Why The Trinity is a False Teaching - Summarized Doctrinal Reasons

[DrBubbaLove]

The scripture also say Lord, and LORD, and God, and Highest, and almighty, and Word, and so on. So, why can't the Father's Spirit be called Holy Spirit, that He shares with others? That is His power, and many other functions, and gifts He shares with others. If He is sharing His Spirit with others, then yes it would be talking about the Father sending His Spirit. If I was to pluck out one of my hairs and send it to you, I would be sharing my hair with you, and I would be sending it to you. Sorry about the hair analogy, but the only thing I could think of. The Father dwells in heaven, and sends His own Spirit, the Father Himself does not come. As the sun remains in the sky, but sends down it's light, the sun itself does not come down to earth. And we don't call the the light that come down the sun, although we do say the Sun is bright.

I know the doctrine of the trinity, but this formula “God is one - 3 persons in one, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The Father is NOT the Holy Spirit; the Holy Spirit is not the Son nor the Father; the Son is not the Father nor the Holy Spirit” is not found in scripture, therefore it is mans formula. It is something man came up with to describe what he thinks God is. The Bible states something else, does it not? Father the only true God, and yet for us there is one God, the Father.

Note=Jesus said (in Scripture) that He would send another. How is it that Jesus has that Authority over "His Spirit" (to speak that way) if Jesus is not God?

 

[7xlightray]

but that is not actually the accepted, orthodox and traditional view.

This does not make it true, or false.

If the Holy Spirit was not a separate person, (and person isn't the best word, but to say separate being or spirit sounds wrong), then why are there verses which tell of the Father sending his Spirit? Why not just say "the Father went to that person and entered into them"?

Well actually it does “that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us,” - John 17:21, and there is also John 14:23, but it does not need to be worded this way.

I believe it is clear that the Spirit is personal and a separate person. Scripture says that we can quench the Spirit, lie to him, grieve him and blaspheme him. In fact, Jesus said that blasphemy will be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit, won't.
The Spirit gives gifts, one of which is prophecy, and we are warned not to despise, or reject, prophecies. Jesus himself always refers to the Spirit as him - actually, the Spirit doesn't have a gender, but Jesus never says "it", nor "the breath of the Father." Jesus told his disciples to baptise in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, Matthew 28:20, and Paul prayed that the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit would be with us, 2 Corinthians 13:14. It is the Holy Spirit who assures us that we belong to the Father. Paul could have said, "the Father assures us that we are his children", but he doesn't, he says the Spirit, Romans 8:16-17.

Yes, because the Spirit is God, does not mean the Spirit is another person, it's the POWER of God, and is God, and is living, because God is living, all of God. Why are you not understanding?

The Spirit is not an it, the Spirit is living and active.

God gave the Spirit as a gift.

What I'm telling you is much, much easier to understand, then the trinity.

God the Father created the world and us in his image - and the Spirit of God was also present, hovering over the waters.

This does not make it another person though.

 

[7xlightray]

Note=Jesus said (in Scripture) that He would send another. How is it that Jesus has that Authority over "His Spirit" (to speak that way) if Jesus is not God?

The other is his (Jesus') Spirit Romans 8:9-15, which is the Father's Spirit, and a gift from the Father, though Jesus had to go to the Father to receive the Spirit from the Father, which is the promise of the Father Acts 1:4; Acts 2:33. And God put Jesus in charge over all his house. You remember the Gen. 41:37-40 story.

 

[klutedavid]

The Son of God did indeed come from Heaven to become Man. And it would take a man to undue what man had done. Am not sure why we should think God incapable of using all of Mary's humanity to create a complete embryo in Her Womb (which BTW would make Him a Man (and God =two natures)).

Hello BubbaLove.

Thanks for the reply.

Mary was not the genetic mother of Jesus, Mary lay with no man before the pregnancy.

Do you agree that Jesus was not the natural genetic offspring of either Mary or Joseph?

Jesus was never a created embryo in her womb, Mary was found to be with child.

Jesus humbled Himself and became one of us (Philippians 2:7), BubbaLove.

7 but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness.

Why would Jesus need to have the humanity of Mary?

There is a distinct difference in the creation of a man, and Jesus assuming the likeness
of flesh and blood. So where do you get the idea that Jesus was a descendant of Adam,
or should I say 'a man' by definition?

Jesus was in the form of flesh and blood, here BubbaLove read the following.

Hebrews 7:3
Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor
end of life, but resembling the Son of God, he remains a priest forever.

Does that sound like 'a man' to you?

Jesus had no beginning, nor end of days, no genealogy, Jesus was before the incarnation,
during the incarnation, and following the incarnation, Jesus was always YHWH fact.
There is not a dual nature evident in the Christ, the Christ is the Light at all times.

Jesus does not have two natures, Jesus became like us, and Jesus was always fully
the creator Himself. Jesus was never an earthly descendant of Abraham, Jesus was
always from above. Jesus was flawless, Jesus was never sinful, Jesus was not ever
really a man in anyway whatsoever. The only correct definition of the Christ, is God
in human likeness or the human image.

 

[7xlightray]

Jesus was a supernatural child and without a father or a mother, Jesus actually had no identifiable geneology to speak of,

Hello klutedavid

Lets start of with this, where does it state "Jesus was a supernatural child and without a father or a mother", in scripture?

 

[7xlightray]

Hebrews 7:3
Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor
end of life, but resembling the Son of God, he remains a priest forever.

Does that sound like 'a man' to you?

Jesus had no beginning, nor end of days, no genealogy, Jesus was before the incarnation,
during the incarnation, and following the incarnation, Jesus was always YHWH fact.
There is not a dual nature evident in the Christ, the Christ is the Light at all times.

Oh, yes I see, Heb. 7, you can forget about my last post, now.
The argument is, how is Jesus a priest, having no genealogy from the line of Levi.
I'll have to get back to this tomorrow, got to get up in the morning.

 

[Strong in Him]

What are you basing this on “What's more, it was a lying and/or deluded human being, i.e not perfect. I'm not certain I can trust my salvation and eternal destiny to a mere human being - however Spirit filled.”?

Jesus talked about himself as the Son of Man - THE son of Man, which is a reference to Daniel 7:13, not A son of man which just means a human being. Anyway, he said that no one has been to heaven except the Son of Man who came from heaven. He also said that anyone who had seen him HAD SEEN the Father, that he and the Father were one and that he shared glory with the Father before the world began. He said that he could give us eternal life, that he was shedding his blood for our sins, laying down his life for his sheep and that he, alone, was the only way to God.
So Jesus - a man;
- had come from heaven
- was conceived by the Holy Spirit
- shared his glory with the Father
- was one with the Father
- had the authority to die for sin and is the only way to God.

If Jesus is perfect, spotless, then he cannot lie or blaspheme, so all of the above must be true.
Just as it is true that the Jews knew full well that he was claiming to be God, were outraged, tried to stone him and eventually had him crucified.
If Jesus was mistaken about his identity and none of the above is true, then he must be either deluded, or deliberately lying.

And like I said, I'm not willing to trust my eternal salvation to someone who was ONLY a human being.

God became sin?
God was separated from God?
God died?
God was tempted?

Huge problem with those. So, they divided Christ.

No. Jesus was fully man and fully God. That is the Christian position - always has been. The author of Hebrews says that he was like us in EVERY way, except that he did not sin. So human beings can be tempted, feel that God has left them, suffer rejection, disappointment etc; so could Jesus being fully, 100% man, BUT he was also God too. Again, I don't know how, but that is what others said about him and what he, indirectly, claimed.

There were many heresies around in the days of the early church which tried to water down Jesus' nature. That's why the Nicene creed was written, to answer them. It says that Jesus is "God from God, light from light, true God from true God" - Jesus is God and he came from God - "begotten not made, of one being with the Father."

It has to be a man that died for a man, that we may associate with his death and resurrection in baptism.

No man can give us eternal life; no man can say to us "on behalf of God, your sins are forgiven", or give us peace with God. No human being can say that he is the ONLY way to God, nor that he is going to shed his blood for the forgiveness of sins, nor that he has seen the Father, shared his glory before the creation of the world and came from heaven.
Either Jesus was ONLY man or, impossible as it may seem, Man AND God. As I said, this is the church's position and I believe always has been.

 

[Strong in Him]

No, what I said, and what Jesus said, is ONLY true God, not true God.
Where does it say Jesus is the ONLY true God?

Lets be honest about this, the scribe never would have understood God as three persons.
And he thinks of God as a person, a singular person at that...

“And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he [3rd Person Singular]:” - Mark 12:32​

Jesus saw he answered wisely.

And there is no way that Jesus would have suggested there are 3 Gods.
Of course it was in the singular - God is ONE.

 

[Strong in Him]

I know the doctrine of the trinity, but this formula “God is one - 3 persons in one, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The Father is NOT the Holy Spirit; the Holy Spirit is not the Son nor the Father; the Son is not the Father nor the Holy Spirit” is not found in scripture, therefore it is mans formula. It is something man came up with to describe what he thinks God is.

No, It's man's attempt to try to explain what God IS. The Father is God, the Son is God and the Spirit is God. Scripture does not say that the Son and the Spirit are angels or celestial beings.

God is God - all powerful, all knowing, infinite, eternal, can never die.
We are human - created beings, limited in power and knowledge, mortal, will die one day.
It shouldn't be a great surprise that we, mere mortals, are not able to understand and explain the mind and ways of an infinite God. God is greater than us, his ways are not our ways. We try to - being as we are, we want everything to be nicely explained, wrapped up. We want to be able to figure God out. We want something that we can contain, control and explain in scientific or human terms. Having a God who is a mystery, and beyond our understanding does not suit all of us - I'm not saying you, I'm just saying that sometimes humans want to fully work God out before they believe in him. That is not the Bible's way. We are encouraged to study, think for ourselves, accept and believe. THEN, when we have come to God, are filled with his Spirit and begin to get to know him, other things may be revealed to us and begin to make some sense - although God can never be fully known.
Even the holiest, most devout, most spirit filled person will never understand the trinity - but just because we can't explain God or how he works, it does not mean that that is not so.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

The other is his (Jesus') Spirit Romans 8:9-15, which is the Father's Spirit, and a gift from the Father, though Jesus had to go to the Father to receive the Spirit from the Father, which is the promise of the Father Acts 1:4; Acts 2:33. And God put Jesus in charge over all his house. You remember the Gen. 41:37-40 story.

If followed and with the exception of Jesus human spirit, those are all the same Spirit.

The point was Jesus told His followers that He (not God) would send. That is not a proper human position to take over God's Spirit. It would be like Moses retelling the story the he split the waters or he caused the plagues.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Hello BubbaLove.

Thanks for the reply.

Mary was not the genetic mother of Jesus, Mary lay with no man before the pregnancy.

Do you agree that Jesus was not the natural genetic offspring of either Mary or Joseph?

Jesus was never a created embryo in her womb, Mary was found to be with child.

Jesus humbled Himself and became one of us (Philippians 2:7), BubbaLove.

7 but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness.

Why would Jesus need to have the humanity of Mary?

There is a distinct difference in the creation of a man, and Jesus assuming the likeness
of flesh and blood. So where do you get the idea that Jesus was a descendant of Adam,
or should I say 'a man' by definition?

Jesus was in the form of flesh and blood, here BubbaLove read the following.

Hebrews 7:3
Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor
end of life, but resembling the Son of God, he remains a priest forever.

Does that sound like 'a man' to you?

Jesus had no beginning, nor end of days, no genealogy, Jesus was before the incarnation,
during the incarnation, and following the incarnation, Jesus was always YHWH fact.
There is not a dual nature evident in the Christ, the Christ is the Light at all times.

Jesus does not have two natures, Jesus became like us, and Jesus was always fully
the creator Himself. Jesus was never an earthly descendant of Abraham, Jesus was
always from above. Jesus was flawless, Jesus was never sinful, Jesus was not ever
really a man in anyway whatsoever. The only correct definition of the Christ, is God
in human likeness or the human image.

The only thing I would agree to is that Jesus did not have a biological father. He had a biological mother and Her name is Mary. Jesus is a man.
The angel did not ask Mary if they could put something inside Her that would become Jesus. He told Her that she would conceive in Her Womb. Conception invokes human biology, Mary's. From Mary we get a human with real flesh- human flesh - Jesus.

"And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS."​

The Word became flesh. It did NOT become "like" flesh.

The Word is Eternal - is God - has a Divine Nature. When the Word became flesh as Saint John said, He did not stop being God. So Jesus had two nature, only one of which could be born, breath and die.

 

[Goatee]

Hello BubbaLove.

Thanks for the reply.

Mary was not the genetic mother of Jesus, Mary lay with no man before the pregnancy.

Do you agree that Jesus was not the natural genetic offspring of either Mary or Joseph?

Jesus was never a created embryo in her womb, Mary was found to be with child.

Waw, that is so wrong! Why would God choose Mary if he could do all the work himself? Why the need for Mary then?

You have got it so wrong sorry.

 

[Strong in Him]

Mary was not the genetic mother of Jesus,

She certainly was.
Joseph, Elizabeth and at least 2 angels knew, and said, that Mary was going to have a baby, who would be Jesus. Isaiah prophesied it, and Scripture tells of her pregnancy and the journey to Bethlehem where Jesus was born.
During his ministry, if Jesus ever got too close for comfort, people said, "isn't this Mary's son?"

That Mary was Jesus' mother was never in dispute - the debate has always been whether God is Jesus' father and the virgin birth actually happened.

Mary lay with no man before the pregnancy.

Which is why the angels said to both her and Joseph that the child in her was OF the Holy Spirit. She did indeed lie with no man; Jesus was conceived through the Holy Spirit.

There is a distinct difference in the creation of a man, and Jesus assuming the likeness
of flesh and blood. So where do you get the idea that Jesus was a descendant of Adam,
or should I say 'a man' by definition

Er, how about Scripture - Jesus' genealogies in Matthew 1 and Luke 3, and the fact that Paul says that humanly speaking, Jesus was descended from David?

Jesus was in the form of flesh and blood, here BubbaLove read the following.

Hebrews 7:3
Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor
end of life, but resembling the Son of God, he remains a priest forever.

Have YOU read Hebrews 7?

This Melchizedek was king of Salem and priest of God Most High. He met Abraham returning from the defeat of the kings and blessed him, 2 and Abraham gave him a tenth of everything. First, the name Melchizedek means ‘king of righteousness’; then also, ‘king of Salem’ means ‘king of peace’. 3 Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, resembling the Son of God, he remains a priest for ever.

This refers to Melchizedek, NOT Jesus - read verses 4-10 and it will be even more clear.
The passage after this says that Jesus is like Melchizedek; a priest in his order. But Hebrews 7:3 is not referring to Jesus. The Gospels make it very clear that Jesus was born, who to and where.

 

[7xlightray]

My thoughts are in line with the Trinity Doctrine. Am just trying to understand why someone would resist even articulating a concept in their own mind in order to attempt to continue defending a position that such thoughts jeopardizes.

If one believes God Perfect in every way, and also repeatedly agreed God also capable of having a Perfect Image of Himself - then what makes the Perfect Image of God we both agree exist not Real to you?

I don't recall ever saying, the perfect image is not real, or cannot be real.

 

[7xlightray]

And there is no way that Jesus would have suggested there are 3 Gods.
Of course it was in the singular - God is ONE.

“And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he [3rd Person Singular]:” - Mark 12:32​

The scribe is describing God as a Person, and saying He is one Person. If God was more then one person then “He” should be Plural “Them.”

Did the Jews, up until the time of Jesus, believe in a trinity?

 

[7xlightray]

Jesus talked about himself as the Son of Man - THE son of Man, which is a reference to Daniel 7:13, not A son of man which just means a human being. Anyway, he said that no one has been to heaven except the Son of Man who came from heaven.

Jesus is going to return as a man, in the flesh.

He also said that anyone who had seen him HAD SEEN the Father, that he and the Father were one and that he shared glory with the Father before the world began.

Been through these already in this thread. Jesus is certainly not saying he is the Father, he is referring to him being like the Father, in how the Father's character is, and speaking the truth, in fact he was saying what the Father told him to say. And Jesus prayed that we all would be one just as the Father is in the Son, and the Son is in the Father, just as they are one.

And I've shown the context of John 17 is the foreknowledge plan of God.

He said that he could give us eternal life, that he was shedding his blood for our sins, laying down his life for his sheep and that he, alone, was the only way to God.

Because this was the only way, this does not make Jesus the only true God though.

If Jesus is perfect, spotless, then he cannot lie or blaspheme, so all of the above must be true.
If Jesus was mistaken about his identity and none of the above is true, then he must be either deluded, or deliberately lying.

Or we are not interpreting scripture correctly, is another possibility.

No. Jesus was fully man and fully God. That is the Christian position - always has been. The author of Hebrews says that he was like us in EVERY way, except that he did not sin. So human beings can be tempted, feel that God has left them, suffer rejection, disappointment etc; so could Jesus being fully, 100% man, BUT he was also God too. Again, I don't know how, but that is what others said about him and what he, indirectly, claimed.
There were many heresies around in the days of the early church which tried to water down Jesus' nature. That's why the Nicene creed was written, to answer them. It says that Jesus is "God from God, light from light, true God from true God" - Jesus is God and he came from God - "begotten not made, of one being with the Father."

Then maybe this is something you should question, because if there is only one person Jesus, and this person is the God, and God does not change, nor forget, then you do have something to worry about, if you believe Jesus was claiming to be that God, because Jesus did forget the Day and Hour. How do we know then if God will remember His promises? Darkness and grayness begin to enter, in this kind of reasoning. And Jesus being one person and God, was tempted. So for Jesus to be able to be tempted he would have to cease in being God.

Here is a quote from one of our fathers Justin Martyr, Saint.

“he who has but the smallest intelligence will not venture to assert that the Maker and Father of all things, having left all supercelestial matters, was visible on a little portion of the earth” - Dialogue with Trypho Chapter 60.​

Justin did not believe in a trinity as is taught in the Nicene Creed. Justin believed in one creator of all, and the other two came from the One. Look into some of the others, the trinity was developed over time. Even Tertullian did not teach the trinity as is taught in the Nicene Creed.

We reject any doctrine that is contradictory with scripture, yet we hold onto the trinity, which contradicts clear scripture teaching, that for us there is only one God the Father, Father only true God.

No man can give us eternal life; no man can say to us "on behalf of God, your sins are forgiven", or give us peace with God. No human being can say that he is the ONLY way to God, nor that he is going to shed his blood for the forgiveness of sins, nor that he has seen the Father, shared his glory before the creation of the world and came from heaven.
Either Jesus was ONLY man or, impossible as it may seem, Man AND God. As I said, this is the church's position and I believe always has been.

I've already answered these. You need scripture to support what you are claiming, and we can't use what the Pharisees claim, need scripture that supports what they claim. I gave you passages that say otherwise...

John 20:21 (KJV) Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as(G2531 – kathōs - just as, even as, in proportion as, in the degree that) my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. 22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: 23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.​

This showing this authority Jesus had to forgive sins came from the Father, and now the disciples are given this.

Matthew 16:18 (KJV) And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell (the grave) shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven (keys to the entrance of the kingdom of heaven): and whatsoever thou shalt bind(to forbid) on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose(set free) on earth shall be loosed in heaven (Jesus gives Peter the keys to heaven and whoever Peter forbids to enter is forbidden and whoever he permits to enter is permitted to enter).​

 

[DrBubbaLove]

I don't recall ever saying, the perfect image is not real, or cannot be real.

Are you retracting the statements made earlier?

I did not claim anyone SAID the Perfect Image is not real. From your earlier post you clearly avoided saying that it COULD be real. If it is real, then that would be what most Christians call the Son of God. You however not only deny that of Jesus, you refuse to even articulate your thoughts on what a Perfect Image of the Father would be; except to wrongly suggest God is subject to time, so His Image of self would change over time and so such an "image" could not be God or would "no longer be" God.

 

[7xlightray]

No, It's man's attempt to try to explain what God IS. The Father is God, the Son is God and the Spirit is God. Scripture does not say that the Son and the Spirit are angels or celestial beings.

God is God - all powerful, all knowing, infinite, eternal, can never die.
We are human - created beings, limited in power and knowledge, mortal, will die one day.
It shouldn't be a great surprise that we, mere mortals, are not able to understand and explain the mind and ways of an infinite God. God is greater than us, his ways are not our ways. We try to - being as we are, we want everything to be nicely explained, wrapped up. We want to be able to figure God out. We want something that we can contain, control and explain in scientific or human terms. Having a God who is a mystery, and beyond our understanding does not suit all of us - I'm not saying you, I'm just saying that sometimes humans want to fully work God out before they believe in him. That is not the Bible's way. We are encouraged to study, think for ourselves, accept and believe. THEN, when we have come to God, are filled with his Spirit and begin to get to know him, other things may be revealed to us and begin to make some sense - although God can never be fully known.
Even the holiest, most devout, most spirit filled person will never understand the trinity - but just because we can't explain God or how he works, it does not mean that that is not so.

That is exactly what I have done. When I started into studying Christ, and gathering, and compiling all the passages I came across, I was not intending to disprove the trinity, just to know my Lord better. And it was from looking at all these passage, that something did not seem to add up, so I dug in even deeper. It was a long process of many, many years.

 

[7xlightray]

Are you retracting the statements made earlier?

I did not claim anyone SAID the Perfect Image is not real. From your earlier post you clearly avoided saying that it COULD be real.

What? I don't recall anything like that. What statement? I did not avoid.
I've state that it can be real. I don't understand why you would say that???

If it is real, then that would be what most Christians call the Son of God. You however not only deny that of Jesus, you refuse to even articulate your thoughts on what a Perfect Image of the Father would be; except to wrongly suggest God is subject to time, so His Image of self would change over time and so such an "image" could not be God or would "no longer be" God.

Sorry not into those kind of things. I was asking for clarification as to what you were referring to, and you weren't. So now I know where you were going with this, yes Jesus is a perfect image of God, as on earth, and immortal in heaven.

 

[Strong in Him]

“And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he [3rd Person Singular]:” - Mark 12:32​

The scribe is describing God as a Person, and saying He is one Person. If God was more then one person then “He” should be Plural “Them.”?

No because they are ONE - God is ONE.

As I, and others, have said, one man can be husband, father and son.
My oldest brother is a husband, a father and a son; he is not 3 men. I do actually have 3 brothers, but that's different - and they are all husbands, fathers and sons as well.