Why The Trinity is a False Teaching - Summarized Doctrinal Reasons
- Thread starter cgaviria
- Start date
- Status
DannyB
fish guy
- Jun 22, 2004
- 6,614
- 1,579
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
I'm going to start by admitting I haven't read any of the previous posts in this thread and I'll tell you why. I have argued this argument for endless hours with different people. It's absolutely futile. Both sides point at the first chapter of first John for their "proof". I want you all to consider how much information we were given on topics such as faith, money, love, obedience, etc., and I want you to take a moment to contrast that with how much information is given in the Bible concerning the properties of God. Who are we to try to dissect God? If the trinity or lack thereof was so important don't you think there would be some evidence of it in the scriptures? ??? It's a silly and useless conversation, in my opinion and far from a salvation issue. Just my opinion. Carry on.
Upvote
0
Quite true. The Trinity is at least implied in Scripture , but not at all fully worked out there. The Bible is not a book of metaphysics, tells us very little about how God is actually built. It yields but snap shorts which often conflict with one another. It is up to the reader to try and put these together into a meaningful whole. It's impossible to talk about God without giving God a character, a nature. So it is important to inquire into how God is built. Is God material or immaterial? Immutable or mutable? Does God have emotion? Wh8ile I do not wish to collapse faith into intellectual ascent to certain doctrines, I also realize it is important for us to think out and carefully define as we can how we see God in his or her in nature. The nature, the character you attribute to God says much about the values you will live by.
Upvote
0
<staff edit>
I like Nehemiah Gordon's view on Peshat Law, that's it except a treatise he also made about the Shem Tov Hebrew Matthew, which does not have the trin formulation. He is a Karaite and the only one I am privy to.
<staff edit>
As a Sikh initiate in the early 80's I did hear a common complaint against trinitarianism. You view three Gods and oddly state you don't. This is dishonest, and in reality it is only since you don't really know what makes all Three one. The attempts at explaining this are so lame no one even takes them seriously and the ones who do are just flailing around, coming up with something barely consistent and hardly likely. The major idea of Three Persons in one Being only classifies a "Being" as "of like kind." This says NOTHING since pagan Gods are also considered of like kind. Split natures and oddball and goofy paradigms take many twists and turns, however I've not been a trin in over twenty five years, simply because there isn't any support in the NT canon. I did not remain a Sikh but quit the whole religion after three years. I still think their main premise of God is true, just not articulated with Jesus in mind. Jesus is not God but through him all men can come unto the Father, in hopes of not being turned away or spewed out or something similar.
I like Nehemiah Gordon's view on Peshat Law, that's it except a treatise he also made about the Shem Tov Hebrew Matthew, which does not have the trin formulation. He is a Karaite and the only one I am privy to.
<staff edit>
As a Sikh initiate in the early 80's I did hear a common complaint against trinitarianism. You view three Gods and oddly state you don't. This is dishonest, and in reality it is only since you don't really know what makes all Three one. The attempts at explaining this are so lame no one even takes them seriously and the ones who do are just flailing around, coming up with something barely consistent and hardly likely. The major idea of Three Persons in one Being only classifies a "Being" as "of like kind." This says NOTHING since pagan Gods are also considered of like kind. Split natures and oddball and goofy paradigms take many twists and turns, however I've not been a trin in over twenty five years, simply because there isn't any support in the NT canon. I did not remain a Sikh but quit the whole religion after three years. I still think their main premise of God is true, just not articulated with Jesus in mind. Jesus is not God but through him all men can come unto the Father, in hopes of not being turned away or spewed out or something similar.
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote
0
jerry kelso
Food For Thought
<staff edit>
4. Historically, it is wrong, because Jesus lived and taught the Mosaic law which Peter and Paul says we were never under to begin with but the jews were and they were both jews. Paul also said in Galatians that the law was because of transgressions until the seed should come Galatians 3:17.
This means the law period would not change then at that moment but Christ the Messiah was to bring about the change which would be by his death and resurrection.
5. Historically, the KOH and the KOG message was prophesied all throughout the old testament and was supposed to happen in Jesus earthly ministry Isaiah 9:6 and because of their rejection which was prophesied in Isaiah and other books of the old testament and never being mentioned that they would repent the KOH will not happen till later in the future.
6. One Christ had to die to bring forth redemption for the whole world and for people in the new testament to be saved in complete perfection Hebrews 9:15; 11:40. He also had to save the world so we in the church era could be perfected with them Hebrews 11:40.
7. In Jesus day they only knew the Mosaic law and Jesus taught the Shema under the Mosaic law ethic of doing to a backslidden nation who later became trodden literally under the foot of men and this could not be said of the true church which is a micro-organism and a nation only in the spiritual aspect and not the same theocracy Israel was in as a physical nation.
8. As far as the judgement of the law as in the case of the woman caught in adultery; it wasn't Jesus position to judge her guilty by the civil law because that was not his mission and that was the leaders job. Jesus came to seek and save that which was lost. The leaders were hypocrites and self seekers and law keepers to the extreme as to the letter of the law with no spirit except a sinful one.
Jesus taught them to live the old covenant law of 630 laws and more statutes and commandments to be blessed if they kept them perfectly.
9. Jesus mentioned in certain ways and in answer to questions from the leaders about his death and resurrection. Raise this temple and I will raise it up in three days and they thought he was talking about the physical temple. No sign shall be given this generation except the sign of Jonah who was in the belly of the what for 3 days and 3 nights, so shall the son of man be.
10. Everything pointed to the Cross from Genesis 3:15 and it was the only way to free man was by the shedding of Christ blood Matthew 26:28. But it was not a clear cut teaching to be saved by the KOG way Matthew 6:33 and Luke 17:20-21 and enter the KOH physically which was the physical KOH reign Matthew 19:28 where the jewish disciples would be judging the 12 tribes of Israel. Isaiah 2:2-4 Israel will likewise be at the head of the nations over the whole world and this is tied into the restitution of all things which Peter mentioned in Acts 3:19. This is also another reason why the KOH didn't transpire at the time of the Messiah.
11. The way of entrance into the physical KOH was by the KOG in their hearts which was believing in the Messiah and being born again through the Spirit and having a spirit of the new creation and a new heart.
When the nation of Israel rejected Christ Matthew 23:37-39 at the end of his ministry Jesus began speaking more clearly about the result of his mission and how to be saved by his death and resurrection John 6. Eat my flesh and drink my blood and even his own disciples didn't understand what he was talking about.
12. In Matthew 18 Christ began to speak about his death and resurrection and Peter said I won't let anyone kill you and Jesus said, "Get thee behind me Satan because you don't savor the things of God". Peter was not Satan but Satan was using him to thwart the plan of redemption and Peter didn't get it and he denied Christ 3 times even after that.
13. Because of gradual revelation and the nature of the climate of rebellion and sin and being estranged from their covenant of the Mosaic law and because they missed the message of the suffering savior in Isaiah and because of wanting a conquering Savior they rejected the Savior and wanted to be law keepers under the Mosaic ethic even though it had run it's course in that context.
14. Because the Messiah had finished his mission and fulfilled the law in his capacity that he was to do, by way of sacrifice he became the new covenant and the Mosaic law was no longer in need in the context and capacity for there was a new law that took its place. Romans 10:4, the law reached its goal and in Hebrews 8:6-7 the old law was replaced by the new and if there was no reason to do this then there would have been no reason to seek for a second.
15. If it was just a few things replaced it would be the first covenant revised but that is not the case and that is why the search for a second and brand new covenant built on better promises was established. So it has nothing to do with because there are similarities in the two different covenants etc. The law of Moses was one whole unit that had to be obeyed as one unit otherwise if one was broken all was broken. It was a specific covenant, with specific rules of engagement with specific mechanics of the law and a specific blessing and cursing system which is not under the new covenant.
16. If you like Gordon's viewpoint on Peshat because it doesn't include the trinity then that is your choice. I believe in complete contextual exegesis and reconciling the scriptures together so they are all in harmony across the board in determining whether or not the trinity is true or not, whether the implications and the plain statements coincide together or if the implications are strong enough to at least be considered a fact. Your absolutes of the plain statements are subject to whatever your knowledge may be of that it sounds like it is plainly saying and you are more apt to miss the whole point because your context has already been determined by the plain statement.
17. Many believe that the plain statement of receiving eternal life means OSAS and no possibility of losing it. The truth is that the receiving and the keeping are two different things. Why because obedience of abiding in Christ is mandatory to keep one's salvation. Obedience can be considered a work because it is something you have to do, but it is mandatory of God and not a work to merit. Also, eternal life, is an eternal substance but a man's possession is not if they are not meeting God's condition of obedience. Eternal life will always be eternal whether one gets saved or not.
18. So the mode of interpretation is already determined in your idea of Peshat before investigating the whole context and this is not proper hermeneutics because they both have to harmonize together.
Sikh believe if they chant the name of the Lord har whoever he is they will be forgiven of sins and most of them seem to be alright with being politically correct if some others believe in worshipping other Gods. You go to your church and I'll go to mine. In this mindset there is no real offence of the gospel or separation from the world's persecution etc.
19. I view one God with 3 members as their is one body of Christ and many members. This shows that 1 God is all three in complete unity. God means deity and you want to keep it to 1 in number when the bible calls all 3 God. Even the Father called the Son his God in Hebrews 1 and said the Son was the one who created the heavens and the earth.
20. You want to take the plain statement of no other Gods above the one true God as being 1 in number before you take in all the other contexts and that is not proper hermeneutics or common sense or proper grammatical rules.
So there is no dishonesty on my part about the 3 in 1 and it is fair and logical according to rightly dividing the word.
21. You say the attempts of explanations are lame and are not taken seriously when there are just as many that believe in trinity that those who don't. And most of who don't believe in the trinity is because of the reason I already mentioned and for the others mostly is because they just believe Christ was a good teacher and a human and was not the Savior of the world. You are wrong again which is nothing new.
22. Just because polytheism was in secular and heathenistic nations doesn't mean that God is guilty because of association of the same number.
Heathens served false gods which were not true gods at all. Satan is called the god of this world but he is not in control of the world even though he is a false god and a false idol that sinners serve who are of the world system.
23. Satan is one in number and if he is a God then does that mean God the father isn't one God? That is the same type of argument that you are using for it being wrong that there are three members in the God head who are all deity but one in harmony that can never be broken. So once again you are completely wrong in your analogy and if you cannot see this or deny this then you are blinded to the truth.
24. If God the Father called the begotten Son of God God then he is God and that is in the context of being deity. The context of those accused as saying we are Gods meaning man is deity is not in the context of being deity but to be like the character of the deity.
25. Jesus as the begotten was called the "Son of God" proving his deity and John said he was the Savior of the world and Jesus said he was the Lord of the Sabbath in the eyes of being deity and in the phrase, Before Abraham was, I am and this the jews understood what he was actually saying about being deity and this is why they wanted to crucify him. The problem is you want to change the context and demote him to being merely human. Christ was not and is not and never will be merely human for he was deity.
26. No man has ever been mentioned as being equaled with God in the understanding of deity except Jesus by Jesus and by God the Father. Jerry kelso
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote
0
MOD HAT
This thread is going through a clean for all the flaming.
Please learn to make your points without flaming each other.
AND:
This thread is closed for review by staff according to the SoP and the SoF found here, which is as follows:
"Faith groups that deny the full, eternal deity of Jesus Christ or His incarnation whereby He, as God, took on human flesh (becoming fully God and fully man in one person), are considered non-Christians at CF. Posts that deny the full, eternal deity of Jesus Christ or His incarnation are considered non-Christian theology and are not allowed in "Christians Only" forums.
Discussions in all "Christians Only" forums must be in alignment with Trinitarian beliefs.
Non-Nicene unorthodox Christian topics may only be discussed in the Controversial Theology forum.
Non-Trinitarianism may only be discussed in the Christianity & World Religion forum and the Debate Non-Christian Religions forum.
The Controversial Theology forum is open to Christian members only (faith groups list). These unorthodox topics include (but are not limited to):
● Universalism
● Open Theism
● Full Preterism
● Annihilationism
● Gnosticism
This thread is going through a clean for all the flaming.
Please learn to make your points without flaming each other.
AND:
This thread is closed for review by staff according to the SoP and the SoF found here, which is as follows:
"Faith groups that deny the full, eternal deity of Jesus Christ or His incarnation whereby He, as God, took on human flesh (becoming fully God and fully man in one person), are considered non-Christians at CF. Posts that deny the full, eternal deity of Jesus Christ or His incarnation are considered non-Christian theology and are not allowed in "Christians Only" forums.
Discussions in all "Christians Only" forums must be in alignment with Trinitarian beliefs.
Non-Nicene unorthodox Christian topics may only be discussed in the Controversial Theology forum.
Non-Trinitarianism may only be discussed in the Christianity & World Religion forum and the Debate Non-Christian Religions forum.
The Controversial Theology forum is open to Christian members only (faith groups list). These unorthodox topics include (but are not limited to):
● Universalism
● Open Theism
● Full Preterism
● Annihilationism
● Gnosticism
Last edited:
Upvote
0
MOD HAT
Trinity vs Non-Trinitarian Theology discussions will no longer be allowed in CCT.
Trinity discussions will be allowed in Christian Only areas.
Non-Trinitarian Theology will only be allowed in NonChristianReligions and ChristianityAndWorldReligions in the context of Islam, Judaism, LDS, JW, Baha'i.
Trinity vs Non-Trinitarian Theology discussions will no longer be allowed in CCT.
Trinity discussions will be allowed in Christian Only areas.
Non-Trinitarian Theology will only be allowed in NonChristianReligions and ChristianityAndWorldReligions in the context of Islam, Judaism, LDS, JW, Baha'i.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
