Why The Trinity is a False Teaching - Summarized Doctrinal Reasons

[Teslafied]

I'm not here to "just believe." I'm here to discuss the Trinity.

We are called to believe. Jesus is the Son of God.

 

[Hoghead1]

We are called to believe. Jesus is the Son of God.

Look, again, we are here to discuss the Trinity. Saying that Jesus is the Son of God isn't the issue. The issue here is how we can speak of God as one and also as three. Also, there is more involved here than the Deity of Christ. There is also the matter of teh Holy Spirit.

 

[Teslafied]

Look, again, we are here to discuss the Trinity. Saying that Jesus is the Son of God isn't the issue. The issue here is how we can speak of God as one and also as three. Also, there is more involved here than the Deity of Christ. There is also the matter of teh Holy Spirit.

I have done spoken in this matter, there is nothing more to say.

 

[Hoghead1]

I have done spoken in this matter, there is nothing more to say.[/QUO
Speak for yourself. Maybe not for you, but that does not apply to myself and possibly the rest of the members here.

 

[Teslafied]

I am speaking for myself. You keep asking me to explain and I have repeatedly yet you can't grasp any of it.

 

[Hoghead1]

I am speaking for myself. You keep asking me to explain and I have repeatedly yet you can't grasp any of it.

You haven't explained anything. You simply presented a highly questionable view of the Trinity. When I made some constructive criticism of it, you seemed to go on the defensive.

 

[SkyWriting]

cgaviria

Is not belief in the Trinity a key element in being a Christian?

Not according to scripture.

 

[SkyWriting]

The teaching of the trinity skews the understanding of certain basic truths, and they are the following,

Jesus Christ, birthed in the beginning of creation, which is why he is called a "son", by the Father, whose identity is I AM, as the Father does not have a name, as he is not created as we are to have name, and was said to be "engendered" today, which was day one of creation. A son does not precede a father nor does a son come at the same time as a father, but a father comes first, then a son, and since the father never began, therefore the son did indeed begin, as that is the next natural order of precedence. Jesus Christ is also said to be "only son", and this is because he was the only being created directly by the Father, and then all life came into existence through Jesus.

Before Jesus Christ began speaking things into existence, the Father created first, which included preparing the heavens, founding the earth which had water, and bringing forth the spirit of God that bore upon the water. When these things came into existence, day one had begun, and in that same day, Jesus Christ then uttered his first words, "let there be light".

Jesus Christ was the spirit of God that bore upon the water, and this is the evidence of his pre-existence in the Genesis account, and the identity of this spirit was a mystery until his name was revealed thousands of years later, as Jesus, which is when he became incarnate of a virgin. This spirit of God, is also the one who started speaking, hence why Jesus Christ is also called the word of God, because he spoke things into existence, which included all life.

On day four of creation, when Jesus Christ spoke the luminaries of the heavens into existence, is the first day other living beings came forth into existence, which were angels. Of these angels, the angel YHWH became revealed, which was the name revealed to Moses when the angel YHWH gave his own name to Moses in a burning bush, and this was name that the Hebrews used to seek God in the old covenant until much later we were given a new name, for a new covenant, which is the name of Jesus Christ, which is even higher than the name of YHWH, and by whom only in the name of Jesus can a man now be saved. This angel named YHWH was the being Jesus Christ then spoke to on day six of creation, which is why Jesus said, "Let us...", as he was not speaking to the Father, as the Father already gave Jesus words to speak, but instead, it was Jesus speaking to this angel. This angel, was indeed a holy spirit, that then breathed into man the breath of life, as commanded, and thus demonstrated that life not only came by the utterances of Jesus Christ, but also by holy spirit giving forth breath to bring forth life. And this same type of life giving holy spirit, is the same kind of spirit that is said to raise Jesus Christ from the dead, and also all who are believers and sons of the resurrection as well, as it is holy spirit inside each that brings forth life.

There is not just one holy spirit, but many. Each believer receives a distinct holy spirit, which is indeed an angel given to each believer to inhabit the body of each believer, that is sent from heaven to guide, teach, reveal things of the future, give power, sanctify, and perfect.

For a deeper study on these topics, I recommend reading the following studies,

http://www.wisdomofgod.co/2016/01/08/why-the-trinity-is-a-false-doctrine/

http://www.wisdomofgod.co/2015/12/1...-also-began-only-the-father-has-no-beginning/

http://www.wisdomofgod.co/2015/12/2...ng-that-lives-in-us-that-is-sent-from-heaven/

http://www.wisdomofgod.co/2016/01/15/the-power-of-the-spirit-and-being-baptized-in-holy-spirit/

I think you have identified that it is hard for humans to properly
put spiritual concepts into terms that humans will understand.

 

[Hoghead1]

I think you have identified that it is hard for humans to properly
put spiritual concepts into terms that humans will understand.

Well, but who thought up these spiritual concepts? We did. So we came up with something that just doesn't work and therefore need to modify our thinking here.

 

[SkyWriting]

Well, but who thought up these spiritual concepts? We did. So we came up with something that just doesn't work and therefore need to modify our thinking here.

How have you documented it not working?
I might agree with the OP, but I havn't
noted any pain points. Where's the beef?

 

[Hoghead1]

How have you documented it not working?

The Trinity has always been controversial and problematic concept. I trace the problem back to the metaphysics of the early fathers. They looked at God, form the standpoint of substance metaphysics. Accoridngly God was defined as a wholly immaterial, immutable, nonrelational entity, a monad. Then they tried to introduce the highly complex, relational of the Trinity into this monad. The result is confusion and contradiction.

 

[SkyWriting]

The Trinity has always been controversial and problematic concept. I trace the problem back to the metaphysics of the early fathers. They looked at God, form the standpoint of substance metaphysics. Accoridngly God was defined as a wholly immaterial, immutable, nonrelational entity, a monad. Then they tried to introduce the highly complex, relational of the Trinity into this monad. The result is confusion and contradiction.

I think it rather a simplified summary, but what solution do you have for the model?

 

[Hoghead1]

I think it rather a simplified summary, but what solution do you have for the model?

Move out of substance metaphysics and into relational metaphysics. Also, as I just mentioned to another member, if you really want to discuss the Trinity, you need to have a basic familiarity with the history of this doctrine. So, fi you haven't already, I encourage you to read up on the creeds and what the fathers had to say about it. For example, how does your church define the Trinity?

 

[Hoghead1]

I think it rather a simplified summary, but what solution do you have for the model?

Yes, but how do you know that it is simplified or not? How familiar are you with the traditional Trinitarian formulations?

 

[Teslafied]

I think you have identified that it is hard for humans to properly
put spiritual concepts into terms that humans will understand.

Yes all I was trying to say is that I believe the same that Jesus is Lord / God and that He always existed BUT unlike the Catholic Trinity I actually believe He was begotten once by the Father. How can He be God the Fathers Son if He was never begotten???! As for the Holy Spirit again I don't believe He is some standalone God part of the Trinity but He is in fact the very Spirit of God emanating through the Father and He lives within all believers.

How is any of that heretical? I have not denied that Jesus is Lord. I have not denied He came in the flesh, etc etc.

All I'm saying is I don't believe in Oneness modalism but nor do I believe what Catholicism taught that has been propogated by the protestants.

The Father begat from His own Spirit a Son (Jesus Christ), Jesus Christ existed forever within the Father until He birthed Him from Spirit. Now we have Father and Son. Jesus IS fully God YET now living outside of God the Father He still has the ability to live in accordance to the will of the Father whilst having His own unique personality. Having a personality does not make him "another God" or even a "Demi God" this is NOT "ditheism" or whatever this is God the Father living through the Son YET Jesus IS still the Son so He retains His own unique thought process.

The Bible says Jesus and God are one in the sense they can abide In Each other, Jesus also said if we believe aka have the same Spirit in us we too can abide. Who is that same Spirit? The Holy Spirit of the Father through the Son.

So I don't think hoghead was grasping what I was trying to say. We have a Father and a Son. How we have messed up is when we try to peg humanistic terms on God by either calling Him a Trinity, Just one God putting on different faces or modes, or etc. I hate to use terms for God! All I was trying to tell him is that I do believe God is one yet again there is a Father and a Son that's all I know, and Gods Spirit can shoot forth into all.

Also we don't need creeds to define God all it takes is reading scripture, the Bible many many times shows Jesus praying to His Father so I don't believe He was just the Father through adoption but I believe He was literally His Father.

 

[Teslafied]

The point is whether God can manifest or just be within 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 60, 80, or even a 100 Gods of the Godhead whatever humans want to peg it! It all boils down to this.... There cannot be a Father without a Son, nor can there be a Son without a Father.

It's not the number of the Trinity perse' that bothers me it's the fact that you have 3 Gods allegedly living in 1 accord YET there is no real link, they claim the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit have always existed separated like there was never a time any of them were begat. Now I agree They have always existed BUT where I disagree is with the part where they claim the Son was either just begotten on earth, or was eternally the Son... I'm sorry but I can't imagine 3 Gods being in 1 if at least 1 of them don't derive from the same essence as the other. This is why I believe God the Father literally begat the Son Jesus Christ. I don't care whether that makes them necessarily 1 or 2 now whatever the point is we have a Father and BOOP now we have a Son! It cannot be denied! Why do we need a Creed to tell us Who the Godhead is?! It doesn't take some rocket scientist to figure out just what the Bible says!

As for the Holy Spirit again I don't see Him as some random God within some random Trinity but more so the very essence of God the Father also going through the Son emanating out to mankind. How is this so weird? How is this Oneness, ditheism, or even Trinitarian? ya know what who cares about all that junk! Yesterday I was racking my mind about the numbers and today I'm just like ya know what instead of focusing on the numbers alone I'm going to focus on the Bible and the bible clearly says there IS a Father and a Son, and the Holy Spirit IS the spirit of God. I must admit I doubt Jesus prayed to Himself...

We need to stop with the numbers, just take the Bible for what it says. My only qualm is when you have 3 Gods that are allegedly in 1 accord yet wheres the link? This is where I come in and say Jesus was begotten and the Holy Spirit emanates from God.

Matthew 16:13-20;

13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?

14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.

15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

20 Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.

Did Peter say you are the God? No
Did he say you are a part of the Trinity? No
Peter KNEW Jesus WAS the Son of God! Peter did not try and give a number and say you are God number 5, NO! Peter clearly said You ARE the Son of God!

Now as for the Catholics claiming Peter is the Rock I disagree, Peter himself is not the Rock but more so his faith and the knowledge about Jesus revealed to him was the very foundations of the church. Peter knew the truth because the Father clearly revealed it to him. Nowhere do we see Christ say wow Peter I revealed this to you, or the other God revealed this to you, NO! Jesus said MY Father revealed this to you!!!

If this doesn't make sense then I don't know what to say... All we know is that God has revealed Himself in times past in many different ways through a cloud, a pillar of fire, a whirlwind, a voice, a burning bush, through angels, and through His Son & through the Holy Spirit. So essentially we cannot put a limit in God in that sense.

 

[Imagican]

I think you have identified that it is hard for humans to properly
put spiritual concepts into terms that humans will understand.

Really? So it is your belief that men are more capable of making up their own understanding concerning God than He is able to reveal Himself?

"Trinity" is a 'man made doctrine'. One never even 'mentioned' in the Bible. And just look at all the rest of what men had to invent to try and make it 'fit' the Bible.....................

Eternal generation. Now that's a mouthful. And you're right. A concept that cannot be grasped by man.

Essence? God is Spirit. That is His essence. Yet Christ was 'much more' than just spirit. And perhaps by being more, He was not 'quite' equal. Surely 'different'.

And the Bible specifically speaks of the 'time' when Christ was 'created': In the beginning. Not the beginning of God, but the beginning of that which pertains to 'us'.

So many insist upon placing their faith in 'trinity' yet don't even grasp what it means. When the 'truth is', if a 'man' didn't teach it to you, you wouldn't have any idea of it's existence. Yet God can be known without placing one's faith in the man made concept of 'trinity'.

So how important is it for one to place their faith in a 'doctrine' created by men that allowed them to torture and murder those that refused to accept it? If I'm not mistaken, the doctrine of Christ was 'forgiveness'. Not created doctrine designed by men that insists that their 'doctrine' is more important than forgiveness or 'love' of one's neighbor.

Constantine's cronies invented 'trinity'. Due to their previous pagan practices of 'multi part gods', when they were introduced to scripture they took it upon themselves to interject the same concept into 'Christianity' of their own design. It was no 'giant leap' for them to 'see things' from their previous pagan perspective. Three gods making up ONE God.

And if we look back as history as we are able to find it, the Babylonians, the Egyptians, the Persians, the Greeks and the Romans 'all' placed their faith in 'multi part gods'. So in truth, the concept predates the introduction of God to the Hebrews. And that is 'why' I believe that when God introduced Himself to the Hebrews, He make it perfectly 'clear' that He was 'one'.

No, not 'three in one'. But uncompounded: singular so far as 'entity' is concerned. No 'other gods' beside Him. The Father of the Son: Jesus Christ.

For not once does the Bible offer: God the Son. Those are words coined and perpetuated by men, not God. There is only one God and THE God is 'the' God of Christ as well as 'our God'.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[SkyWriting]

Really? So it is your belief that men are more capable of making up their own understanding concerning God than He is able to reveal Himself?

"Trinity" is a 'man made doctrine'. One never even 'mentioned' in the Bible. And just look at all the rest of what men had to invent to try and make it 'fit' the Bible.....................

Eternal generation. Now that's a mouthful. And you're right. A concept that cannot be grasped by man.

Essence? God is Spirit. That is His essence. Yet Christ was 'much more' than just spirit. And perhaps by being more, He was not 'quite' equal. Surely 'different'.

And the Bible specifically speaks of the 'time' when Christ was 'created': In the beginning. Not the beginning of God, but the beginning of that which pertains to 'us'.

So many insist upon placing their faith in 'trinity' yet don't even grasp what it means. When the 'truth is', if a 'man' didn't teach it to you, you wouldn't have any idea of it's existence. Yet God can be known without placing one's faith in the man made concept of 'trinity'.

So how important is it for one to place their faith in a 'doctrine' created by men that allowed them to torture and murder those that refused to accept it? If I'm not mistaken, the doctrine of Christ was 'forgiveness'. Not created doctrine designed by men that insists that their 'doctrine' is more important than forgiveness or 'love' of one's neighbor.

Constantine's cronies invented 'trinity'. Due to their previous pagan practices of 'multi part gods', when they were introduced to scripture they took it upon themselves to interject the same concept into 'Christianity' of their own design. It was no 'giant leap' for them to 'see things' from their previous pagan perspective. Three gods making up ONE God.

And if we look back as history as we are able to find it, the Babylonians, the Egyptians, the Persians, the Greeks and the Romans 'all' placed their faith in 'multi part gods'. So in truth, the concept predates the introduction of God to the Hebrews. And that is 'why' I believe that when God introduced Himself to the Hebrews, He make it perfectly 'clear' that He was 'one'.

No, not 'three in one'. But uncompounded: singular so far as 'entity' is concerned. No 'other gods' beside Him. The Father of the Son: Jesus Christ.

For not once does the Bible offer: God the Son. Those are words coined and perpetuated by men, not God. There is only one God and THE God is 'the' God of Christ as well as 'our God'.

Blessings,

MEC

OK, You've caught up with me. I got that.
Let's move on. What do you propose?

 

[Der Alte]

. . . Constantine's cronies invented 'trinity'. Due to their previous pagan practices of 'multi part gods', when they were introduced to scripture they took it upon themselves to interject the same concept into 'Christianity' of their own design. It was no 'giant leap' for them to 'see things' from their previous pagan perspective. Three gods making up ONE God.

If someone is going to attack a Christian belief they should get their facts straight. The facts are not straight is this diatribe. Constantine was an Arian, if he was going to force anything on the church it would have been Arianism which believed that Jesus was a created being and the Holy Spirit was only God's "active force." If Constantine had any cronies they would have believed or pretended to believe exactly as Constantine believed.
.....Christian writers such as Theophilus and Tertullian wrote about the Trinity 125+ years before Constantine. So neither Constantine nor any of his associates introduced the Trinity.

And if we look back as history as we are able to find it, the Babylonians, the Egyptians, the Persians, the Greeks and the Romans 'all' placed their faith in 'multi part gods'. So in truth, the concept predates the introduction of God to the Hebrews. And that is 'why' I believe that when God introduced Himself to the Hebrews, He make it perfectly 'clear' that He was 'one'. . . .MEC

Neither the Babylonians, the Egyptians, the Persians, the Greeks and the Romans nor any other country had a "multi-part god." There was no nation or society, which could have influenced the early church, that had a trinity or even clearly defined triad of deities. I have been at this forum for more than a decade asking for evidence for these claims and I have never seen any. Copy/pastes from wiki and/or random websites does not constitute evidence.

 

[dentonz]

cgaviria

Is not belief in the Trinity a key element in being a Christian?

I don't disagree with the Trinity; however, where in the scriptures is it stated that if you don't believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, that you cannot be saved? It does say that there is one name given unto men whereby we must be saved, the name of Jesus.