Why The Trinity is a False Teaching - Summarized Doctrinal Reasons

[DrBubbaLove]

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???

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.

The post where you claimed God could have an Image of Himself, but it would change over time - therefore it would presumably not be Him any longer or something like that.
Am not convinced at all yet that you believe Jesus is the Perfect Image of God as your statements are still unclear and seem in congruent. But since it was said, if Jesus is the perfect image of God, why would Jesus not be Divine?

 

[Strong in Him]

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

He is going to return as king, he is not going to be born as flesh.
And what's his return got to do with it?

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.

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

Well I've shown what the Scriptures say - and also about the word becoming FLESH; someone whom John could see and touch, 1 John 1:1. And yet you come up with answers for why they can't mean what the church and theologians say they mean. I've said that a mere man cannot forgive sin, reconcile us to God and give us peace with God and eternal life - and you've found an answer for that as well. I've tried to explain as best as I can, but I can't make you believe it.

As I say, personally, I don't want to trust my eternal salvation to someone who was ONLY a man. If the person who died on the cross was just that, I don't see how we are saved. But if you don't have a problem with it, and are quite able to tell God that his Son was JUST a human - so be it. Like I said, I can't make you accept it, nor Scripture, nor the creed.

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.

No.
A) Jesus did not forget the day or hour, he doesn't know it - or at least, he didn't at that point while he was a man on earth. Whether he knows it now, I can't say. I know that raises the question, "if Jesus was God, why didn't he know?" and I can't answer that. But as I said before, just because we can't understand or explain something about God, it doesn't mean it isn't true.
B) I don't believe I have anything to worry about - standing before God and declaring that his Son was the word become flesh, was my Saviour and Lord, that my sins have been forgiven because Jesus died so that they would be and that he has reconciled me to the Father, is not a worry or a problem.
Hearing God say, "what did you think of my Son?" and replying that he was a good human being, but ONLY a human being - would be, and is something I would not like to do. Fortunately, I won't be.

 

[7xlightray]

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.

It is not simply saying God is One. It is not saying “God What” is One, but “God Who” is One, by saying God is a One “He.” Not a One What God. A One He God.

Yes, I am very familiar with that analogy, but does not fit with this scripture.

 

[Strong in Him]

It is not simply saying God is One. It is not saying “God What” is One, but “God Who” is One, by saying God is a One “He.” Not a One What God. A One He God.

What?

Yes, I am very familiar with that analogy, but does not fit with this scripture.

It's not meant to fit a Scripture, and I've forgotten which Scripture we're talking about; it's just an illustration to demonstrate the three in one nature of God. Personally I find it quite helpful. If you feel you can't accept the trinity, however I guess that no amount of illustration is going to make any difference.

 

[7xlightray]

The post where you claimed God could have an Image of Himself, but it would change over time - therefore it would presumably not be Him any longer or something like that.
Am not convinced at all yet that you believe Jesus is the Perfect Image of God as your statements are still unclear and seem in congruent. But since it was said, if Jesus is the perfect image of God, why would Jesus not be Divine?

I did not say that, you misunderstood what I said.

If we are talking about before Jesus was resurrected, Jesus was a perfect image of God in character, Jesus was not Spirit, but flesh and blood, God is Spirit. After resurrection Jesus became immortal. Jesus was also tempted, God cannot be tempted.

 

[7xlightray]

What?

In trinity doctrine God is a “What,” not a “Who.” The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are “Who.”

 

[klutedavid]

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.

Hello BubbaLove.

Appreciate your time and effort.

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. 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."

An interesting point of view that you have been taught BubbaLove, though there is a problem with the logic in your
reply.

You admit that Jesus did not have a biological father, then you make the spurious claim, there was a biological mother?

This is a logical contradiction BubbaLove, to have biological offspring, we require both a biological father and a
biological mother.

Jesus was never the composition of two seperate natures, a divine nature and a human nature. This statement
is also a logical contradiction. You cannot have two profoundly different natures in this one form, the Holy and
Eternal Nature, fused with an unholy, dysfunctional and mortal nature.

Jesus is eternal, Jesus is God, this means it is impossible for Jesus to undergo the human conception process.

Conception involves the creation of an offspring, before conception the offspring does not exist, after conception
the offspring then exists. Jesus existed before being conceived within Mary, therefore Jesus cannot have been
conceived by Mary. As I said before, Mary was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit.

We are told that Jesus humbled Himself and then took on this human form, Jesus was never conceived.

Philippians 2
7 but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness.

Notice Paul emphasises that Jesus appeared 'in human likeness', Paul does not say Jesus had two separate
natures.

We are also told by the apostle John the same information, that Jesus took on this human form or likeness.

John 1
14 And the Word became flesh and lived among us.

Jesus never had a human nature, the Light was always the Light, the Light was in the flesh.

Jesus cannot have the corrupt nature of mankind and the Holy divine nature, at the same time. Jesus was from above,
Jesus certainly was not a descendant of Adam. Jesus was perfect, in thought, speech, behavior, never is Jesus like us.
The perfect lamb was never stained by Mary's corrupt nature.

 

[Der Alte]

In trinity doctrine God is a “What,” not a “Who.” The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are “Who.”

To my knowledge that is an analogy one scholar Dr. James White uses to explain the Trinity. It is disingenuous to take one sentence out-of-context as the author explained it.

 

[7xlightray]

He is going to return as king, he is not going to be born as flesh.
And what's his return got to do with it?

I did not say he was going to be born as flesh. I said he is going to return as a man, in flesh.

And I said this because of what you were saying...”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.”

This is why I said Jesus is going to return in flesh, and this is what we must believe.

 

[Strong in Him]

This does not make it true, or false.

No, but it does mean that it has been accepted and believed by many people over many years, and is the established teaching of the church.

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.

That verse doesn't even mention the Holy Spirit. There are many verses which speak of the Father and the Spirit as separate persons.
Again, why mention the Holy Spirit at all, anywhere in Scripture, if he is the Father? Why did Jesus not just say, "I will ask the Father and he will come to you himself?

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?

I understand what you are saying - I disagree, and I don't believe that Scripture teaches what you are saying.

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

That doesn't make it true, just because it's easier to understand.

 

[7xlightray]

To my knowledge that is an analogy one scholar Dr. James White uses to explain the Trinity. It is disingenuous to take one sentence out-of-context as the author explained it.

Oh, I know there are many differing doctrines on the trinity. I only mentioned one.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

I did not say that, you misunderstood what I said.

If we are talking about before Jesus was resurrected, Jesus was a perfect image of God in character, Jesus was not Spirit, but flesh and blood, God is Spirit. After resurrection Jesus became immortal. Jesus was also tempted, God cannot be tempted.

God cannot be tempted but a man can and Jesus is a Man. He is also God. That is why I said two natures, only one of which can be born, live and die (and be Resurrected). He still has two natures. Before the Incarnation the Son of God is the Perfect Image of the Father.

If you claim to believe the Perfect Image of God is real, then you are kind of stuck with saying that Image is God (as most Christians do) because a Perfect Image would be Perfection (God). Which is why doubted from the beginning and still that you believe a Perfect Image of God exists. And talking about people reflecting His Image is not the same thing.

 

[klutedavid]

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.

Hello Antletems.

The reason God did not choose a human father for the child, is God announcing that
this child is an unnatural child. A child born of a virgin, meaning Jesus is not carrying
the dysfunctional nature of his earthly mother. Jesus is Holy, Holy, Holy, Mary is
a descendant of the unholy, degenerate, disobedient offspring of Adam.

Never are you to look at Jesus as a descendant of Adam, Jesus was from above and
His origin is not within the created sphere. Jesus was not conceived, Jesus always exists,
Jesus was not polluted with sin and death, inherited from His fallen mother.

God could have chosen any womb in the world or through history to carry the child.
The mother was irrelevant, God does not need a mother. God entered the created order
to redeem the created order. The eternal Spirit requires no assistance from a temporary
created, dysfunctional creature.

 

[Der Alte]

Hello BubbaLove.

Appreciate your time and effort.

An interesting point of view that you have been taught BubbaLove, though there is a problem with the logic in your
reply.

You admit that Jesus did not have a biological father, then you make the spurious claim, there was a biological mother?

This is a logical contradiction BubbaLove, to have biological offspring, we require both a biological father and a
biological mother.

Jesus was never the composition of two seperate natures, a divine nature and a human nature. This statement
is also a logical contradiction. You cannot have two profoundly different natures in this one form, the Holy and
Eternal Nature, fused with an unholy, dysfunctional and mortal nature.

Jesus is eternal, Jesus is God, this means it is impossible for Jesus to undergo the human conception process.

Conception involves the creation of an offspring, before conception the offspring does not exist, after conception
the offspring then exists. Jesus existed before being conceived within Mary, therefore Jesus cannot have been
conceived by Mary. As I said before, Mary was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit.

We are told that Jesus humbled Himself and then took on this human form, Jesus was never conceived.

Philippians 2
7 but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness.

Notice Paul emphasises that Jesus appeared 'in human likeness', Paul does not say Jesus had two separate
natures.

We are also told by the apostle John the same information, that Jesus took on this human form or likeness.

John 1
14 And the Word became flesh and lived among us.

Jesus never had a human nature, the Light was always the Light, the Light was in the flesh.

Jesus cannot have the corrupt nature of mankind and the Holy divine nature, at the same time. Jesus was from above,
Jesus certainly was not a descendant of Adam. Jesus was perfect, in thought, speech, behavior, never is Jesus like us.
The perfect lamb was never stained by Mary's corrupt nature.

If Jesus did not have a human nature then He could not have been in "all points tempted as we are." or take on the seed of Abraham and be made like His brothers.

Hebrews 2:16-17 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

Hebrews 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. ​

 

[7xlightray]

Well I've shown what the Scriptures say - and also about the word becoming FLESH; someone whom John could see and touch, 1 John 1:1. And yet you come up with answers for why they can't mean what the church and theologians say they mean.

I'm not showing what it can't be, but how it reads, just follow the flow of what is being said in 1 John 1. If you follow it through, it points to the Father.

I've said that a mere man cannot forgive sin, reconcile us to God and give us peace with God and eternal life - and you've found an answer for that as well.

I've given you scripture. So, give me scripture where God says man can't forgive sins. Maybe there is a reason I have an answer, it's a possibility.

As I say, personally, I don't want to trust my eternal salvation to someone who was ONLY a man. If the person who died on the cross was just that, I don't see how we are saved. But if you don't have a problem with it, and are quite able to tell God that his Son was JUST a human - so be it. Like I said, I can't make you accept it, nor Scripture, nor the creed.

I did not say he was just a man, born of two human parents. He is the son of God, and son of man, and I won't confess any more, or any less.

This I do know, is that scripture does not contradict itself the way I now understand them, and who I now understand who God is, and who the lord Jesus is.

I believe first, in the clear teaching of the Bible.

This would be like putting our trust in the scribes and Pharisees.

A) Jesus did not forget the day or hour, he doesn't know it - or at least, he didn't at that point while he was a man on earth. Whether he knows it now, I can't say. I know that raises the question, "if Jesus was God, why didn't he know?" and I can't answer that. But as I said before, just because we can't understand or explain something about God, it doesn't mean it isn't true.
B) I don't believe I have anything to worry about - standing before God and declaring that his Son was the word become flesh, was my Saviour and Lord, that my sins have been forgiven because Jesus died so that they would be and that he has reconciled me to the Father, is not a worry or a problem.
Hearing God say, "what did you think of my Son?" and replying that he was a good human being, but ONLY a human being - would be, and is something I would not like to do. Fortunately, I won't be.

I do know why, Zechariah 14:7.
It should cause you to at lest question, cause we can't put trust, and our salvation in our forefathers, or anyone else hands.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Hello BubbaLove.

Appreciate your time and effort.

An interesting point of view that you have been taught BubbaLove, though there is a problem with the logic in your
reply.

You admit that Jesus did not have a biological father, then you make the spurious claim, there was a biological mother?

This is a logical contradiction BubbaLove, to have biological offspring, we require both a biological father and a
biological mother.

Jesus was never the composition of two seperate natures, a divine nature and a human nature. This statement
is also a logical contradiction. You cannot have two profoundly different natures in this one form, the Holy and
Eternal Nature, fused with an unholy, dysfunctional and mortal nature.

Jesus is eternal, Jesus is God, this means it is impossible for Jesus to undergo the human conception process.

Conception involves the creation of an offspring, before conception the offspring does not exist, after conception
the offspring then exists. Jesus existed before being conceived within Mary, therefore Jesus cannot have been
conceived by Mary. As I said before, Mary was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit.

We are told that Jesus humbled Himself and then took on this human form, Jesus was never conceived.

Philippians 2
7 but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness.

Notice Paul emphasises that Jesus appeared 'in human likeness', Paul does not say Jesus had two separate
natures.

We are also told by the apostle John the same information, that Jesus took on this human form or likeness.

John 1
14 And the Word became flesh and lived among us.

Jesus never had a human nature, the Light was always the Light, the Light was in the flesh.

Jesus cannot have the corrupt nature of mankind and the Holy divine nature, at the same time. Jesus was from above,
Jesus certainly was not a descendant of Adam. Jesus was perfect, in thought, speech, behavior, never is Jesus like us.
The perfect lamb was never stained by Mary's corrupt nature.

There is no logical contradiction in the Christian story of the Incarnation. The problem between us is one has a lack of faith and belief in what God can or cannot do.

There also seems to be a gross misunderstanding of what the Trinity Doctrine teaches and what Christianity has taught about Jesus having two natures. He is not a "composite".

 

[klutedavid]

If Jesus did not have a human nature then He could not have been in "all points tempted as we are." or take on the seed of Abraham and be made like His brothers.

Hebrews 2:16-17 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

Hebrews 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. ​

Hello Der Alter.

If Jesus did not have a human nature then He could not have been in "all points tempted as we are." or take on the seed of Abraham and be made like His brothers.
Hebrews 2:16-17 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
Hebrews 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

Jesus was not born with a fallen human nature, Jesus only became LIKE us. Jesus had no earthly father,
therefore Jesus is never considered to be a descendant of Adam. To be a descendant of Adam the
scipture is specific, the lineage is directly based on the male bloodline. The geneology of Jesus is
misguided, Jesus had no earthly father! What possessed the authors of the Gospels to insert the
genealogy escapes my understanding.

Jesus never needed to surrender to sin because He was perfect, and the source of all Holiness.

The creator came to reconcile humanity to Himself, the creator did not arrive to wrestle with sin.

Jesus never suffered from guilt, remorse, or any other dysfunctional aspect of the human condition.
Jesus suffered from no delusions, or personality disorders, nor was Jesus born a killer. Jesus was
never the apple of His mother's eye, because Jesus was the personal, Son of God on earth, not the
human, genetic son of Mary.

Below is a line depicting how Jesus viewed His earthly mother.

John 2:4
And Jesus said to her, “Woman, what concern is that to you and to me? My hour has not yet come.”

Notice the word 'woman', no son ever refers to his mother as woman.

Jesus was YHWH.

Jesus was perfect, when Jesus spoke, He spoke in commandments, Jesus did not wrestle with sin
as we do. Tempted yes, but if you read how Jesus responded to the devils temptations, we see
the perfect response. Jesus was not under the power of the devil either, to even infer this idea is
heresy.

Jesus was not actually a high priest as the author of Hebrews claims, Jesus is Almighty God.

The author is using an analogy for the Jewish audience. The author is not degrading God Himself
by using a degrading name for God. God is eternal love, God cannot be called a priest, a priest is
a human vocation in service to God.

Jesus was not the offspring of corrupt, deceived, malicious, violent flesh. Jesus was worshiped as
an infant and rightly so, simply because the King of Kings walked with us.

The authors of latter letters in the New Testament, shy away from the earlier understanding of the
incarnation. They refer to the Word in human likeness or form, rather than a persevering and struggling
descendant of Adam.

 

[7xlightray]

No, but it does mean that it has been accepted and believed by many people over many years, and is the established teaching of the church.

Don't know why you keep repeating that. There are other religions that have been around about as long, or longer, and many believe, but does not make it any more true.

That verse doesn't even mention the Holy Spirit. There are many verses which speak of the Father and the Spirit as separate persons.

I know, that was the whole point, instead of Holy Spirit, it says Father John 14:23; 17:21. If I showed you a passage that said Holy Spirit, you would have said, “So what, it does not say Father.”

Again, why mention the Holy Spirit at all, anywhere in Scripture, if he is the Father?

I've explained this, I don't know how many times now, and you are still asking. Well how about this, why say God, Lord, or LORD, or Almighty, or the Highest, or Divine, or Father, why not just have one expression?

Why did Jesus not just say, "I will ask the Father and he will come to you himself?

I gave you passages John 14:23 "Jesus answered and said. . . my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him, and even John 17:21.

That doesn't make it true, just because it's easier to understand.

That's fine, cause that was not my point. You seemed to be having a hard time coming to grips with what I was saying, and I was saying it is much easier to understand then the trinity. So, maybe your not taking enough the time to understand what I've been saying, that's all I meant.

 

[klutedavid]

There is no logical contradiction in the Christian story of the Incarnation. The problem between us is one has a lack of faith and belief in what God can or cannot do.

There also seems to be a gross misunderstanding of what the Trinity Doctrine teaches and There also seems to be a gross misunderstanding of what the Trinity Doctrine teaches He is not a "composite".

Hello BubbaLove.

The problem between us is one has a lack of faith and belief in what God can or cannot do.

We are both descendants of Adam, no good trying to take the high ground.

There also seems to be a gross misunderstanding of what the Trinity Doctrine teaches

No problem what so ever with the doctrine of the trinity.

and what Christianity has taught about Jesus having two natures

This idea is not in the scripture, Jesus was God in human form, in likeness, or even
in our image. You know and I know BubbaLove, that Jesus was not born with the
inherited baggage they we carry.

I do not support the idea of a composite of two natures, simply because Jesus
was distinctly, not the offspring of a pair of descendants of Adam. Jesus was
born perfect in all ways.

 

[7xlightray]

God cannot be tempted but a man can and Jesus is a Man. He is also God. That is why I said two natures, only one of which can be born, live and die (and be Resurrected). He still has two natures. Before the Incarnation the Son of God is the Perfect Image of the Father.

He may have two natures, but Jesus is only one Person, which Person was tempted then?

If you claim to believe the Perfect Image of God is real, then you are kind of stuck with saying that Image is God (as most Christians do) because a Perfect Image would be Perfection (God). Which is why doubted from the beginning and still that you believe a Perfect Image of God exists. And talking about people reflecting His Image is not the same thing.

Your reasoning is a bit faulty. Being an image, or perfect image of God, does not make one God.