Why The Trinity is a False Teaching - Summarized Doctrinal Reasons

[Fireinfolding]

I could post a post for cgaviria for his thread if the staff say that its okay for me to do so?

Is this okay with staff?

Since folks just want to make it look as if he is running scared from all the wisdom here

FreeInChrist should know, lets be sure before breaking any rules.

Can someone like cgaviria answer for his OP as through another member on this forum?

Without saying anything more than that?

How do you call a moderators attention to a thread without reporting it?

 

[Fireinfolding]

Really I wouldnt do so but I do think its funny how folks are always like, yeah, yeah, he just has no answer (yeah), hmmm, I wonder where he is ? (if he had an actual answer he "say something") or he must be running scared (or something along those lines) when folks just might not be able to (for other reasons) which are hidden but are quick to credit themselves (in their absence) and for it being because of the brightness of their own wisdom for a non answer, its pathetic when sometimes its not the case. But use someone elses ducktaped mouth to springboard your own self praise.

 

[Goatee]

Really I wouldnt do so but I do think its funny how folks are always like, yeah, yeah, he just has no answer (yeah), hmmm, I wonder where he is ? (if he had an actual answer he "say something") or he must be running scared (or something along those lines) when folks just might not be able to (for other reasons) which are hidden but are quick to credit themselves (in their absence) and for it being because of the brightness of their own wisdom for a non answer, its pathetic when sometimes its not the case. But use someone elses ducktaped mouth to springboard your own self praise.

Are you his PA? lol

 

[Fireinfolding]

Is that all you got?

 

[Goatee]

Anyway, back on topic. Where is the OP to answer some questions?

 

[Fireinfolding]

Running scared from all of you

 

[Goatee]

Running scared from all of you

Awww, never? Why?

 

[nomadictheist]

You don't see it, I get it. I didn't see a lot of things either, when I believed Jesus was God. The point is though, parts of John 17, may, or may not be understood in more then one way (though there can only be one truth), depending on ones doctrine, but this is a clear statement Father...You, the only true God, that is in the heart of where you are trying to claim Jesus is also the only true God, and preexisted. I don't see it working for you. If there is any meaning to words, then there cannot be anyone else.



This is exactly the point I was making about Jesus glory that he had with the Father before the world was. Yet I'm wrong, you say it, your right, yet the only difference is, you say he preexisted, I say he did not.

How could the highest only true God, not have a say on who sit on his left and right Matthew 20:23? The true God can't be the true God, if he has to obey someone else. The second, God has to obey someone else, he ceases to be the true God who works all things to the counsel of His will, he is no longer in charge. If Jesus was claiming to be YHWH, then he would have needed a very good explanation, from the O/T, as to why he does not know the Day, or Hour Zechariah 14:7; Mark 13:32, else who would believe him? What is he going to say, “I'm only human,” “the human person of me does not know, and I forgot where I left my God person,” why didn't he simply say, “I'm pretending to be human right now, so I can't tell you.” Ridiculous! Who would believe it, yet many do. Jesus is one person, is he not? And that person did not know, and was tempted, has nothing to do with becoming a man, because he is only one person. Not unless you want to say he actually became two persons, and now there are Four in the Godhead, possibly five, if you count Marry.

There are other points I would like to point out from the other thread, that is under lock and key, showing Jesus did not literally raise himself from the dead, nor was it his intention. Jesus had another meaning, which is explained later in the Gospel of John, which he told his disciples to do the same. I guess I should wait for that thread to open though.




That's right, because Moses became sin, when the Rock was struck, and was taken up the mountain; He buried him, but no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day. This was not the time Jesus would rule on earth, that time was still yet to come. When they entered the land, this is a prophecy of the Church, for it says, they were circumcised the second time, by Joshua, but there is no record of Moses circumcising them; and God saying, This day have I rolled away the reproach of Egypt from off you. Then, Rahab-Gentiles came near the camp of Israel, and she dwelleth in Israel even unto this day. There is Judges 2 they went a whoring after other gods, and bowed themselves unto them: they turned quickly out of the way which their fathers walked in. And 2 Kings 17, when Israel, the northern kingdom, was removed from the Land, Gentiles from other nations received the Land, and they brought in a Jewish priest to teach them; So they feared the LORD, yet, served other gods; yet, by doing this they did not fear the Lord.

And there is much more. This is in part why I know, any other God, then the God Israel knew, is error.

What does the serpent on a pole represent? What did Israel do with the serpent on a pole? And what did Hezekiah do to that serpent on a pole?

The serpent on the pole represented Jesus.. The Israelites made it into an idol.. And Hezekiah destroyed it. How is this evidence that Jesus did not pre-exist Moses?

Moses did not "become" sin. He had already sinned when he murdered the Egyptian taskmaster before fleeing Pharaoh. He struck the rock contrary to the Lord's command, which was sin. It was not "becoming" sin.

We are told Jesus "became sin." Yet He entered into the "promised land." The promised land never represents an earthly kingdom when it is spoken of in the New Testament, but the coming heavenly kingdom.

The point is the same. If we believe that every action and/or saying related to a type of Christ in the OT is evidence that He Himself behaved/was spoken to in that manner, then He would have married a foreigner like Joseph, been kept from the promised land like Moses (in the NT... The promised land represents the new heavens and the new earth, not an earthly rule or reign), and so forth. You cannot start making doctrines out of types, especially doctrines that are heavily denied by the rest of scripture.

And I'm not sure why you keep trying to argue that Jesus didn't mean His body when He said the temple... particularly when John says right there that He did. He even references the resurrection right there in that section in case there's any doubt about what he's referring to.

But your philosophy will always "shoot down" opposition, because you will say any reference Jesus makes to pre-existence is merely some reference to the Father's plans prior, and not to His actual pre-existence. Though you are still unable to explain "before Abraham was, I am..." You will continue to use the ambiguous uses of the Hebrew word "Ruach" to try to equate the word of God/breath of God to the Word that was God, even though John clearly says the Word that was God is Jesus. You will continue to explain why the plain meaning of these passages can't be right because of the conclusions you have come to after 25 years.

I prefer to believe what the Bible plainly says, not believe that what it says is misleading, and only a few select people can actually figure it out. This isn't Wiccan or Buddhism. There's no "hidden knowledge" that's not available to most of us about the tenets of the faith.

 

[Fireinfolding]

Also I was kidding, and "have it at" if/ when he returns, its not like I am in agreement with him. I just felt the majority of contradicting arguments were weak, if not a little lame while often laced with straw and spoken through the typical snark. Im just not as quick to condemn someone, even if I feel they are wrong. You just get the feeling that folks enjoy doing that even though it, carry on. I am no longer interested in this part of the forum any longer.

Hey, and if you really cared try contacting him in private instead of attempting to toot your own horn

Enjoy yourselves

 

[7xlightray]

And I'm not sure why you keep trying to argue that Jesus didn't mean His body when He said the temple... particularly when John says right there that He did. He even references the resurrection right there in that section in case there's any doubt about what he's referring to.

Not going to bother with the rest of your comments, obviously no point.

First your going to have to show me where I said, it had nothing to do with his body, cause never said that.

John 10:18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power(G1849 – exousia) to lay it down, and I have power(G1849 – exousia)to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

G1411 – dynamis – (this is one of the meanings for this word)- power for performing miracles.
G1849 – exousia – (this one means) – authority, power of choice, liberty of doing as one pleases.

Jesus is not say he is going to do a miracle/dynamis-G1411, by raising his body himself, but by the way he lived his life. That's the difference you are not grasping.

 

[Fireinfolding]

And sorry nomadictheist that response was not directed at you (I should have quoted) seeing its my last on this forum, it shouldnt be a problem.

 

[nomadictheist]

Not going to bother with the rest of your comments, obviously no point.

First your going to have to show me where I said, it had nothing to do with his body, cause never said that.

John 10:18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power(G1849 – exousia) to lay it down, and I have power(G1849 – exousia)to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

G1411 – dynamis – (this is one of the meanings for this word)- power for performing miracles.
G1849 – exousia – (this one means) – authority, power of choice, liberty of doing as one pleases.

Jesus is not say he is going to do a miracle/dynamis-G1411, by raising his body himself, but by the way he lived his life. That's the difference you are not grasping.

He's not even saying that in these verses. He's telling His disciples that nobody is taking His life from Him. In other words, He's going willingly. Nobody can take His life from Him unless He lays it down Himself. He has this authority (to lay it down), and no one else has authority to take it from Him (which means He also is not under human law, as we see that God gives human rules authority to mete out justice, including taking lives). The fact that He also has "authority" to take it up again, liberty to take it up again, is further evidence that He is God. None of us have that liberty, of taking our own lives up again. We can only believe on the Lord Jesus and trust in Him for our salvation.

And in terms of pre-existence, you have yet to explain why, if Jesus didn't exist before Abraham, He would say "before Abraham was, I am." Even those who don't believe that He is invoking the divine name here at least acknowledge that He is claiming pre-existence.

 

[Berean777]

The thing is, he did not say it was something they mutually agreed on. He said, “is not mine to give,” and “is prepared of my Father.”

Jesus would not say that he has come down from heaven not to do his will but to do the will of the Father who sent him, if it was not already mutually agreed by both, then Jesus would have been an unwilling participant, who was being forced to do the will of the Father.

He did not say prepared of my Father, and myself. Instead he said, it's not his to give, and it was prepared by the Father.

Again Jesus is saying that the mutually agreed decision has already been made and that he cannot over rule what has been already predestined, agreed upon and made fully known to the Son, before his incarnation.

There is no scriptural reason to add “and prepared of my Father, and I,” even if Jesus was the second person of a trinity, because as the teaching goes, the Son is subordinate to the Father.

Mutually agreed prerogative which testifies that Jesus is the Living Word and not some unwilling participant, who is subordinated by another's will and thereby implying that the Son had no say, which flies in the face of the declaration, that everything is given into his hands.

In the same way he did not know the Day and hour, only YHWH the Father does Zechariah 14:7; Mark 13:32? Did he have full knowledge of the Day as well? No.

This had nothing to do with having full knowledge of what was required of him on earth and what he will have in his ascension. I will loose nothing what the Father gives me is pointing to full knowledge of who the Son has in his hand, hence this is not a game of pulling a rabbit out of a hat.

It 's the same as in Revelation, he is now at the right hand of God, no need to humble himself, as you say, yet Jesus the God PERSON, is still calling God, his God. Has nothing to do with flesh, because the PERSON is calling God, his God. Scripture keeps speaking in a certain way.

Scripture speaks but people won't listen. The Son calling the Father God does not prove that Jesus is ignorant of things the Father knows or is forced into situations that he has no say in. This is not a forced marriage where the Father chooses a vailded bride whom the Son has not seen or does not know. It would be an Islamic god who would keep things to himself and subjugate his subjects to his will, without having any regard to the will of his subjects.

 

[7xlightray]

The point is the same. If we believe that every action and/or saying related to a type of Christ in the OT is evidence that He Himself behaved/was spoken to in that manner, then He would have married a foreigner like Joseph,

Oh, why not...
Jesus did marry a foreigner like Joseph. Take your time, think about it.

been kept from the promised land like Moses (in the NT... The promised land represents the new heavens and the new earth, not an earthly rule or reign), and so forth. You cannot start making doctrines out of types, especially doctrines that are heavily denied by the rest of scripture.

Okay. just one more. I only offer this to you. Jesus will rule on earth, the heavenly kingdom, it was a promise of Abraham, but not in this age Genesis 13:14-17.

 

[Wgw]

Oh, why not...
Jesus did marry a foreigner like Joseph. Take your time, think about it.

Are you suggesting our Lord contracted a homosexual marriage???

 

[Berean777]

Not on earth, rather his Father's house in Heaven. As Jesus I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am.

 

[7xlightray]

He's not even saying that in these verses. He's telling His disciples that nobody is taking His life from Him. In other words, He's going willingly. Nobody can take His life from Him unless He lays it down Himself. He has this authority (to lay it down), and no one else has authority to take it from Him (which means He also is not under human law, as we see that God gives human rules authority to mete out justice, including taking lives). The fact that He also has "authority" to take it up again, liberty to take it up again, is further evidence that He is God. None of us have that liberty, of taking our own lives up again. We can only believe on the Lord Jesus and trust in Him for our salvation.

John 2:19 and John 10:18 are totally connected.
He is laying down his life.
How is he laying down his life?
They are going to destroy his temple/body.

He is going to raise it up again in 3 days.
How is he going to raise it up in three days?
He was given the choice to take it again, by how he lived his life, no greater love, then for one to lay down one's life for his friends John 15:12-14, to become the son of God. As we are given this choice to become the sons of God.

Romans 1:3 concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh,
4 and declared [I would suggest doing a good search on what this word means. It means: appointed with foreknowledge of God, like in Luke 22:22; Hebrews 4:7; Acts 2:23, 17:26] to be the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead.

There is also Hebrews 1:5; Psalm 2:7; 2 Samuel 7:14 all speak of by his resurrection he is called son and begotten. He is the only begotten son at birth, then begotten son by resurrection. So, for him to beget himself, by raising himself from the dead, would be odd, indeed.

All I can suggest is read those verses I gave in post #49 over and over again, because that's exactly what there saying, we are told to do the same.

And in terms of pre-existence, you have yet to explain why, if Jesus didn't exist before Abraham, He would say "before Abraham was, I am." Even those who don't believe that He is invoking the divine name here at least acknowledge that He is claiming pre-existence.

Of course I did, in the tread “Why the Trinity is a False Doctrine.”

 

[7xlightray]

Are you suggesting our Lord contracted a homosexual marriage???

Of course I'm not saying that, follow the conversation.

 

[Berean777]

What they do is this....

22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles. (Romans 1:22-23)

24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

15The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation (Colossians 1:15)

 

[7xlightray]

Jesus would not say that he has come down from heaven not to do his will but to do the will of the Father who sent him, if it was not already mutually agreed by both, then Jesus would have been an unwilling participant, who was being forced to do the will of the Father.



Again Jesus is saying that the mutually agreed decision has already been made and that he cannot over rule what has been already predestined, agreed upon and made fully known to the Son, before his incarnation.



Mutually agreed prerogative which testifies that Jesus is the Living Word and not some unwilling participant, who is subordinated by another's will and thereby implying that the Son had no say, which flies in the face of the declaration, that everything is given into his hands.



This had nothing to do with having full knowledge of what was required of him on earth and what he will have in his ascension. I will loose nothing what the Father gives me is pointing to full knowledge of who the Son has in his hand, hence this is not a game of pulling a rabbit out of a hat.



Scripture speaks but people won't listen. The Son calling the Father God does not prove that Jesus is ignorant of things the Father knows or is forced into situations that he has no say in. This is not a forced marriage where the Father chooses a vailded bride whom the Son has not seen or does not know. It would be an Islamic god who would keep things to himself and subjugate his subjects to his will, without having any regard to the will of his subjects.

Scripture?