Why The Trinity is a False Teaching - Summarized Doctrinal Reasons

[Albion]

A man all the way.

No, fully God and fully man, but a man nonetheless. That's what explains the human limitations you referred to.

 

[Hoghead1]

Numerals itemized:

1) Three who ARE God are naturally thought of as Three Gods. But the Athanasian Creed prohibits the thought. Trinnies are then BEHOLDEN to two conflicting thoughts. Three are God but are NOT three Gods. Whata CROCK!
2) OUSIA and HYPOSTASIS meant the same thingybobber but must be MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE in meaning for Trinity to be true.
Same with the modern "Person" and "Being." By Merriam Webster (a pretty lass) THESE metaphors are SYNONYM.
3) The Trinity ABROGATES the Shema in true meaning and the First Command of the Ten in true meaning. The BASTIONS of the Hebraic faith. Take away THESE commands from God and what do you have, sir? Confusion to the End of Time? DAWGS and SWINE mucking around wallowing in the mire? BLEEPING IDJITS all the day long? Were EITHER of these two precepts brought up at Nicaea ONE WHIT, sir?
4) Oh I could go on, but what the HAY? Does any of this matter? What am I DOING here, anyhoo?

True, there is a serious problem with the Trinity if one assumes three separate, unique personalities. There is no doubt in my mind that is tritheism, not monotheism. However, there are other models of teh Trinity. Nicaea never use the term "person," however. Also the term "personna" used at the time didn't necessarily mean "person" in the modern sense of teh term; it meant a role, the mask worn by an actor in a play.

 

[Hoghead1]

The Spirit is energy but also personality. Primarily of the Father, but also the Son who CONTINUES to be the Servant of God AND considering God's will El Jefe to his own.

True, there is a pervasive subrodinationism in Trinitarian formulations. Consequently, it appears that the Father and Father alone is God, the Boss of bosses, with the Spirit and Son mere lieutenants who carry out the Boss' orders.

 

[nothead]

True, there is a pervasive subrodinationism in Trinitarian formulations. Consequently, it appears that the Father and Father alone is God, the Boss of bosses, with the Spirit and Son mere lieutenants who carry out the Boss' orders.

RATHER Trinity is based upon "Three in equal (ontological) harmony."

Hey I have a thought. What do you think these red letters mean?

By myself I can do NOTHING.

My Father is greater THAN ALL.

My Father is greater than EYE.

THIS is eternal life that they know YOU the ONLY True God...and also know Christ Jesus whom YOU sent.

 

[Hoghead1]

RATHER Trinity is based upon "Three in equal (ontological) harmony."

Hey I have a thought. What do you think these red letters mean?

By myself I can do NOTHING.

My Father is greater THAN ALL.

My Father is greater than EYE.

THIS is eternal life that they know YOU the ONLY True God...and also know Christ Jesus whom YOU sent.

In many Trinitarian doctrines, they are not all are considered equal, however. That is the problem. A typical example is Calvin, who argued that the Father did not descend to earth, but He who was sent my him, the Father did not suffer, but He who was sent by Him. In other words, The Father is the Boss of bosses, and Christ is the lieutenant sent to do the dirtily work.

 

[nothead]

True, there is a serious problem with the Trinity if one assumes three separate, unique personalities. There is no doubt in my mind that is tritheism, not monotheism. However, there are other models of teh Trinity. Nicaea never use the term "person," however. Also the term "personna" used at the time didn't necessarily mean "person" in the modern sense of teh term; it meant a role, the mask worn by an actor in a play.

Three living beings. One which hath no head, the Holy Spirit. This is a power, force, energy, vehicle of referents, et cetera and half the time I only hear it's voice ifn' I am lucky...not able to describe at all.

Two which hath heads, one the God alone-head, of a form we know not of. One which had a head and now has a glorified head, with halos and angels singing an such. GODHEAD is misnomer and lame. NO SUCH THING in the Bible.

 

[nothead]

In many Trinitarian doctrines, they are not all are considered equal, however. That is the problem. A typical example is Calvin, who argued that the Father did not descend to earth, but He who was sent my him, the Father did not suffer, but He who was sent by Him. In other words, The Father is the Boss of bosses, and Christ is the lieutenant sent to do the dirtily work.

There are elohim in heaven and on earth. Kings were appointed and maybe anointed as David was. Also called elohim. 10 percent of the time elohim were referenced in the OT NOT God Almighty.

Only one God Almighty, the Father alone. Thank you veddy much. Latka Gravas lives.

 

[Hoghead1]

Three living beings. One which hath no head, the Holy Spirit. This is a power, force, enery, vehicle of referents, et cetera and half the time I only hear it's voice ifn' I am lucky...not able to describe at all.

Two which hath heads, one the God alone-head, of a form we know not of. One which had a head and now has a glorified head, with halos and angels singing an such. GODHEAD is misnomer and lame. NO SUCH THING in the Bible.

The Holy Spirit has been the least-elaborated member of the Trinity since day one. No doubt about that. Yes, some do view it as an impersonal power. However, there are other options. One need not be stuck with traditional formulations, which may have long ago lo9st their usefulness.

 

[nothead]

The Holy Spirit has been the least-elaborated member of the Trinity since day one. No doubt about that. Yes, some do view it as an impersonal power. However, there are other options. One need not be stuck with traditional formulations, which may have long ago lo9st their usefulness.

The Holy Spirit is as CLOSE to God as we get, chilluns.

It is ENTIRELY personal since it HARBORS two referents. The ORIGINATOR and the one whom it comes in the name of.

 

[nothead]

The Holy Spirit is as CLOSE to God as we get, chilluns.

It is ENTIRELY personal since it HARBORS two referents. The ORIGINATOR and the one whom it comes in the name of.

"I will not leave you alone." As in "I will be with you."

 

[Hoghead1]

RATHER Trinity is based upon "Three in equal (ontological) harmony."

Hey I have a thought. What do you think these red letters mean?

By myself I can do NOTHING.

My Father is greater THAN ALL.

My Father is greater than EYE.

THIS is eternal life that they know YOU the ONLY True God...and also know Christ Jesus whom YOU sent.

You said that before. Why are you bringing it up here?

 

[jerry kelso]

Nevertheless all know priests are lesser beings than God. Just say "theos" and tha...that's IT folks.




Em, methinks you got your own thinking bassackwerds. Trinies say BOTH man and God not NEITHER a man or an angel. The number of times Jesus is SAID to be a man numbers right at 150 times, sir. The number of times GOD is in my book, nada.
So then twice Wong do not a right make, my man. Two Wongs DON'T make a white, and one Wong happens to be Wong aw da way, WHITE?

Yauaw.
TIS guessing, but there aren't many other options, ALL being kings coronated as options.
Nevertheless as a double-fulfillment prophesy, the first option in near-view WAS a man, considered an "elohim," sir.


FULFILLMENT is a manifestation of prophesy. Jesus was not being a PROPHET, here...since he wasn't PROPHESYING anything, genius. Nothing to FULFILL, and heavens to Betsy if Peter DID fulfill being "satan." Instead he got the indwelling Holy Spirit in the upper room and traditionally DIED upside down on his own cross. So then you only exemplify your own confusion once again.



Not exactly. I am SHOWING proof that good elohim who are NOT God exist and have always existed in the minds of the Jews, the People of the Promise, sir.


"Two OTHER members of the Godhead," are normally thought of as two other Gods, sir. I realize that trins don't SAY this, indeed they cannot orthodoxically. However, this would be the first dissonance between common sense and reality, as opposed to imagination and unreality, sir.

The fact is, HE is a HE only and "three members of the Godhead" are a THEY sir. You contradict yourself with aplomb and debonair, having no compunction or sense not to do so.



...and of course you and yours have made a whole THEOLOGY based upon a single verse. One which was probably NOT in the original Hebrew Matthean text. One which is mentioned NOT in eighteen times Eusebius mentions the Great Commission.
One which a PLETHORA of scholars, both trin and non-trin have considered added on laters. NO MATTER that no Koine manuscript doesn't have it, the original has been lost forever, except in the Syriac Sinaiticus and Shem Tov Matthew. Why would they have this to say about it?

1) It does not match up to the Lukan Great Commission.
2) It sticks out like a sore thumb among serene thumbs, sir. NOTHING in NT collaborates or supports.
3) It is simply inconceivable JESUS would have considered a Trinity in his day OR mentioned a God of three "names."
4) It is the only TRIN FORMULATION or actually three in verse together scripture at all, unless you consider the Johannine Comma valid.
5) But most of all, it CONTRADICTS the single Jesus only baptisms of Acts 5 times and more than several verses by Paul.


Or one could say the Father is uncreated. I do. You are completely unorthodox if you say the Father is created, and this I say with confidence.


You don't even realize the EVOLUTION of Creedal thought, sir. Jesus is considered UNCREATED in evolved rationalism.


The "echad" of the Adonai was NEVER a compound unity.
It is the numerical "one" and stands alone and unique. NO OTHER ONE can be God in context of OT said umpteen times and in Mk 12 by the Christ. You are so Wong you are Wong all the way, Wongmeister.


Being created IS being being a being begotten, sir. Why you think God is YOUR "Father" sir? YOU are uncreated or what?


Prove compound unity and I will lick your pink booties, sir. Pink are your booties and pink is the complexion of your pretty face by the time I'm done wit ye.



I don't need to understand kenosis at all, sir. If God made himself a man, then He is no longer God is He? Sir?
Simple common sense trumps the intellectual scintillations of the titillated every time.


Jesus is divine by virtue of the glory or shekinah or radiance or light of God only. This is the Holy Spirit UNITY of the "compound UNITY" which Jesus did mention when he said both that "I and the Father are one," Jn 10, AND "that they may be one as we are one," Jn 17.



BOOLoney. Prove it.



Jesus ALWAYS referred to his God as "the Father," a REPLACEMENT nomos for "YHWH" now too sacred to say out loud. Sir.
Get your facks straight. Ged God Theology. Ged a life and HAVE God Theology.


NO SCRIPTURE says God is plural in Person, OR that God has more than one God-mind but ESPECIALLY one God-will. Correction.

...and they ABROGATE the Shema and the First Command of the Ten, sir. So what? What GOOD THING can I say aboudem?


Show me where any OTHER ONE is in context of Shema also God. Thank you sir. For your support sir.


FIND "three in poifeck harm to thee" I mean harmony and I will lick your fur-topped BOOTIES sir.


BLAH and bleh and bleh. GOSH you got some kinda tootin' beans in your beany or WHAT sir?

Have I said a single thingybobber ILLOGICAL, sir? Shew me where, oh man.

nothead,

1. I must have touched a nerve but that is alright. I was not trying to demand but more suggest after all I said thanks.

2. I believe the post you were answering to originally was one I made to imagican I believe.

3. We were talking about whether or not the trinity was illogical or not. I think in one respect

4. Melchizadek was a man but Jesus was deity so being eternal was the principle being shown as their were no records of Melchizadek's birth and death etc.
Jesus deity is certain in scripture but if one says that he is an elohim under God is the doctrine of submission and inferiorism which is under the doctrine of Christadelphian. The difference is that Christadelphian don't believe Jesus was deity at all but mere human.

5. The whole essence of submission is mainly built on 1 Corinthians 15:28 that says the Son will give up the kingdom to the Father so God will be all in all.
Compound unity shows that submission is concerning to the office and position and this goes in line with the relationship as Son to the Father.
Because Jesus is the God man he shows the proper conduct and submissiveness in the Son and Father relationship but as his deity they are shown as one in unity that cannot be broken and are not above each other. The Holy Spirit is shown as a separate person that can, has and still does and always will doing things as a person or an entity separate from the father and the son himself but always in unity. Each person have their personal responsibilities from the very beginning in unity. They all work together in the plan of God which means deity.

6. The second member of the Godhead gave his life freely not because the first member of the Godhead made him. There is nothing illogical about this.
We were made in God's image and yet we are nowhere in the ball park equal with him because he created us in his image.

7. The Son was birthed in the plan of redemption before the foundation of the world but did not come to fruition till the end of the old testament dispensation.
He was present before the world began just as much as God who became the Father and the Holy Spirit who was brooding over the waters in Genesis 1:2.

8. I can deduce different definitions and contexts that you can use for your position but I would rather hear it from you to see if you really understand what you think you believe.
Jesus is called a man, but all three in the Godhead were called Jehovah as well.
Hebrews 1:8-10 God the Father called the Son his God and one that created the heavens and the earth. Your position that because there are more verses to say he was a son and not God doesn't hold water. That is black and white and a fact, otherwise we would have a contradiction in the scriptures that cannot be.

9. I already gave some scripture about Jehovah being used for the Son and the Holy Spirit. The Hebrew word for Yehovah is "Lord" in Deuteronomy 6:4 and 7600 times in the old testament. All three are called Lord in the definition of Yehovah.

10. Who said Jesus was being a prophet when he spoke to Peter who didn't savor the things of God? The point of a double reference in this passage is that Jesus was speaking to Satan who was using Peter with the reference as Peter being Satan. We know that Peter was not Satan but this was the principle of the double reference. Once again you are the one confused.

11. Jesus did predict Peter's denial three time and the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] crowing but this verse had nothing to do with predicting about Peter being Satan or that he would not come back to his senses and to God. This is black and white and a fact that you misunderstood what I said.

12. You can say that elohim is used for false Gods but the fact is that they are not really true Gods at all in conjunction with the one true God for they have no unity even with themselves.

13. The jews never believed that humans were elohim concerning being deity. Many of the jews were offended that Jesus claimed or implied as some would say that he was deity. There is no true deity except the 3 in 1.

14. There is no contradiction because God and the father are one and we are to be like them. Many members in 1 body and this is compound unity. Just as we are made in God's image and yet are more than one God and the father are compound unity as well. I don't deny there are three separate persons in 1 Godhead that are one in unity and this is scriptural.

15. You have no scripture concerning what you think about your theology. You may give the information if you would like.

16. The Father was not created physically because that is why the son was begotten. And the Holy Spirit had part in womb of Mary.

17. I will say this about your comment about Jesus only in baptisms is not wrong. Jesus said the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit to the jews who started the church which was the disciples in connection with making disciples but in Acts they never seem to use this formula.

18. No one can be saved but by the name of Jesus and this shows their oneness in the plan of redemption. Each member of the Godhead had a part in redemption but Jesus is the name whereby we are saved because he was the crucified and risen Lord.
To be honest I am not really interested in Creedal thought as I am in the truth of the word.

19. Achad is the Hebrew word for one such as in Deuteronomy 6:4, one Lord and Malachi 2:10 one God. It means to unify, collect, be united in one, one in number. Genesis 2:24 they shall be one flesh and Genesis 11:6 the people is one. It doesn't mean bodily entrance as in the doctrine of interpenetration. People control each other to the extent of oneness with each other. As a human you are either in union with the devil or God.
Pink booties? Once you are done with me? Are you a secularist? I don't see no christian value in that kind of statement. It doesn't sound like you want a logical scriptural exchange.

20. You may not agree with me but I believe and many others would agree that what I have said thus far is quite logical. Your whole perception shown on this subject seems to be forced control and this is not the kind of unity God wants or calls for.

21. As far as the pink booties doesn't bother me even though I have no pink booties and you can't embarrass me. You ought to be careful of the word booty some may take that the wrong way. Are you trying to kill the whole post? One thing is for sure that needs to be booted out is illogical language because you can't show any scriptural that would be logical to refute what I have said scriptural and otherwise.

22. I have already showed illogical statements you have made such as misunderstanding about the double reference concerning Peter and being prophetic according to your context.

23. The bible can be understood for the most part but there are many things that cannot be understood at first glance or what appears to one's perception or lack of knowledge etc.

24. If you think you understand context then tell me what Paul meant in 1 Corinthians 15:31 when he said "I die daily"? What is your common sense answer to this? Let me know. Jerry Kelso

 

[Hoghead1]

You rook rike a snailman, sir. But do you slime around or walk? What did Jesus do sir? Either/or? Is this logical or not sir?

In other words, did Jesus beam around like Scotty or walk like a man? Did he EVER beam around like a Hindu fakir or holy man? Did he even LEVITATE like a TM meditator, Tom Petty or his Heartbreakers? Em?

Jesus is credited with walking on water, for example. That would count as a kind of levitation. And then there is the matter of the resurrection.

 

[Hoghead1]

The Holy Spirit is as CLOSE to God as we get, chilluns.

It is ENTIRELY personal since it HARBORS two referents. The ORIGINATOR and the one whom it comes in the name of.

What do you mean by "harbors two references"? That it is a power emanating from the two "references"?

 

[nothead]

Jesus is credited with walking on water, for example. That would count as a kind of levitation. And then there is the matter of the resurrection.

Peter walked on water until he got self-conscious.

God resurrected Jesus not Jesus resurrecting himself. The statements number over 20 for this and only one in Jn 2 for a self-resurrection. I see it as Jn 10 "by the command of my Father."

The saints healed and Jesus said they would do even greater works than his own. But the Great Work Jesus actually did no man CAN do unless he was anointed TO THE EXTENT Jesus was, even trusting in his God from his own mother's breast.

Shema. The REASON why no man is righteous, no not one. ONE MAN served righteousness to the extent Shema demanded. To love God from the beginning of your life to the end. THIS man was not only man, he was ANOINTED man, anointed even beyond Adam's own elohim status, the one who walked with God. And the miracle is, God did not overcome the World which He hath made. ONE MAN overcame the world so that we as wannabees can have hope, faith and glory everlasting. Amen.

 

[nothead]

What do you mean by "harbors two references"? That it is a power emanating from the two "references"?

The Spirit has two referents, the Father and the Son. What else could I mean?

The Holy Spirit has been said, specifically in the genitive to both.

The Holy Spirit of God. And the Spirit of the Christ. IN the genitive construction. NOT in equality, for this concept en whole is deviant and corrupt.

 

[Hoghead1]

There's obviously a total of three something if it's a "Trinity." That doesn't make them three beings.

If they are not beings, then how is there three of them? It is contradictory to say there are three "somethings" but they aren't beings.

 

[Hoghead1]

The Spirit has two referents, the Father and the Son. What else could I mean?

Well, there are all sorts of things you could mean. I'm not a mind reader, I don't know exactly what you mean. You could mean the Spirit is a power or energy emanating from the Father and Son; you could mean the Spirit is a separate being who represents the Father and Son.

 

[Hoghead1]

Peter walked on water until he got self-conscious.

God resurrected Jesus not Jesus resurrecting himself. The statements number over 20 for this and only one in Jn 2 for a self-resurrection. I see it as Jn 10 "by the command of my Father."

The saints healed and Jesus said they would do even greater works than his own. But the Great Work Jesus actually did no man CAN do unless he was anointed TO THE EXTENT Jesus was, even trusting in his God from his own mother's breast.

Shema. The REASON why no man is righteous, no not one. ONE MAN served righteousness to the extent Shema demanded. To love God from the beginning of your life to the end. THIS man was not only man, he was ANOINTED man, anointed even beyond Adam's own elohim status, the one who walked with God. And the miracle is, God did not overcome the World which He hath made. ONE MAN overcame the world so that we as wannabees can have hope, faith and glory everlasting. Amen.

OK, makes sense up to a point. However, the problem is that you are not addressing NT passages, such as the opening of John, which clearly state Christ is God.

 

[Hoghead1]

That means that the explanation is extra-Biblical, not the concept.

Yes, the concepts are extra-biblical, such as "ousia," which comes from Hellenic substance metaphysics.