.html

 

[Der Alte]

Sorry, almost forgot about this post.
Well they did lift him up, with no real charge. They seemed pretty desperate to me.

When the Jewish leaders brought charges against Jesus to the Roman authorities was it done according to Roman law or was it a lynch mob action as it was when they attempted to murder Him in the temple?

I would have to disagree, it does says something about him. Depending on how one understands him. I have no trouble interpreting it as he was before Abraham, as the word of God. That says something about him. Does not mean though that he is the God, even though he was with, and was God. You were your mother and your father at one time, doesn't make you them.

The problem with this is, Jesus did not say "I was before Abraham as the word of God?" Whenever scripture, as written, disproves your assumptions/presuppositions you have to add words to it to make it say what you want it to.

 

[7xlightray]

Muddying the water. First let us deal with what Jesus said in John 17:5 then we can discuss what He said later. I have an answer that you are not going to like. Try reading your proof texts in-context.

The context shows he is referring to the plan of God, and the glory yet to come. John 17:1-2 is clearly is showing this...

John 17
1 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:
2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.

The first "hast" Aorist Tense in the indicative mood, is past Tense. And “he should give” is in the Subjunctive Mood and means: the action of the verb will possibly happen, depending on certain objective factors or circumstances.

Jesus has not received this yet, nor is he able yet to give life until his resurrection. So, he is referring to the plan of God, obviously!

 

[redleghunter]

What about yourself?

The church constitution (statement of beliefs) is clearly Trinitarian where I fellowship. As evidenced with the Scriptures presented here many times.

 

[Der Alte]

You want me to read John 17:11 in context, but you wont let me read John 17:5 in context. Try reading John 17:5 in context, as I have even shown.

I have been discussing John 17:5 which says, "And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." You say it is literal but here is what you want it to say.

[Post #599] "Jesus is talking about Glory which God has given him. This glory was given to him before the foundation of the world, and is written in scripture . . . It's because it was foreordained of him, for God planed to have a son and give him glory. All this was planed before the foundation of the world. This is the glory Jesus is talking about that he had with God, before the foundation of the world, and put him over all, and loved him all the way back then. This is how God works."​

 

[7xlightray]

When the Jewish leaders brought charges against Jesus to the Roman authorities was it done according to Roman law or was it a lynch mob action as it was when they attempted to murder Him in the temple?



The problem with this is, Jesus did not say "I was before Abraham as the word of God?" Whenever scripture, as written, disproves your assumptions/presuppositions you have to add words to it to make it say what you want it to.

I really don't know what your going on about, or how this proves Jesus meant he was the God, or that they understood him correctly. I mean God the Father was working through him though.

 

[7xlightray]

I have been discussing John 17:5 which says, "And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." You say it is literal but here is what you want it to say.

[Post #599] "Jesus is talking about Glory which God has given him. This glory was given to him before the foundation of the world, and is written in scripture . . . It's because it was foreordained of him, for God planed to have a son and give him glory. All this was planed before the foundation of the world. This is the glory Jesus is talking about that he had with God, before the foundation of the world, and put him over all, and loved him all the way back then. This is how God works."​

And I just showed you the context reveals Jesus is talking about the plan of God in post #656, not including the others.