Why The Trinity is a False Teaching - Summarized Doctrinal Reasons

[Teslafied]

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.

John 5:19
Therefore Jesus answered and was saying to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner.

John 6:38
For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.

In these and countless other verses we will see that Jesus has come to do His Fathers will, He also said if we love Him then we love the Father.

We should strive to not forget about the Father, but the Father can be found through His only begotten Son.

 

[Hoghead1]

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.

If you are going to view the Father and Son as two distinct personalities, then you do have at least two gods here. Consider pagan polytheism. There is more than one god because there is more than one personality involved here. But, according to your logic, such paganism is really monotheistic. You seem to be going on the mistaken notion that it's all a matter of 1 x 1 x1 =1. Well, Ok. So then, Wotan x Flicka x Loge = One god. But that makes no real sense. Also, yes, you do need teh creeds. That's why the church pout them there.

 

[Teslafied]

If you are going to view the Father and Son as two distinct personalities, then you do have at least two gods here. Consider pagan polytheism. There is more than one god because there is more than one personality involved here. But, according to your logic, such paganism is really monotheistic. You seem to be going on the mistaken notion that it's all a matter of 1 x 1 x1 =1. Well, Ok. So then, Wotan x Flicka x Loge = One god. But that makes no real sense. Also, yes, you do need teh creeds. That's why the church pout them there.

Why do you keep saying "teh"?

Also whether you choose to believe it or not the fact remains there IS a Father and a Son along with the Holy Spirit of God. This is not polytheism, or paganism, or whatever you go on about. It's all scriptural please read your bible.

 

[Hoghead1]

Why do you keep saying "teh"?

Also whether you choose to believe it or not the fact remains there IS a Father and a Son along with the Holy Spirit of God. This is not polytheism, or paganism, or whatever you go on about. It's all scriptural please read your bible.

That's what I'd like to know. It never shows up on my spell check and I type pretty fast. I just have to be more careful about editing. Whether it is polytheism or not depends on how you are using the terms Father, Son, and Spirit here. If you are saying they represent separate, unique personalities, then yes, you are being polytheistic. That's just common sense. However, there are other understandings as to what "person" meant in the early Trinitarian formulations.

 

[Hoghead1]

Why do you keep saying "teh"?

Also whether you choose to believe it or not the fact remains there IS a Father and a Son along with the Holy Spirit of God. This is not polytheism, or paganism, or whatever you go on about. It's all scriptural please read your bible.

P.S. No, it is not all biblical. As I have pointed out many times, the Trinity is an extra-biblical doctrine relaying heavily on Hellenic metaphysics.

 

[Hoghead1]

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.

We are concerned with numbers and have to be simply because we are discussing the Trinity, which argues fro three in one. The Bible clearly implies a formula such as that, but does not work out the Trinity in any detail. Hence, the Trinitarian formulations are all extra-biblical in nature. The Bible is monotheistic and Christian faith is also monotheistic, so numbers really do matter. If you are looking at Trinitarian claims that add up to three gods, then yes, there is a serious problem here.

 

[Hoghead1]

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

It was the understanding of the church fathers that Scripture does imply a three-in-one arrangement. Also, the Council of Nicaea was convened to debate the Deity of Christ. It wasn't some battle with paganism or polytheism. The problem was that the early Christian community was sharply divided over the nature of Christ. Was the divine that ruled in heaven identical with the divine that makes its presence felt on earth? The Trinitarians argued Christ is God, the Arians argued Christ could not be God, largely because Scripture depicts him as suffering and changing, and God cannot suffer or change, according to their Hellenic standards of divine perfection.

 

[Hoghead1]

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.


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.

What exactly is a multi-part god? Pagan gods were depicted as having any number of parts. For example, Wotan is aid to have eyes, one blind, by the way, ears, a sex organ, etc. Also, it's hard to tell what Constantine was. He said the council was addressing a question he found unprofitable, though it needed to be addressed to keep order in his kingdom. He claimed the Trinitarian side made the strongest argument. So how Arian is he? It is true that when his son came to the thrown, the Trinity was thrown out and Trinitarians exiled.

 

[Der Alte]

What exactly is a multi-part god? Pagan gods were depicted as having any number of parts. For example, Wotan is aid to have eyes, one blind, by the way, ears, a sex organ, etc. Also, it's hard to tell what Constantine was. He said the council was addressing a question he found unprofitable, though it needed to be addressed to keep order in his kingdom. He claimed the Trinitarian side made the strongest argument. So how Arian is he? It is true that when his son came to the thrown, the Trinity was thrown out and Trinitarians exiled.

Constantine favored Arians before and after Nicaea. Since this is another Trinity thread I assumed by "multi-part god" the post I was addressing was referring to supposed multiple pagan deities in one or imagined pagan trinities or triads of deities.

 

[Hoghead1]

Constantine favored Arians before and after Nicaea. Since this is another Trinity thread I assumed by "multi-part god" the post I was addressing was referring to supposed multiple pagan deities in one or imagined pagan trinities or triads of deities.

What is your evidence for you claim about Constantine?

 

[Der Alte]

What is your evidence for you claim about Constantine?

I rarely say anything I can't back up.

Eusebius became bishop in Caesarea, Palestine, in about 313. He was involved in the Arian controversy where he supported the Alexandrian priest Arius. A synod at Antioch provisionally excommunicated Eusebius, in about January 325. Later that year, at the Council of Nicaea, Constantine helped obtain Eusebius' exoneration. In 335, Eusebius attended a council of Tyre to oppose Athanasius and then was present when Arius was readmitted to the Church.

http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/historians/g/Eusebius.htm

Catholic Encyclopedia – Arianism
But the wiles of Eusebius, who in 328 recovered Constantine's favour, were seconded by Asiatic intrigues, and a period of Arian reaction set in[/b]. Eustathius of Antioch was deposed on a charge of Sabellianism (331), and the Emperor sent his command that Athanasius should receive Arius back into communion. he was baptized in his last moments by the shifty prelate of Nicomedia; [Eusebius]. . .
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01707c.htm​

 

[Hoghead1]

I rarely say anything I can't back up.

Eusebius became bishop in Caesarea, Palestine, in about 313. He was involved in the Arian controversy where he supported the Alexandrian priest Arius. A synod at Antioch provisionally excommunicated Eusebius, in about January 325. Later that year, at the Council of Nicaea, Constantine helped obtain Eusebius' exoneration. In 335, Eusebius attended a council of Tyre to oppose Athanasius and then was present when Arius was readmitted to the Church.

http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/historians/g/Eusebius.htm

Catholic Encyclopedia – Arianism
But the wiles of Eusebius, who in 328 recovered Constantine's favour, were seconded by Asiatic intrigues, and a period of Arian reaction set in[/b]. Eustathius of Antioch was deposed on a charge of Sabellianism (331), and the Emperor sent his command that Athanasius should receive Arius back into communion. he was baptized in his last moments by the shifty prelate of Nicomedia; [Eusebius]. . .
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01707c.htm​

Me,too. Very Interesting. I'm just not sure it meant he was favoring Arianism over Trinitarianism. His sole goal was harmony and he indicated he thought questions about the Deity of Christ were unprofitable. I wonder if he was just trying to keep the peace here, get everyone back on the team.

 

[Teslafied]

We are concerned with numbers and have to be simply because we are discussing the Trinity, which argues fro three in one. The Bible clearly implies a formula such as that, but does not work out the Trinity in any detail. Hence, the Trinitarian formulations are all extra-biblical in nature. The Bible is monotheistic and Christian faith is also monotheistic, so numbers really do matter. If you are looking at Trinitarian claims that add up to three gods, then yes, there is a serious problem here.

Who says it has to be all that? All we know is what scripture says; there's the father, the son, and the holy spirit. How hard is it to just accept that the father begat the son, and the Holy Spirit is emanating from the father through the son.

 

[Hoghead1]

Who says it has to be all that? All we know is what scripture says; there's the father, the son, and the holy spirit. How hard is it to just accept that the father begat the son, and the Holy Spirit is emanating from the father through the son.[/QUOTE
Monotheism is at the core of Christian faith. So if someone is presenting the Trinity in a way that is polytheistic, however unwitting this may be, it is the duty of fellow Christians to point out this mistake.

 

[Teslafied]

Yea again I was not presenting a polytheistic God.

 

[Imagican]

What exactly is a multi-part god? Pagan gods were depicted as having any number of parts. For example, Wotan is aid to have eyes, one blind, by the way, ears, a sex organ, etc. Also, it's hard to tell what Constantine was. He said the council was addressing a question he found unprofitable, though it needed to be addressed to keep order in his kingdom. He claimed the Trinitarian side made the strongest argument. So how Arian is he? It is true that when his son came to the thrown, the Trinity was thrown out and Trinitarians exiled.

Exactly. Constantine couldn't have cared less about Christianity except how he hoped to use it to unify his empire. Easier to change the beliefs of the few than the many. So he sided with the majority. A man intent upon conquest and murder of his own family members obviously couldn't have cared less about being a follower of Christ.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Imagican]

I rarely say anything I can't back up.

Eusebius became bishop in Caesarea, Palestine, in about 313. He was involved in the Arian controversy where he supported the Alexandrian priest Arius. A synod at Antioch provisionally excommunicated Eusebius, in about January 325. Later that year, at the Council of Nicaea, Constantine helped obtain Eusebius' exoneration. In 335, Eusebius attended a council of Tyre to oppose Athanasius and then was present when Arius was readmitted to the Church.

http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/historians/g/Eusebius.htm

Catholic Encyclopedia – Arianism
But the wiles of Eusebius, who in 328 recovered Constantine's favour, were seconded by Asiatic intrigues, and a period of Arian reaction set in[/b]. Eustathius of Antioch was deposed on a charge of Sabellianism (331), and the Emperor sent his command that Athanasius should receive Arius back into communion. he was baptized in his last moments by the shifty prelate of Nicomedia; [Eusebius]. . .
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01707c.htm​

Now you say that you can 'back up' whatever you offer. But the 'fact is' that Arius died 'before' being reintroduced to the Church. He was on his way back to be readmitted when he was most likely poisoned and died 'before' his return.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Imagican]

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Arius


Later years and death
With Constantine now favoring Arius, he commanded Anthanasius to readmit him to communion. Anthanasius refused, leading to charges of treason against the emperor and Athanasius's exile to Trier. Revelling in their new-found acceptance by Constantine, Arius's supporters commenced disturbances in Alexandria aimed at taking control there. The emperor now directed Bishop Alexander of Constantinople to receive Arius into communion; vehemently opposed to this, Alexander asked his supporters to pray for the removal of either him or Arius from the world before Arius could be re-admitted to the Church. Incredibly, one day before Arius was to receive communion, he suddenly died. Socrates Scholasticus reports that while parading through the streets of the Imperial City Arius was suddenly seized with pain in his bowels, barely making it to an outdoor privy before expiring due to loss of blood.[4] While many Orthodox Christians—then and now—regarded his demise as miraculous, some scholars believe that Arius was actually poisoned by some of his enemies.[5]

 

[Hoghead1]

Exactly. Constantine couldn't have cared less about Christianity except how he hoped to use it to unify his empire. Easier to change the beliefs of the few than the many. So he sided with the majority. A man intent upon conquest and murder of his own family members obviously couldn't have cared less about being a follower of Christ.

Blessings,

MEC

Yes, but it could very well be that he was attracted to Christianity because it was the only religion he could find where he could obtain forgiveness for his evil deeds.

 

[Hoghead1]

Yea again I was not presenting a polytheistic God.

Let us hope not. However, that has happened more than once here.