Why The Trinity is a False Teaching - Summarized Doctrinal Reasons

[Universal Ranger]

Any doctrine that forces you to ignore certain scriptures is not one you should be talking about with any sort of definitive assertion.

First, God refers to Himself in the plural in Genesis when He uses the word "lets."
Second, John refers to the Word of God that he later explains was made into flesh and came down to dwell among us as being both God and with God in the beginning.
Third, Christ talks about Himself having to go so that the comforter can come. If Christ was the comforter or even if God the Father was the comforter, why did Christ need to go first?

Now, you may have difficulty accepting the Triune being of God, but the Bible is pretty clear that there is at least a duality of God.

Also, God made us in His image. Do you honestly believe that by His image, God meant an ape-like shape with a head, two arms, and two legs that we walk upright with?

I think more than likely God meant our being is triune like His, and we are the only creatures with a triune being like God's.

We have a flesh, our mind, we have a spirit, the one who wants to serve God, and we have a soul, the emotional part that tends to follow whomever is stronger of the two.

We must submit our flesh, mind, to the will of God just like Christ submitted Himself to His Father. Oh yeah, and there's another thing, Christ frequently referred to His Father, and how His Father sent Him, and how He sits at the right hand of His Father.

Talk about convoluted. To try and make that to be anything other than it sounds is to convolute what the Bible says.

The fact is this. Sometimes we don't understand what the Bible means, and that's okay. We just need to keep praying about it, not religiously adhering to a set of beliefs were told was right.

 

[Commander Xenophon]

Any doctrine that forces you to ignore certain scriptures is not one you should be talking about with any sort of definitive assertion.

First, God refers to Himself in the plural in Genesis when He uses the word "lets."
Second, John refers to the Word of God that he later explains was made into flesh and came down to dwell among us as being both God and with God in the beginning.
Third, Christ talks about Himself having to go so that the comforter can come. If Christ was the comforter or even if God the Father was the comforter, why did Christ need to go first?

Now, you may have difficulty accepting the Triune being of God, but the Bible is pretty clear that there is at least a duality of God.

Also, God made us in His image. Do you honestly believe that by His image, God meant an ape-like shape with a head, two arms, and two legs that we walk upright with?

I think more than likely God meant our being is triune like His, and we are the only creatures with a triune being like God's.

We have a flesh, our mind, we have a spirit, the one who wants to serve God, and we have a soul, the emotional part that tends to follow whomever is stronger of the two.

We must submit our flesh, mind, to the will of God just like Christ submitted Himself to His Father. Oh yeah, and there's another thing, Christ frequently referred to His Father, and how His Father sent Him, and how He sits at the right hand of His Father.

Talk about convoluted. To try and make that to be anything other than it sounds is to convolute what the Bible says.

The fact is this. Sometimes we don't understand what the Bible means, and that's okay. We just need to keep praying about it, not religiously adhering to a set of beliefs were told was right.

I think you are mistaking Trinitarian belief for modalism (the error of Oneness Pentecostals).

 

[Der Alte]

Is the writer of the Harvard article a member here?

A truly misguided question. Is Thomas Jefferson whom you quote at the bottom of your posts a member of this forum? If you were interested in the truth, which you evidently are not, you would have at least skimmed the article and checked the author's qualifications. Roy Hoover, the author of the article I quoted, which you ignored, is a scholar who spent a great deal of time researching the word "arpagmos." This word occurs only once in the NT and the exact meaning had been in doubt for many years. Through his research he found where the word was used in Greek writing contemporary with the NT and now scholars have a clearer picture of the meaning of the word. Read the article if you want the truth.

In context, Paul is telling the disciples in Philippi to be compassionate and have love for each other. He tells them not to do anything out of rivalry, or empty conceit, but in humility, esteeming another above themselves. They should let this thinking be in them which was also in Christ Jesus. He then gives the example of the thinking of Christ Jesus.

So far, so good but . . .

The Greek text reads, "Jesus Christ who existing in the form of God, counted equality not something that could be grasped,"

Wrong! Philippians does not say any such thing! The word "ἁρπαγμός/arpagmos" cannot possibly mean "a thing that could be grasped" I don't know of any legitimate version which translates "ἁρπαγμός/arpagmos" that way. That is obviously a made up "definition" solely for the purpose of making it fit someone's assumptions/presuppositions. "Arpagmos" is a noun not a verb. The phrase "which could be" tries to change the noun into a subjunctive verb. There is no subjunctive verb in Philippians 2:6. There are three verbs in the verse; huparcho/existing which is a present active participle, hegeomia/thought which is aorist, middle, deponent and einai/being which is present participle. There is no way grammatically to get a subjunctive "could be" anywhere in that verse.

KJV Php 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

NET Php 2:6 10 who though he existed in the form of God did not regard equality with God as something to be grasped,

ASV Php 2:6 who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped,

ISV Php 2:6 In God's own form existed he, and shared with God equality, deemed nothing needed grasping.

ESV Php 2:6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, ​

Paul goes on to say that He chose to be an humble slave.

I trust a Jewish, Hebrew and Greek Scholar who relies on the Codex Sinaiticus, Papyrus 46 and others. He is not a member here either.

Whenever I quote a source I fully identify it so that the reader can consult and verify what I say. You referred to an anonymous source which you claim is "a Jewish, Hebrew and Greek Scholar." This looks like cherry picking someone who just happens to support one's assumptions/presuppositions. Does the scholarship of this anonymous source somehow disprove the scholarship of the scholars I have quoted?

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Any doctrine that forces you to ignore certain scriptures is not one you should be talking about with any sort of definitive assertion.

First, God refers to Himself in the plural in Genesis when He uses the word "lets."
Second, John refers to the Word of God that he later explains was made into flesh and came down to dwell among us as being both God and with God in the beginning.
Third, Christ talks about Himself having to go so that the comforter can come. If Christ was the comforter or even if God the Father was the comforter, why did Christ need to go first?

Now, you may have difficulty accepting the Triune being of God, but the Bible is pretty clear that there is at least a duality of God.

Also, God made us in His image. Do you honestly believe that by His image, God meant an ape-like shape with a head, two arms, and two legs that we walk upright with?

I think more than likely God meant our being is triune like His, and we are the only creatures with a triune being like God's.

We have a flesh, our mind, we have a spirit, the one who wants to serve God, and we have a soul, the emotional part that tends to follow whomever is stronger of the two.

We must submit our flesh, mind, to the will of God just like Christ submitted Himself to His Father. Oh yeah, and there's another thing, Christ frequently referred to His Father, and how His Father sent Him, and how He sits at the right hand of His Father.

Talk about convoluted. To try and make that to be anything other than it sounds is to convolute what the Bible says.

The fact is this. Sometimes we don't understand what the Bible means, and that's okay. We just need to keep praying about it, not religiously adhering to a set of beliefs were told was right.

There appears to be no distinction here between person and being. The Trinity Doctrine is clear that there are Three Persons, and only One Being. So speaking in plurailty would be appropriate for multiple persons. Am unclear why such verses should be seen as a problem.

 

[7xlightray]

May I ask what you think the Perfect Image of God would be?

Would depend on context. For instance, referring to man in the flesh would be one thing, referring to the resurrected would be another.

One who represents God's nature accurately whether character, and/or things pertaining to immortality, and glorious. God is love, God is immortal, things along these lines.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Would depend on context. For instance, referring to man in the flesh would be one thing, referring to the resurrected would be another.

One who represents God's nature accurately whether character, and/or things pertaining to immortality, and glorious. God is love, God is immortal, things along these lines.

Rephrase. Does God know Himself Perfectly?

 

[ripple the car]

It seems possible to mistrust or disbelieve in the Anathanasian Creed and yet still believe that God, His Word, and His Spirit are all co-eternal, and One.

 

[7xlightray]

Rephrase. Does God know Himself Perfectly?

Who would know Him better? Sure.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Who would know Him better? Sure.

Well said, for we all know ourselves better than anyone else. And we form in our minds an image of our self.

So with Perfect Knowledge of His Infinite Self in His Perfect Mind, what would the Perfect Self Image of God the Father be?

 

[Hoghead1]

The problem, Dr. Bubba, with your approach is that it leads to tritheism. It essentially claims there are three gods, three unique, separate personalities. What they all have in common is goodness or divinity. That's like saying there are three people. What they all have in common is human nature. That's why I say it is polytheism.

 

[Hoghead1]

I don't follow you, Universal Ranger. Could you provide a more exact description. I can't tell if you are saying that only the Father is God or there are simply three persons, there Gods or what.

 

[Hoghead1]

I think we all should remember that the Trinity is not a biblical doctrine. There are implications of something like the Trinity in Scripture, but no formal doctrine. Many Trinitarian terms are found nowhere in Scripture. The problem is that Scripture is not a book of metaphysics. It tells us very little about how God is build or the internal structure and architecture of God. That is why both Trinitarians and anti-Trinitarians have used Scripture to support their positions. Hence, relying on Scripture alone will not solve issues with the Trinity.

 

[7xlightray]

Well said, for we all know ourselves better than anyone else. And we form in our minds an image of our self.

So with Perfect Knowledge of His Infinite Self in His Perfect Mind, what would the Perfect Self Image of God the Father be?

Not sure, if this is what your getting at?

If your including an all knowing image, or even actually always existing, so that they would actually be God, as God is, in every way God is, that would no longer be an image, but God Himself. I don't think that's what God had in mind, nor do I think it would be possible, for then they would have to be God. We have the breath of God in us, which is eternal, but we are not eternal, as in always existing.
Also if Jesus is not all knowing, and no one would exceed as an image of God as he is, then surely we will not be.

 

[Der Alte]

I think we all should remember that the Trinity is not a biblical doctrine.

Thank you for this unsupported opinion.

There are implications of something like the Trinity in Scripture, but no formal doctrine. Many Trinitarian terms are found nowhere in Scripture.

Which Trinitarian terms for instance?

The problem is that Scripture is not a book of metaphysics. It tells us very little about how God is build or the internal structure and architecture of God. That is why both Trinitarians and anti-Trinitarians have used Scripture to support their positions. Hence, relying on Scripture alone will not solve issues with the Trinity.

What do you propose?

 

[Strong in Him]

This is what scripture says...

John 14:10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.​

...by the one Spirit...

John 3:34 For he whom God [the Father] hath sent speaketh the words of God [the Father]: for God [the Father] giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him. 35 [God] The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand.​

They are one by the Spirit of God the Father, the Father dwelling in the Son, by the Father's Spirit. This is God with us! God the Father with us!

Yes, God is with us.
God is trinity. God is Father, God is Son and God is Spirit, the Holy Spirit. The Father is divine, the Son is divine, the Spirit is divine; the Father is not the Son, the Son is neither the Father nor the Spirit, the Spirit is neither the Son nor the Father. All 3 are separate persons with specific roles - yet there is only ONE God. The three are one.

Why? And do you have scripture for this?
Are you saying God died?

I'm saying that no one who is only human can reconcile us to God. There is no specific Scripture, but no one managed it in the whole of the OT - not even Noah and Job who are both described as blameless and righteous. After their deaths, people still remained separate from God, had to offer sacrifices for their sins and they still needed Jeremiah to prophesy that God was going to make a NEW covenant with mankind.

What exactly happened on the cross is a mystery. I don't have an answer or understand it; I don't pretend to.
But if Jesus was only a man, then he can't have taken the sins of the world upon himself nor given eternal life - how would he have that authority?

Why? And do you have scripture for this?
I know a earthly man can't.

Again, there is the whole of the OT.
No one - not Abraham, Moses, David, Isaiah, Jeremiah etc - were able to reconcile people to God. But they all spoke of Jesus' coming. They prophesied about someone who would be the servant of the Lord, a suffering servant, who would be born of a virgin and called Almighty God, Isaiah 9:6, who would take the throne of David, have a healing ministry, be rejected by his people, suffer and be killed for our sins and who would fulfil the New Covenant prophesied by Jeremiah - signed, sealed and delivered by Jesus.

If you acknowledge that an earthly man can't do this; what's the alternative? Scripture does not say that heavenly beings are able to do this for us, nor that any of them became flesh.

He was the son of God, and son of man. He was flesh, with God the Father dwelling in him. Jesus is the word, the bread that came down from heaven.

The Son of God is also God the Son.
When Jesus was on earth he was 100% man and also 100% God. Again, don't ask me how, but nothing else makes sense. If he had come to earth and immediately said, "I am God", he would have been killed before he could even begin his ministry and teach us anything. But he did in fact say this in many ways, in words and by his actions. John tells us of 3 occasions when the Jews wanted to stone him for blasphemy; they knew what he was claiming.

The Father is truly our savior, this was all His plan and work

Yes, in the sense that it was his plan from the beginning, he sent Jesus, he showed us mercy and grace - but it was not the Father who died on the cross. We have not been reconciled to, and have peace with, the Father through the Father, but through Jesus, Romans 5:1; Romans 5:11; Ephesians 1:6-7; 2 Corinthians 5:18-19. You, yourself, quoted verses showing that we are reconciled to God through Jesus.
Isaiah 43:11 says, "I, even I, am the Lord and apart from me there is NO Saviour". Yet the angel told Joseph that Jesus would save people from their sins, Matthew 1:21, Jesus said that he had come to seek and save the lost, Luke 19:10 and Peter said that there is only ONE name by which we can be saved, Acts 4:12. So who is the Saviour - the Lord God of the OT who spoke through Isaiah, or Jesus?

This says flesh, and blood, not God. Flesh and blood is man, God is not flesh and blood, God is Spirit.

God is Spirit - yet John 1:14 is very clear that the word, who was God, became flesh.
You have already said that an earthly man cannot forgive our sins and reconcile us to God - that is exactly what Jesus did, so he was clearly not just an earthly man.

Just had that discussion in this thread with someone else. We are told to do this very thing. By the way Jesus lived his life, he had no sin. If you recall at Jesus conception, he was called holy, which means set apart (“different from the world” because “like the Lord”).

Mary was told that he would be called "Son of the Most high" who would reign forever and whose kingdom would have NO end, Luke 1:32-33; Joseph was told that Mary's child was OF the Holy Spirit and that he would be a Saviour, Matthew 1:20-21.
John 1:14 says that the word, who was GOD, became flesh.

And we have the choice to become the sons of God, if we are led by His Spirit.

Not just led by his Spirit, BORN of his Spirit, John 3:5-6.
Jesus spoke to Nicodemus about the need to be born again - born from on high - and told him that he could speak to him of heavenly things because he, the Son of Man, had come from heaven. He also said that he, the Son of Man, would be lifted up, (crucified) for the healing of many.

Later, he made it clear that he, the Son, the Son of Man, would give eternal life to all those who believed in him, and that this was the Father's will.

Martha believed he was the son of God, not that he was that God.

Like I said, Jesus didn't go around saying "I am God". That realisation may have come later - as it did with Thomas when he declared, "my Lord and my God". The risen Jesus accepted that title and accepted worship from his disciples - Jewish men who knew that they should worship no one but God.

May I ask, how did you come to that conclusion? Why is there two Gods?

There is ONE God.
What I am saying is that if you believe that the Holy Spirit - the Spirit of God, the Spirit of the Lord - is divine then there are only 2 alternatives; either the Spirit is one with God the Father, OR there are two Gods.

If you believe that the Spirit is not God, there isn't a problem - except you need to explain who, and what, the Spirit is.

It is the Father's Spirit that is in the Son, there is only one Spirit. Father is the Spirit. There is one God the Father who is Spirit. Jesus is the Son of that God. So, where do you get two Gods? You can't keep saying that, and give no reason for it.

The Holy Spirit is mentioned occasionally in the OT and very often in the New. He is spoken of as a separate person with a specific role.
At creation, GOD created, and his Spirit was present and hovering over the waters. God breathed his Spirit into man and he became a living being, Genesis 2:7. When Saul was anointed king, we are told that God changed his heart and the Spirit of the Lord came on him, 1 Samuel 10:9-10. King David prayed to God and said, "do not take your Holy Spirit from me", Psalm 51:11. Ezekiel spoke of a time when God would put his Spirit in men, and Joel foretold that God would pour his Spirit out on all people.
Jesus said that the Father would give the Holy Spirit to those who asked him, Luke 11:13. He said that we are born again through the Spirit, John 3:3. John the Baptist said that Jesus would baptise people in the Holy Spirit, Matthew 1:11. When Jesus himself was baptised, the Spirit came down, in the form of a dove, to rest on him. Jesus said that whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, Mark 3:29. Paul says that it is the Spirit who assures us that we are God's children, who intercedes for us, Romans 8:27, who enables us to say "Jesus is Lord", 1 Corinthians 12:3, who gives us gifts to serve God, 1 Corinthians 12:12-30, and bears fruit in us, Galatians 5:22-23.
We are led to Jesus, and convicted of sin by the Spirit, so that Jesus can reconcile us to the Father.

The Father and Spirit are the same, they are not two persons John 4:23-24. The Father and son are two persons.

Scripture says, for example the verses I have quoted, that the Father sends his Spirit, baptises people in his Spirit, leads people by his Spirit, gives people gifts by his Spirit, and so on.
If the Spirit is the same as the Father, why mention him at all? How can the Father send himself, or intercede to himself for us? Why specifically mention the Spirit and all his different roles if the authors really meant the Father? Why not write about the fruits and gifts of the Father? Why would Jesus say that God will forgive all blasphemy except blasphemy against the Holy Spirit? It seems clear to me, and I'm certain it was to the apostles because that is what they taught, that the Holy Spirit is FROM the Father; one with him, yet individual.

There is ONE God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

 

[Goatee]

This thread is moving along without the OP!

 

[DrBubbaLove]

The problem, Dr. Bubba, with your approach is that it leads to tritheism. It essentially claims there are three gods, three unique, separate personalities. What they all have in common is goodness or divinity. That's like saying there are three people. What they all have in common is human nature. That's why I say it is polytheism.

Again, this line of thinking confuses person and being. Humans were made one person and one being. God is One Being, Three Persons. The answer to what He is (being), is God and there is only One. The answer to Who, is that there Three Who can be addressed separately. That is not polytheism.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Not sure, if this is what your getting at?

If your including an all knowing image, or even actually always existing, so that they would actually be God, as God is, in every way God is, that would no longer be an image, but God Himself. I don't think that's what God had in mind, nor do I think it would be possible, for then they would have to be God. We have the breath of God in us, which is eternal, but we are not eternal, as in always existing.
Also if Jesus is not all knowing, and no one would exceed as an image of God as he is, then surely we will not be.

It was a simple question I thought. Was not talking about God the Father having Perfect Knowledge of everything. Just asking if you thought in the Mind of God there could be a Perfect Image of Himself.

Remember in the Trinity Concept there is only One Mind of God, not three minds.

 

[Der Alte]

. . . I'm saying that no one who is only human can reconcile us to God. There is no specific Scripture, but no one managed it in the whole of the OT - not even Noah and Job who are both described as blameless and righteous. After their deaths, people still remained separate from God, had to offer sacrifices for their sins and they still needed Jeremiah to prophesy that God was going to make a NEW covenant with mankind.
. . .
Again, there is the whole of the OT.
No one - not Abraham, Moses, David, Isaiah, Jeremiah etc - were able to reconcile people to God. But they all spoke of Jesus' coming. They prophesied about someone who would be the servant of the Lord, a suffering servant, who would be born of a virgin and called Almighty God, Isaiah 9:6, who would take the throne of David, have a healing ministry, be rejected by his people, suffer and be killed for our sins and who would fulfil the New Covenant prophesied by Jeremiah - signed, sealed and delivered by Jesus.

If you acknowledge that an earthly man can't do this; what's the alternative? Scripture does not say that heavenly beings are able to do this for us, nor that any of them became flesh. . . .

There is a scripture which says a man cannot save or reconcile other men to God.

Psa 49:7-9
(7) None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him:
(8) (For the redemption of their soul is precious, and it ceaseth for ever; )
(9) That he should still live for ever, and not see corruption.​

 

[Goatee]

3 persons in one. Much like i am one being but also a Father, a son and a husband! This is how i saw someone explain the trinity once.

Trying to explain the trinity and how God works is beyond our reasoning. Faith means that i believe in God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Ask me to explain it or understand it then you have no chance as i am lost! I just know that i Love God wether he is the Father, Son or Holy Spirit!