Why The Trinity is a False Teaching - Summarized Doctrinal Reasons

[Berean777]

Scripture?

You missed it.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Jesus did marry a foreigner like Joseph. Take your time, think about it.

So that is the road you walk......

 

[civilwarbuff]

You missed it.

Yep, he did.....

 

[7xlightray]

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)

Wait, are you saying this about "nomadictheist," cause I was quoting him: “Christ in the OT is evidence that He...would have married a foreigner like Joseph”

 

[civilwarbuff]

Wait, are you saying this about "nomadictheist," cause I was quoting him: “Christ in the OT is evidence that He...would have married a foreigner like Joseph”

Not true....here is your quote:

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

Own it.......

 

[Berean777]

Wait, are you saying this about "nomadictheist," cause I was quoting him: “Christ in the OT is evidence that He...would have married a foreigner like Joseph”

No, it would be a generic answer to all who deny that the Christ is uncreated and is the true God of the Holy Bible. Because when one exchanges the glory of the immortal Christ for images to made to look like a mortal human who is a created creature, then this forms part of the reprobate mind at work, in those who are falling away from the truth faith, that was once given to the saints.

 

[Berean777]

Not true....here is your quote:

Own it.......

This is why it is written......

That all the ways that wickedness deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.

The truth is that Jesus Christ is the only true God of the Holy Bible, for all scriptures testify of him. The Holy Bible is his autobiography so to speak.

So it is not surprising that many will not own up to it, because the powerful delusion works in them, who are perishing, because they refuse to believe that the Christ is the image of the invisible God and is no created creature, that they make him out to be.

 

[7xlightray]

Not true....here is your quote:

Own it.......

Really! Is this the kind of filth you want to play in?

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.

 

[7xlightray]

No, it would be a generic answer to all who deny that the Christ is uncreated and is the true God of the Holy Bible. Because when one exchanges the glory of the immortal Christ for images to made to look like a mortal human who is a created creature, then this forms part of the reprobate mind at work, in those who are falling away from the truth faith, that was once given to the saints.

Actually, you got that backwards. The trinity has turn God into a created man.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Really! Is this the kind of filth you want to play in?

Give me the post where he said it....I showed where you said it....prove me wrong....you might want to be more careful with the flameage...

 

[Berean777]

Actually, you got that backwards. The trinity has turn God into a created man.

You are ignoring the Nicene Creed and misrepresenting its statement of belief. Do you know that if anyone misrepresents another, it is called fraudulent misrepresentation. Since many along the years, have come to misrepresent the early church fathers who came up with the Nicene Creed, they know they will not be held accountable for misrepresenting the trinity doctrine and so they easily misrepresent the early church fathers, because there are no repercussions for doing so.

If let's say that they were to be held up accountable in a court of law for what they say, and face the possibility of being found guilty for misrepresentation, are financially penalised, then it would be a totally different story. They would hypocritically not misrepresent the early church fathers as they do, because they would be penalised financially for doing so.

It amazes me how humans will be influenced to think, when it comes to being held accountable. The hypocrital nature of humanity is at play all the time and only those who are truly regenerated know their God and live genuine lives and not dual purpose lives, that is meant to please others, in order for them to survive in the world.

 

[7xlightray]

Give me the post where he said it....I showed where you said it....prove me wrong....you might want to be more careful with the flameage...

I just did posts #88 from his post #68

And this is my last word on this kind of filth. To even suggest that of the Lord Jesus. And then to accuse someone of this. I guess this is how you would like to be treated. I'm not going to participate in this kind of talk.
This is my last word on this.

 

[7xlightray]

You are ignoring the Nicene Creed and misrepresenting its statement of belief. Do you know that if anyone misrepresents another, it is called fraudulent misrepresentation. Since many along the years, have come to misrepresent the early church fathers who came up with the Nicene Creed, they know they will not be held accountable for misrepresenting the trinity doctrine and so they easily misrepresent the early church fathers, because there are no repercussions for doing so.

If let's say that they were to be held up accountable in a court of law for what they say, and face the possibility of being found guilty for misrepresentation, are financially penalised, then it would be a totally different story. They would hypocritically not misrepresent the early church fathers as they do, because they would be penalised financially for doing so.

It amazes me how humans will be influenced to think, when it comes to being held accountable. The hypocrital nature of humanity is at play all the time and only those who are truly regenerated know their God and live genuine lives and not dual purpose lives, that is meant to please others, in order for them to survive in the world.

The Nicene Creed can word it anyway it likes, but that is what they are doing, turning God into a created man, that died, and was tempted. Nicene Creed was not Paul's Creed Acts 17; 1 Corinthians 8:6.

 

[nomadictheist]

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.



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

I have thought about it... The "bride of Christ" is not a foreigner, but those who have obtained "adoption as sons." In order to be a member of the church (the bride) you must first become a son or daughter. If you remain a foreigner, you will not be "the bride." Joseph's wife was not Hebrew, nor is there any indication that she became Hebrew.

How do you miss the most important part of Romans 1:3... "according to the flesh." It was Jesus who asked the Pharisees "how can He be David's Son?" (rhetorically).

In terms of raising it up, that's not at all what He said. These are your inferences born from your need to make our Lord and Savior less than He is.

I could go on posting the scriptures that proclaim Jesus' deity, His pre-existence, and more, but you would continue to tell me that "the Bible doesn't actually say what it seems to be saying" and that I "have to understand it as meaning something entirely different." You say that Jesus didn't literally raise His body up in 3 days. Jesus said He was going to. You say Jesus didn't have the authority to literally take up His life again after He laid it down. Jesus said He did. But you say "no, no! He doesn't mean that literally! You must not take what He said at a face value!" Jesus said "I tell you the truth, before Abraham was, I am," but you say "no, no. That's not the truth. Jesus didn't actually exist before Abraham in any real sense."

I will believe the scriptures. I believe the apostle John did, as He claimed, "see and touch and hear" that which "was from the beginning." I believe Jesus, as He claimed, shared glory with the Father before the world even began. I believe, as Paul proclaimed, that we have one Lord, Jesus Christ, through Whom all things were created... And trying to explain the scriptures away by drawing unbiblical parallels does not change this.

 

[Berean777]

The trinity doctrine says that Jesus is uncreated and is therefore NOT a creature. Yet those who misrepresent the trinity doctrine, believe that Jesus has been created and is a creature of the Father and within the same breathe say that the trinity doctrine has turned God into a created being.

The personhood of the Christ is not created. Just because those who oppose the trinity doctrine say that Jesus was born or begotten, doesn't mean that the form that he took on was the commencement of the creation of his personhood, nor does it suggest that any Old Testament epiphany of Christ is in someway a creation of his personhood.

When we look at scripture in totality we see the Christ as being the introduction of the Holy Bible and the conclusion of the Holy Bible. The Holy Bible is his autobiography and so what is before and after scripture, we are not told. So in this regard we cannot make presumptions of what Christ was before or after the Holy Bible. If the Bible says that the Christ is the Creator, then to fashion him in the image of a creature, that is a created being who is created undermines the Holy Bible from the introduction within the Genesis account, all the way to the conclusion in Revelation of John.

Does anyone want to say that Jesus Christ's personhood (persona) is a created creature?

If so, then you unwittingly destroy the scriptures from the beginning to the end. The lie is to believe that the Christ is a created being.

 

[civilwarbuff]

I just did posts #88 from his post #68

And this is my last word on this kind of filth. To even suggest that of the Lord Jesus. And then to accuse someone of this. I guess this is how you would like to be treated. I'm not going to participate in this kind of talk.
This is my last word on this.

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.

It is unbelievable that you would take his statement so out of context and try to smear him with your specious statement:

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

and try to make it look as though that is what he meant. You should hang your head in shame and apologize.

 

[nomadictheist]

Really! Is this the kind of filth you want to play in?

The point is the same. If we believe [key word here is "if"] 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 [mean His body when He said the temple]. 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 [that Joseph was Joseph, not Jesus, that Jesus was "the Word that was God" and not the "word of God," that Jesus meant His body when He said "destroy this temple..."] 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.

You seem to have somehow mistaken my words, so I've highlighted some helpful portions and included some clarification in brackets that I thought was clear by the context.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised. You are, essentially, doing the same thing with what I write as you do with the Holy Scriptures. Finding what you believe is the "hidden meaning" and making that into "what was said."

 

[Berean777]

The Nicene Creed can word it anyway it likes, but that is what they are doing, turning God into a created man, that died, and was tempted. Nicene Creed was not Paul's Creed Acts 17; 1 Corinthians 8:6.

If God projects himself to another creature, as if that creature is him and at the same time, goes through the motion of him actually being pierced and the people mourning for him, then God is advocating idolatry, by placing an idol (creation) in place of himself. Think for a moment and reflect on the verse below.

Zechariah 12:10
And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son.

How could an image of a creature be resurrected in place of God, to be worshipped as God? This would break the 1st commandment and advocate worship of an idol (creature).

John 19:36-37
36For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken. 37And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced.

If those who believe Jesus the Christ is a creature and yet they say, it is fine to worship a creature, are advocating idolatry in their hearts.

In conclusion Jesus the Christ personhood (persona) is uncreated and is the Creator who demands worship and not just be promoted to worship status as a glorified creature.

and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being (Romans 1:23)

 

[7xlightray]

I have thought about it... The "bride of Christ" is not a foreigner, but those who have obtained "adoption as sons." In order to be a member of the church (the bride) you must first become a son or daughter. If you remain a foreigner, you will not be "the bride." Joseph's wife was not Hebrew, nor is there any indication that she became Hebrew.

Your really fighting this tooth and nail
If he married her, she is no longer a foreigner. Ruth in the line of Christ was a Moabite, married Boaz.
Ruth 1:4; Matthew 1:5 And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse;
There was Rahab, and the mixed multitude that left Egypt. Moses married a Gentile.

How do you miss the most important part of Romans 1:3... "according to the flesh." It was Jesus who asked the Pharisees "how can He be David's Son?" (rhetorically).

Because Jesus is the first born from the dead, so he is before David, he is before everyone that will become sons of God.

 

[7xlightray]

You seem to have somehow mistaken my words, so I've highlighted some helpful portions and included some clarification in brackets that I thought was clear by the context.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised. You are, essentially, doing the same thing with what I write as you do with the Holy Scriptures. Finding what you believe is the "hidden meaning" and making that into "what was said."

I understood what you said.