Why The Trinity is a False Teaching - Summarized Doctrinal Reasons

Radrook said:

If the Trinity was being taught by the Apostles and first-century Christians, then why was their no Jewish uproar over it during that time?

Click to expand...

Who says there was no Jewish uproar? Paul went to almost every (or every) synagogue in the Roman Empire, and discovered that the Jews generally wanted no part of the Gospel. The Gospel includes this fundamental truth, which indicate at least two Divine Persons in the Godhead (1 Tim 3:16): And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God [Theos] was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Job8 said:

Who says there was no Jewish uproar? Paul went to almost every (or every) synagogue in the Roman Empire, and discovered that the Jews generally wanted no part of the Gospel. The Gospel includes this fundamental truth, which indicate at least two Divine Persons in the Godhead (1 Tim 3:16): And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God [Theos] was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Click to expand...

Is there evidence of this specific reaction from the Jews in the book of Acts?
Is it mentioned as being of serious concern in any of the letters to the churches? For example, did Paul mention it as an issue needing clarification to the Jewish Christian converts in the book of Hebrews?

7xlightray said:

PART 1 of 2
He who “descended into the lower parts of the earth,” would this not be referring to his death? As it goes on to say, “10 He that descended is the same also that ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things,” Romans 14:9 For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living. As also these speak of the lower parts of the earth: Psalm 63:9; Ezekiel 26:20; Ezekiel 32:24.

Click to expand...

Hello Lightray.

A long post #999 that you submitted, it will take time to negotiate, please do not respond until I have
replied in full.

Your interpretation of the concept of the 'ascending' and 'descending' of Jesus, in the New Testament may need
some revision. In your post #999 you remarked.

He who “descended into the lower parts of the earth,” would this not be referring to his death?

Click to expand...

The verse you are quoting from is a verse enclosed in parenthesis, Lightray. This means that the translation
we have been given, may or may not be correct. There are textual variations recorded that have been observed
in relation to this verse, over the course of church history.

The phrase 'lower parts' in the verse above, has the word 'parts' omitted in the earliest references to the verse.

The ascending of Jesus involved the transition from earth to heaven, and not from death to life. Likewise
the descending of Jesus concerned the transition from heaven to earth, and not to His death it seems.

Here is the verse below.

Ephesians 4
9 (Now this expression, “He ascended,” what does it mean except that He also had descended into the lower
parts of the earth? 10 He who descended is Himself also He who ascended far above all the heavens, so that
He might fill all things.)

It is more than likely, that the text is emphasizing a lower earth in comparison with the higher heavens.

Since this verse (Ephesians 4:9), is enclosed in parenthesis it is unwise to use the verse to advance any
theology as such. It would be wiser still Lightray, to adjust your interpretation in alignment with the
following verse.

John 3:13
No one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven: the Son of Man.

The Christ did descend from heaven and the Christ did also ascend far above the heavens.

Some Christians claim that the prophet who is described as ascending into heaven is later described as writing and sending letters from a specific location on Earth and that the heaven into which he really ascended was merely the sky. They also refer to the words that no man had as yet ascended into heaven but Jesus as evidence.

Here is an excerpt concerning the subject:

However, we have even more convincing evidence that Elijah did not ascend into Heaven after being “swept up”. The following passage from the Old Testament is extremely interesting:

“So the Edomites revolt against Judah to this day. The same time [also] did Libnah revolt from under his hand; because he had forsaken the LORD God of his fathers. Moreover, he made high places in the mountains of Judah, and caused the inhabitants of Jerusalem to commit fornication, and compelled Judah to [do the same]. And there came a writing to him from Elijah the prophet, saying, 'Thus saith the LORD God of David thy father: Because thou hast not walked in the ways of Jehoshaphat thy father, nor in the ways of Asa king of Judah…'" (2 Chronicles 21:10-12).

In this passage, it says that Elijah sent a letter (writing) to the king of Judah, whom he reprimanded for his irreverent behavior. What is of special interest here though, is that chronologically, Elijah had sent this ‘writing’ AFTER his “ascent towards Heaven”. This undoubtedly verifies that Elijah remained on earth, from whence he sent the letter. Unless Heaven has a postal service?

http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2010/07/did-prophet-elijah-actually-ascend-into.html

Click to expand...

7xlightray said:

Did Jesus father himself, or is he the Son of the Father (LORD)? Jesus did not father himself, he is the son of the Father who is the God. God is his (Jesus) God and Father.

Psalm 2:7 I will declare the decree: the LORD [Father] hath said unto me [Jesus], Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.​

You are going to have a hard time, and a monumental task, trying to prove to me Jesus is the only one that is the LORD – Yhwh, for Psalm 2:7 is proof to me, that Yhwh who said “Thou art my Son” could not be Jesus, but must be the Father.

Click to expand...

Uh, this Psalm is speaking about David my friend. Note that David says, "The LORD said unto ME (David)...." If David was speaking of Christ he would have said, "The LORD said unto my Lord...."

The Psalm teaches that God was going to make David his son by decree and not by creation, "I will declare the decree...." God said that he would appoint David as his son (Psalm 89:27).

The new testament applies the Psalm to Christ because Christ was a type of David. Just as the Psalm has no reference to David's ultimate origin, so it has no reference to Christ's ultimate origin. It speaks only of David's installation as king and by way of typology Christ's installation as King.

Unitarian Christians don't consider Christ being is referred to as the image of God as indisputable scriptural evidence that Jesus is indeed God based on the following reasons:

Excerpt:

Image of God

The Image is not the Original



To be in the image of God does not mean you are God.


The Bible tells us Adam was made in the image of God. That would be the image of the invisible God. There are also numerous other references in Scripture.

God created man (Hebrew: "adam") in His own image, in the image of God He created him. (Genesis 1:27).

For in the image of God He made man. (Genesis 9:6; cf. James 3:9).

For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God. (1 Corinthians 11:7).

In fact it necessarily means you are not God. A picture of someone is not the person himself but an image of the person. An image of a man on a coin is not the man but the image of a man. In the same way, the fact that Jesus is the image of God means he is necessarily not God. One would not say the Father is the image of God. To be in the image of God necessarily means Jesus is not God.

http://www.angelfire.com/space/thegospeltruth/trinity/verses/Col1_15.html

Click to expand...

That may have been true of Unitarianism historically, Radrock. But that is not quite the case today. I am a member of a Unitarian church and what we stress is openness, flexibility, rather than dogma. The members represent a wide range of beliefs, from myself, who holds that God was in Christ, to those who don't, etc.

Hoghead1 said:

That may have been true of Unitarianism historically, Radrock. But that is not quite the case today. I am a member of a Unitarian church and what we stress is openness, flexibility, rather than dogma. The members represent a wide range of beliefs, from myself, who holds that God was in Christ, to those who don't, etc.

Click to expand...

Well, JWS are Unitarians and they are 100% in agreement with this article. Perhaps we have different definitions of what a Unitarian is. You are referring to a specific denomination. I am using the word in a general reference to all those who don't hold a Trinitarian view.

No, the JWS are not Unitarians, believe me. I am referring to the Unitarian Universalist Church. If you are just using the term "Unitarian" to refer to anyone who has trouble with the Trinity, you need to find another term. For example, you might talk about Arianism or something.

Hoghead1 said:

No, the JWS are not Unitarians, believe me. I am referring to the Unitarian Universalist Church. If you are just using the term "Unitarian" to refer to anyone who has trouble with the Trinity, you need to find another term. For example, you might talk about Arianism or something.

Click to expand...

Only if used with an initial capital letter. Otherwise it can be used in the manner I did.

unitarian
[yoo-ni-tair-ee-uh n]


noun
1.
a person who maintains that God is one being, rejecting the doctrine of the Trinity.
2.
(initial capital letter) a member of a liberal religious denomination founded upon the doctrine that God is one being, and giving each congregation complete control over its affairs.
Compare Unitarian Universalism.
3.
an advocate of unity or centralization, as in government.
adjective
4.
(initial capital letter) pertaining to the Unitarians or their doctrines; accepting Unitarianism; belonging to the Unitarians.
5.
unitary.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/unitarian

Click to expand...

----------------------------

Unitarian
Also found in: Thesaurus, Medical, Acronyms, Encyclopedia, Wikipedia.
Related to Unitarian: Unitarian Church
U·ni·tar·i·an (yo͞o′nĭ-târ′ē-ən)
n.
3. A Christian who is not a Trinitarian.
[From New Latin ūnitārius, monotheist, from Latin ūnitās, unity; see unity.]
U′ni·tar′i·an adj.
U′ni·tar′i·an·ism n.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Unitarian

Click to expand...

Yes, but then Radrook, you should even be more careful in using the term. You should be careful to point out exactly how you are suing it, so that you do not crate any confusion.

Hoghead1 said:

Yes, but then Radrook, you should even be more careful in using the term. You should be careful to point out exactly how you are suing it, so that you do not crate any confusion.

Click to expand...

Sorry if I did so. I wasn't aware that I had capitalized the first letter if indeed I did. Thanks for pointing that out.

The Boxer said:

Uh, this Psalm is speaking about David my friend. Note that David says, "The LORD said unto ME (David)...." If David was speaking of Christ he would have said, "The LORD said unto my Lord...."

The Psalm teaches that God was going to make David his son by decree and not by creation, "I will declare the decree...." God said that he would appoint David as his son (Psalm 89:27).

The new testament applies the Psalm to Christ because Christ was a type of David. Just as the Psalm has no reference to David's ultimate origin, so it has no reference to Christ's ultimate origin. It speaks only of David's installation as king and by way of typology Christ's installation as King.

Click to expand...

The problem is, the reason I said this...


...was not to prove Jesus was created, but to show klutedavid (who claimed Jesus is the only one that is Yhwh, not the Father, nor the Holy Spirit), that Jesus could not be the only one that is the Yhwh, for it is clear this is the Father speaking to the son, and is used this way in the N/T.


This Showing, if nothing else, the Father is also the Yhwh. So, Jesus could not be the only one that is the Yhwh.
And that it is referring to Jesus, for it says, Psalm 2 is referring to Jesus. Yes, son of God refers to Jesus ruling as God's king, but though we are sons of God now, yet also being raised from the dead we become sons of God, for we will be like Him...


And as it says “this day have I begotten thee” born of God, born again. ...from the dead.

7xlightray said:

And as it says “this day have I begotten thee” born of God, born again. ...from the dead.

Click to expand...

The problem with your definition of "begotten" is that the Psalm refers first of all to David. David was NOT born again from the dead. He was begotten by decree. "I will declare the decree, "You are my son, this day I have begotten thee." The fact that the Psalm by way of typology applies to Christ when he was raised from the dead does NOT support the idea that Christ was begotten by resurrection. David was NOT begotten by resurrection.

According to the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament the Hebrew word "yalad" (begotten) in 2:7 is written in the Qal which represents relationship and not actual paternity.

In the Nicene Creed, however, Christ is said to be "begotten, not made," meaning Christ always existed.

Hoghead1 said:

In the Nicene Creed, however, Christ is said to be "begotten, not made," meaning Christ always existed.

Click to expand...

Psalm 2:7 does not refer to his being begotten before all ages. It refers to his being begotten as God's human son in the same sense as David.

The LORD said to me (David), "You are my son, today I have begotten you."

Therefore, Jesus was begotten twice.

THE SECOND COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE (553 AD)

If anyone does not confess that God the Word was TWICE begotten, the first before all time from the Father, non- temporal and bodiless, the other in the last days when he came down from the heavens and was incarnate by the holy, glorious, God-bearer, ever-virgin Mary, and born of her, let him be anathema.

7xlightray said:

PART 1 of 2

Click to expand...

Hello Lightray.

This post is a continuation of the reply to your post #999.

It would not have much meaning if Jesus was God and above all, and filled all things, then
descended to earth into a woman's womb, then ascended to heaven where he was before, so that he
might fill all things. That's rather meaningless, for it says the Father is above all, through all and in all.

Click to expand...

You believe the Father is above all, yet the Son is likewise also above all, and through all. The Son
is the heir of all things, the Son rules above all.

Colossians 1
16 For by Him (Jesus) all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible,
whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities, all things have been created through Him (Jesus)
and for Him (Jesus). 17 He (Jesus) is before all things, and in Him (Jesus) all things hold together.

1 Corinthians 8
6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord,
Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him (Jesus).

Your interpretation Lightray must include 'one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist
through Him (Jesus).

Then we have this verse.

John 1
2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through Him (Jesus), and apart from
Him (Jesus) nothing came into being that has come into being.

We exist for the Father, yet we also exist for the Son, the Father created all things through the Son.

'all things have been created through Him (Jesus) and for Him (Jesus)'

We have become citizens in whose kingdom?

Colossians 1
13 For He rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son.

The Son is the focus of the entire progressive relevation of the scripture, all things have been given to the
Heir of heaven and earth. The following passage contains a simple summary of the revelation of the scripture.

Matthew 21
35 The vine-growers took his slaves and beat one, and killed another, and stoned a third. 36 Again he sent
another group of slaves larger than the first; and they did the same thing to them. 37 But afterward he sent
his son to them, saying, ‘They will respect my son.’ 38 But when the vine-growers saw the son, they said
among themselves, ‘This is the heir; come, let us kill him and seize his inheritance.’ 39 They took him, and
threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. 40 Therefore when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will
he do to those vine-growers?”

This Royal Son is the heir of the vineyard, the Son is not a slave like us, the Son inherits the vineyard.
‘This is the heir; come, let us kill him and seize his inheritance.’ You are the inheritance and you are also
a citizen of the Son's eternal kingdom (the kingdom of His beloved Son).

7xlightray said:

PART 1 of 2

Click to expand...

Hello Lightray.

Reply to post #999.

The Father skillfully made Jesus in the womb. John said we must believe Jesus came in the flesh,
flesh is creation, period, no doubt about it.

Click to expand...

This flesh that the Son appeared within, was not the same Adamic flesh that we have Lightray. The Son had
no earthly father, and for that very reason, you do not seem to realise that the Son is not a created entity.
The Son cannot create Himself? But all things were created through the Son. The scripture strongly emphasizes
the supernatural birth of Jesus, so that you will not see Jesus as a created entity.

Jesus descended from heaven and then ascended back into heaven.

Ephesians 4
10 He who descended is Himself also He who ascended far above all.

A plan or idea does not descend and ascend, the Heir of the vineyard both can descend and ascend.

The word “son” itself implies a beginning.

Click to expand...

Not in my book Lightray, the Heir of all things was also the creator of all things. The 'Son' is a temporal
term applied to Jesus and only strictly during His earthly manifestation. Jesus descended into this identity
of the Son, but the Son has ascended back into the identity of the Lord of heaven and earth (YHWH).
The Lord of heaven and earth sits on the throne in heaven. The Lord of heaven and earth was also the God
of the Old Testament.

Acts 17
24 The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell
in temples made with hands.

This creator is also the Lord of heaven and earth, so who is the Lord of heaven and earth?

Revelations 11
15 The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ.

See Lightray, both the Father and the Son (the Heir) are both equally the Lord over heaven and earth.

Still not sure about the identity and Lordship of the Christ.

Revelation 1
8 “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.”

The part of the sentence which reads 'who is and who was and who is to come' is actually Jesus. For the scripture
does say.

Hebrews 13
8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday (who was) and today (who is) and forever (who is to come).

Don't believe me so far Lightray then keep reading.

Revelation 2
8 The first and the last, who was dead, and has come to life.

This verse of course can be translated as.

Revelations 2
8 The alpha and the omega, who was dead, and has come to life.

So who is the alpha and the omega in the verse below again?

Revelation 1
8 “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.”

Still not sure about the identity of the alpha and the omega, i.e, the first and the last?

Revelation 1
17 When I saw Him, I fell at His feet like a dead man. And He placed His right hand on me, saying, “Do not
be afraid; I am the first and the last.

Jesus is the first and the last, the alpha and the omega, the Lord God Almighty.

We continue and reinforce this revelation of the first and the last, i.e., the alpha and the omega.

Revelations 22
12 “Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done.
13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.”

The one who is coming quickly is Jesus Christ, the alpha and the omega is Jesus, and the first and the last is also Jesus.

I hear you, The Boxer. My point is that both councils do affirm the eternal preexistence of Christ.

7xlightray said:

PART 1 of 2

Click to expand...

Hello Lightray.

Still processing part one of post #999.

You stated the following.

Isaiah 45:1 Thus saith the LORD-Yhwh [Father] to his anointed [Messiah], to Cyrus [Jesus Isaiah 44:28],
whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him; and I will loose the loins of kings [to put all his
enemies under him], to open before him the two leaved gates; and the gates shall not be shut; 2 I will go before
thee, and make the crooked places straight [this speaks of the Father's Spirit in John the Baptist to prepare
the people for the coming of His Christ. He is the one who goes before him and makes the crooked places straight,
Isaiah 40:4; Luke 3:2-6]

Click to expand...

These verses from Isaiah 45, are not messianic verses Lightray, rather they refer to the same 'annointing' as the kings
of Israel received. In this case the very name of the king of Babylon, i.e., Cyrus, is mentioned in the text. So that
you understand that this king is not the messiah. The kings of Israel are annointed by God to rule, but in this case
the king of Babylon has been annointed to go forth and conquer.

Isaiah 45
4 I have also called you by your name, I have given you a title of honor, Though you have not known Me.

Cyrus was not a Jew, Cyrus never knew God, Cyrus is identical to the Pharaoh of Egypt, whom also did not know
God. Cyrus was raised for a purpose and so was the Pharaoh of Egypt. Making the crooked places straight, again
is not actually referring to John the Baptist and the path of the Messiah. I reject your interpretation of Isaiah 45.