Trinity haters on CC

[Bowman]

Deuteronomy 6 5

Leviticus 19 17

Jesus quoted Deut 6.4 - 5, The Shema, as the #1 most important commandment.

The reason is obvious when you look to the Hebrew, as the Shema reveals a Triune God.


דשְׁמַע, יִשְׂרָאֵל: יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ, יְהוָהאֶחָד


Here is the message that the Biblical Hebrew is conveying to us:

• Tetragrammaton = singular
• Elohim = Plural
• Echad = one unity
• The juxtaposed words…Tetragrammaton, Elohim, Tetragrammaton, Echad
• God is referred to not once, not twice, but three times
• Singular, Plural, Singular
• These three elements form one unity
• Singular = Plural
• Plural = Singular
• God = Gods
• God is clearly singular
• God is clearly plural
• God is Uniplural

 

[williamjordan]

i prefer what Jesus says about Himself but to answer your question, yes.

Ah, but you see, that's where the rub is. You admit that one must believe in the same Jesus that the apostles believed in to be saved. And I would agree. The only difference is, however, is this: You believe your portrayal of Jesus accurately depicts the Jesus of the NT. Thus, in your view the Jesus that people must believe in to be saved is the one that fits the confines of your Christology.

It seems you have more in common with those whom you criticize than what you're really willing to admit.

i put my faith in what the bible reveals to me

I have to be honest, I had to reread this statement several times to ensure I wasn't misunderstanding you. I do think the statement has some kind of ambiguity to it, but if I'm correct in my assessment then I think where you and I differ is that I realize that Scripture doesn't reveal itself (Luke 24.45, John 12.40), but is completely reliant on the Holy Spirit.

i put that above what others tell me to think just because they say its official doctrine, or tell me i should believe something only because everyone else believes it. does this make sense.

Absolutely, for many years I was non-Trinitarian, a Sabbatarian, and of the Armenian persuasion. Today I'm of the Trinitarian, Reformed theology persuasion. So yes, I absolutely understand what you're saying. And guess what? I'm still Trinitarian.

 

[williamjordan]

I would disagree with Bowman to some extent with his previous post, but to piggy-back what he's saying, and something I've found to be very peculiar/fascinating, is how Paul speaks of Jesus in his first letter to the Corinthians.

To Paul, the person who “loves God” (1 Cor 8.3) knows that “there is no God but one” (1 Cor 8.4). His statements here encapsulate the monotheistic essence of Judaism, the Shema (“Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might,” Deut 6.4-5). The allusions made to idolatry, to loving God, and believing that God is one removes any uncertainty that Paul is drawing here on Deut 6.4-5.

Paul picks up on this very point in v. 6, “to us there is but one God, the Father from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.” But it is here at v. 6 that Unitarians argue for some kind of ontological distinction between the “one God” (v. 6a), and the “one Lord” (v. 6b), but the nature of that distinction is of some debate between sectarian groups.

On one end of the spectrum, the Witnesses argue that though pagans had “many gods and many lords” (v. 5), lords were considered secondary deities in relationship to the gods, and so Paul is borrowing from that idea in his comparison of Christ the “one Lord,” and the Father who is the “one God.” On the other, Socinians argue that v. 5 distinguishes “gods” as heavenly figures from “lords,” who are their earthly representatives, and that v. 6 likewise distinguishes between the Father as God in contrast to Christ, who is His representative Lord.

It seems particularly odd that the Witnesses would even attempt to argue that “lords” are deities second to the “gods,” particularly in light of their position of Christ as “a god.” Likewise, it also seems awkward that the Socinian would argue for a distinction of “gods” as heavenly figures, and “lords” as their earthly representatives in light of the Unitarian proposition that Jesus did not become “Lord” until his exaltation to the right hand of the Father in heaven.

Further, in v. 5 Paul refers to the “gods” as being both in heaven and on earth (“For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth”), which ultimately undermines the Socinian interpretation by showing that Paul was not distinguishing between “gods” in heaven, and “lords” on earth.

In vv.5-6 Paul draws upon the monotheistic concept that God alone created the universe. To steal the words of Richard Bauckham (God Crucified: Monotheism & Christology, 38-39), “that God is not only the agent or efficient cause of creation ('from him are all things') and the final cause or goal of all things ('to him are all things'), but also the instrumental cause ('through him are all things') well expresses the typical Jewish monotheistic concern that God used no one else to carry out his work of creation. By Paul's reformulation in 1 Corinthians 8:6, he includes Christ in this exclusively divine work of creation by giving to him the role of instrumental cause.”

Throughout his letter, notice what Paul does not do. Paul does not, as one would perhaps expect, speak of the relationship between the Corinthians and the “one God the Father” over and against idolatry. Rather, Paul's argument is about the relationship between the Corinthians, and the “one Lord” Jesus over against idolatry (10.19-22),

“You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. Shall we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than He?” (1 Cor 10.21-22 c.f. Deut 32.21, Malachi 1.7-12)


​

The “Lord” that is spoken of here is most naturally taken to refer to Jesus for various reasons:

(i) Up to this point in Paul’s letter it is Jesus that is referred to as the “one Lord,” “the Lord of glory,” et al.

(ii) Paul uses this language of “the cup of the Lord” later in his letter to the Corinthians where it is Jesus who is the referent (1 Corinthians 11.27-28 c.f. 1 Corinthians 10.16-17, 2 Corinthians 6.15-16).

(iii) Paul’s utilization of κύριος (“Lord”) for Jesus where he alludes to OT texts involving the Divine Name (1 Cor 1.2 [c.f. Joel 2.32]; 1 Cor 2.16 [c.f. Isaiah 40.13]; 1 Cor 6.11 [c.f. Isaiah 45.25], et al)

(iv) For Paul to refer to Jesus’ involvement in Israel’s redemptive history makes it clear who the “Lord” is in this passage. According to Paul, Christ is “the rock” (1 Cor 10.4) that accompanied the Israelites in the wilderness, and goes so far to even warn the Corinthians, “We should not test Christ, as some of them did—and were killed by snakes.” There seems to be a connection between testing Christ (1 Cor 10.9), and provoking the Lord (1 Cor 10.22).

​

 

[williamjordan]

It seems that part of my previous post got cut off, so here is a repost (the portion in red is what was left out):

I would disagree with Bowman to some extent with his previous post, but to piggy-back what he's saying, and something I've found to be very peculiar/fascinating, is how Paul speaks of Jesus in his first letter to the Corinthians.

To Paul, the person who “loves God” (1 Cor 8.3) knows that “there is no God but one” (1 Cor 8.4). His statements here encapsulate the monotheistic essence of Judaism, the Shema (“Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might,” Deut 6.4-5). The allusions made to idolatry, to loving God, and believing that God is one removes any uncertainty that Paul is drawing here on Deut 6.4-5.

Paul picks up on this very point in v. 6, “to us there is but one God, the Father from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.” But it is here at v. 6 that Unitarians argue for some kind of ontological distinction between the “one God” (v. 6a), and the “one Lord” (v. 6b), but the nature of that distinction is of some debate between sectarian groups.

On one end of the spectrum, the Witnesses argue that though pagans had “many gods and many lords” (v. 5), lords were considered secondary deities in relationship to the gods, and so Paul is borrowing from that idea in his comparison of Christ the “one Lord,” and the Father who is the “one God.” On the other, Socinians argue that v. 5 distinguishes “gods” as heavenly figures from “lords,” who are their earthly representatives, and that v. 6 likewise distinguishes between the Father as God in contrast to Christ, who is His representative Lord.

It seems particularly odd that the Witnesses would even attempt to argue that “lords” are deities second to the “gods,” particularly in light of their position of Christ as “a god.” Likewise, it also seems awkward that the Socinian would argue for a distinction of “gods” as heavenly figures, and “lords” as their earthly representatives in light of the Unitarian proposition that Jesus did not become “Lord” until his exaltation to the right hand of the Father in heaven.

Further, in v. 5 Paul refers to the “gods” as being both in heaven and on earth (“For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth”), which ultimately undermines the Socinian interpretation by showing that Paul was not distinguishing between “gods” in heaven, and “lords” on earth.

However, neither of these arguments really seem to consider, and for obvious reasons, that κύριος (“Lord”) is the divine title emphasized in the Shema, “The Lord our God, the Lord is one.” And in light of the overall context, Paul gives us the Christian self-understanding of how the monotheism of the Jewish Scriptures is to be interpreted in light of the incarnation of Jesus the Messiah, the “one Lord.”

In vv.5-6 Paul draws upon the monotheistic concept that God alone created the universe. To steal the words of Richard Bauckham (God Crucified: Monotheism & Christology, 38-39), “that God is not only the agent or efficient cause of creation ('from him are all things') and the final cause or goal of all things ('to him are all things'), but also the instrumental cause ('through him are all things') well expresses the typical Jewish monotheistic concern that God used no one else to carry out his work of creation. By Paul's reformulation in 1 Corinthians 8:6, he includes Christ in this exclusively divine work of creation by giving to him the role of instrumental cause.”

Throughout his letter, notice what Paul does not do. Paul does not, as one would perhaps expect, speak of the relationship between the Corinthians and the “one God the Father” over and against idolatry. Rather, Paul's argument is about the relationship between the Corinthians, and the “one Lord” Jesus over against idolatry (10.19-22),

“You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. Shall we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than He?” (1 Cor 10.21-22 c.f. Deut 32.21, Malachi 1.7-12)


​

The “Lord” that is spoken of here is most naturally taken to refer to Jesus for various reasons:

(i) Up to this point in Paul’s letter it is Jesus that is referred to as the “one Lord,” “the Lord of glory,” et al.

(ii) Paul uses this language of “the cup of the Lord” later in his letter to the Corinthians where it is Jesus who is the referent (1 Corinthians 11.27-28 c.f. 1 Corinthians 10.16-17, 2 Corinthians 6.15-16).

(iii) Paul’s utilization of κύριος (“Lord”) for Jesus where he alludes to OT texts involving the Divine Name (1 Cor 1.2 [c.f. Joel 2.32]; 1 Cor 2.16 [c.f. Isaiah 40.13]; 1 Cor 6.11 [c.f. Isaiah 45.25], et al)

(iv) For Paul to refer to Jesus’ involvement in Israel’s redemptive history makes it clear who the “Lord” is in this passage. According to Paul, Christ is “the rock” (1 Cor 10.4) that accompanied the Israelites in the wilderness, and goes so far to even warn the Corinthians, “We should not test Christ, as some of them did—and were killed by snakes.” There seems to be a connection between testing Christ (1 Cor 10.9), and provoking the Lord (1 Cor 10.22).
​

 

[Dude653]

Already know I'm going to be attacked for this so let me save you a few keystrokes cuz I already know what you're going to say. ... I'm speaking against the Word of God, I'm speaking heresy I'm going to be banned from the forum. And so on and so forth. Okay, now that we have dispensed with the self-righteous nonsense let me get to my point. I'm still on the fence about the Trinity although I have been told it all my life. I have never seen anywhere in the Bible where Jesus Christ asks to be worshipped he always tells us to worship the Father. When he was in the garden praying, was he praying to himself? I don't recall Jesus ever claiming divinity either. Is it even necessary for salvation to believe the Trinity?

 

[prove-all]

not trinity hater, but truth seeker

The Origin of the Trinity Doctrine

It was about a century after Tertullian when Arianism began causing so
many disputes that Constantine convened the first ecumenical Council
in Church history to settle them.

Arius was an elder in the Alexandrian Church in the early fourth century
that taught Christ truly is the begotten Son of God and why God is called
His Father to state the obvious. A real Father and Son in other words.

Opposing the teachings of Arius was Athanasius, a deacon also from Alexandria.
His view was an early form of Trinitarianism where the Father, Son and Holy Spirit
are said to be all the same one god but distinct from each other making it impossible
for them to be a real Father and Son.

His view was a further but deteriorating change to what Tertullian believed with
the Holy Spirit not yet claimed to be a literal being. That came later.

Mainstream history states Arius taught Christ was created, but the Church burnt
what Arius believed and some historians claim they altered records and falsely
rumoured that he taught Christ was created in order to discredit him.

The Catholic Church is known for creating false historical records to their interpretation
of events to hide the real truth at times. Consider the following for instance.

The view of Athanasius was highly influenced by Origen who was a Greek philosopher
and theologian who reinterpreted Christian doctrine through the philosophy of Neoplatonism.

His work was later condemned as unorthodox. Origen taught the doctrine of Purgatory,
transubstantiation, transmigration and reincarnation of the soul, the Holy Spirit was
a feminine force, Jesus was only a created being, there would be no physical resurrection,
the creation account in Genesis is a fictitious story and is known to have publicly castrated
himself based on Matthew 19.


-

Arius on the other hand was a pupil of Lucian of Antioch. Lucian was responsible
for the work that gave us what is known as the Textus Receptus which was completed
by Erasmus, and is what gave us the trusted New Testament of the KJV Bible.

These and other facts reveal that Athanasius was influenced by Greek philosophy
and that Arius probably taught Biblical truth despite mainstream history.

Some believe Constantine was the first Christian Roman Emperor but he was actually
a sun worshiper who was baptized on his deathbed. During his reign he had his eldest
son and his wife murdered. His belief at best was a blend of paganism and Christianity
for political purposes, and so he neither cared nor really understood this dispute but was
just eager to bring the controversy to a close and keep unity in his empire.


When the bishops gathered at Nicea on May 20, 325 AD to resolve the crisis, very few
shared Athanasius's view of Christ as most held a position midway between Athanasius
and Arius. The religious debates lasted two months before the Council rejected the minority
view of Arius, but having no alternative, Constantine approved the view of Athanasius,
which was also a minority view. And so the Church was left supporting a belief held by
only a minority of those attending.

The Encyclopedia Britannica states: “Constantine himself presided, actively guiding
the discussions, and personally proposed ... the crucial formula expressing the relation
of Christ to God in the creed issued by the council ... Overawed by the emperor, the bishops,
with two exceptions only, signed the creed, many of them much against their inclination.”
— (1971 edition, Vol. 6, “Constantine,” p. 386)


Horrific religious persecution followed the decision made by Constantine who was
essentially a pagan Emperor who imposed an invented creed never preached by Jesus.

Constantine exiled those who refused to accept the creed as well as the bishops who
signed the creed but refused to join in condemnation of Arius. He also ordered all copies
of the Thalia to be burned, which was the book in which Arius expressed his teachings.
But several years later Constantine became lenient toward those he condemned and exiled
at the council and allowed them to return. In AD 335, they brought accusations against
Athanasius and so now Constantine had Athanasius banished! This was not about Biblical truth.

As a pagan sun worshipper, Constantine also enforced the first Sunday law just four years
earlier and hence played a major role in bringing two pagan traditions into the Church.

It was four hundred years after the cross when they formulated this creed that never existed
before hand, and so the Apostles and the early Church could never have taught it either.
See Encyclopedia Britannica and historical quotes.

Many of the Bishops who formulated the doctrine of the trinity were steeped in Greek
and Platonic philosophy, which influenced their religious views. In fact the language they
used in defining the trinity is taken directly from Platonic and Greek philosophy.

The Platonic term trias, meaning three, was Latinized as trinitas, which gave us the English
word trinity which is neither biblical nor Christian. As Bible scholars John McClintock and
James Strong (wrote the famous Strong's Concordance) explain, “Towards the end of the
1st century, and during the 2nd, many learned men came over both from Judaism and paganism
to Christianity. These brought with them into the Christian schools of theology their Platonic
ideas and phraseology.” — (Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature,
1891, Vol. 10, “Trinity,” p. 553)


So the trinity was not derived from scripture but was conceived in philosophy.
Greek philosophers were greatly influenced by Plato (427-347 BC) who was considered
the greatest of all Greek philosophers. Plato was ingrained with Trinitarian thought
and knew that all the ancient religions had triad deities, and so he desired to come up
with a better definition to define God above all the deities of Greek mythology.

Plato's definition of God was,
(1) The “first God,” who was the Supreme Being in the universe;
(2) the “second God,” whom Plato described as the “soul of the universe”; and
(3) the “third God,” defined as the “spirit.”

The Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria (15 BC-AD 50) who followed
Greek philosophy was influenced by Plato's version and saw God as,
(1) Father, who created all things (Philo named him “the Demiurge”),
(2) Mother, who was Knowledge the Maker possessed and
(3) the Beloved Son was the world. -Supposedly the union of demiurge and
knowledge produced man's world. This esoteric type of thinking is what led
to the birth and development of the trinity.


Notice how these quotes document a belief in a divine trinity in many regions and religions
of the ancient world and that the origin of the conception is entirely pagan. Egyptologist
Arthur Weigall summed up the influence of ancient beliefs on the adoption of the trinity
doctrine by the Catholic Church in this excerpt from his book Paganism in Our Christianity.


And so the Council of Nicea did not end the controversy and the bishops went on teaching as
they had before, and the Arian crisis continued for another sixty years. Athanasius was exiled
no fewer than five times and it was very difficult to make his creed stick. The ongoing disputes
were violent and bloody at times. Noted historian Will Durant writes,

“Probably more Christians were slaughtered by Christians in these two years (342-3)
than by all the persecutions of Christians by pagans in the history of Rome.” —
(The Story of Civilization, Vol. 4: The Age of Faith, 1950, p. 8). So Christians fought
and slaughtered one another over their differing views of God.


So after Constantine's death in 337 AD, disputes continued. Constantine's son
Constantius II favoured the Arians and set out to reverse the Nicene Creed.

Constantius used his power to exile bishops adhering to the Nicene Creed and especially
Athanasius who fled to Rome. The debates resulted in numerous councils. Among them
the Council of Sardica in 343 AD, the Council of Sirmium in 358 AD and the double Council
of Rimini and Seleucia in 359 AD, and no fewer than fourteen further creed formulas
between 340 and 360 AD.

After Constantius' death in 361 AD, his successor Julian, who was a devotee
of Rome's pagan gods, declared that he would no longer favor one Church
faction over another and allowed all exiled bishops to return, which resulted
in further increasing dissension among Christians.

 

[prove-all]

The only verse in the entire Bible that can be genuinely interpreted as saying
the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are a 3 in1 being is 1 John 5:7.

1 John 5:7 KJV “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father,
the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water,
and the blood: and these three agree in one.”

This is the clear and decisive type of Scripture that you would expect to find in
the Bible if the Godhead was literally a three in one god. However, it is slowly
becoming universally recognized that this verse is a later [insertion of the Church].

So what does that tell us?

8 the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

 

[prove-all]

Re: not trinity hater, but truth seeker

Disputes eventually became over the nature of the Holy Spirit. So 44 years after
Constantine's death in May 381 AD, Emperor Theodosius, baptized only a year
earlier, convened the Council of Constantinople to resolve them.

Theodosius favoured the Nicene Creed and so after he arrived in Constantinople
he expelled the bishop Demophilus, and surrendered the Churches there to Gregory
of Nazianzus who was the leader of a small Nicene community there and one of three
men that became known as “the three Cappadocians.” These three men had an agenda
at this council which was for the first time to push the idea of the Holy Spirit being
a literal being.

Gregory was recently appointed as archbishop of Constantinople, but due to illness,
Nectarius, an elderly city senator had to take over the role of archbishop and presided
over the council. And so Nectarius was baptized for the job and the Trinitarian view on
the Holy Spirit was governed by someone with little or no knowledge of theology!

What resulted became known as the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed where they now
decided that the Holy Spirit was a literal being. Any who disagreed were in accordance
with the edicts of the emperor and Church authorities branded heretics and dealt with
accordingly. This final teaching on the nature of God is what became the trinity
as generally understood today.

It was not decided so much from Scripture but from Greek philosophy,
much bloodshed and whoever had the most power.


So in short, when Babylon was conquered, most of the Babylonian Priests took
their pagan teachings to Alexandria which resulted in the school of Alexandria.

The Alexandrines incorporated Greek Pagan philosophical beliefs from Plato's
teachings into Christianity (Neoplatonism), and interpreted much of the Bible
allegorically. Lucian rejected this system entirely and propounded a system
of literal interpretation that dominated the Eastern Church for a long period.

Thus Origen taught the allegorical method of explanation of Scripture that
Athanasius and the three Cappadocians learned from, which was influenced
by Plato and strong pagan theological speculations, which gave us the trinity doctrine.

“The Alexandria catechetical school, which revered Clement of Alexandria and Origen,
the greatest theologian of the Greek Church, as its heads, applied the allegorical method
to the explanation of Scripture. Its thought was influenced by Plato: its strong point was
[pagan] theological speculations. Athanasius and the three Cappadocians [the men whose
Trinitarian views were adopted by the Catholic Church at the Councils of Nicaea and
Constantinople] had been included among its members.” — (Hubert Jedin, Ecumenical
Councils of the Catholic Church: an Historical Outline, 1960, p. 28)

 

[BradC]

Anyone who does not believe in the Trinity of God, as Father, Son and Holy Spirit is of the same spirit of anti Christ as any Muslim of Islam.

 

[prove-all]

Re: The power of God

The Power of God

15He hath made the earth (by his power), he hath established the world by his wisdom,
and hath stretched out the heaven by his understanding.

5I have made the earth, the man and the beast that are upon the ground, (by my great power)
and by my outstretched arm, (and have given it) (unto whom] it seemed meet unto me.

35And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee,
and (the power of the Highest) shall overshadow thee: therefore also
that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called (the Son of God).

-- the Holy Spirit is the very power of God

Behold my servant, whom I uphold; (mine elect), in whom my soul delighteth;
I have put (my spirit upon him): he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles.

15For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor
strong drink; and he shall be (filled with) the Holy Ghost, (even from his mother's womb).

34For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: (for God giveth)
(not the Spirit by measure) unto him.

-God gave Jesus His power, with no measure, even from the womb.

14 He shall glorify me: for he shall [receive] of mine, and shall [shew it] unto you.

23Turn you at my reproof: behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you,
I will make known my words unto you

5For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost
not many days hence.

-Our spiritual birth began with our minds being fertilized with a small portion of
God’s Holy Spirit upon repentance,baptism and the laying on of hands (Acts 2:38).

 

[jaybird88]

Anyone who does not believe in the Trinity of God, as Father, Son and Holy Spirit is of the same spirit of anti Christ as any Muslim of Islam.

wow! where does Jesus teach that?

 

[jaybird88]

Already know I'm going to be attacked for this so let me save you a few keystrokes cuz I already know what you're going to say. ... I'm speaking against the Word of God, I'm speaking heresy I'm going to be banned from the forum. And so on and so forth. Okay, now that we have dispensed with the self-righteous nonsense let me get to my point. I'm still on the fence about the Trinity although I have been told it all my life. I have never seen anywhere in the Bible where Jesus Christ asks to be worshipped he always tells us to worship the Father. When he was in the garden praying, was he praying to himself? I don't recall Jesus ever claiming divinity either. Is it even necessary for salvation to believe the Trinity?

i like what dude says "something i been told all my life" i think we should only believe what we read in the scripture and not base our beliefs on what people tell us.
i do not believe nor would i ever say the trinity is a false teaching, wrong or anything else. but like dude its something i dont fully understand. if someone doesnt get it, or they are "on the fence" about it, they should not be attacked, mocked and called names. i know that i love our Lord very much and i want my walk to be in truth. people searching should not feel like they are being forced to accept something that makes no sense to them, what good would that do.

 

[notuptome]

Who is the us?

Ge 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[prove-all]

Re: not Trinity hater

Who is the us?

Ge 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

the Word was [with] God
The same was in the beginning [with] God.

 

[williamjordan]

Re: not trinity hater, but truth seeker

The Origin of the Trinity Doctrine

It was about a century after Tertullian when Arianism began causing so
many disputes that Constantine convened the first ecumenical Council
in Church history to settle them.

Arius was an elder in the Alexandrian Church in the early fourth century
that taught Christ truly is the begotten Son of God and why God is called
His Father to state the obvious. A real Father and Son in other words.

Opposing the teachings of Arius was Athanasius, a deacon also from Alexandria.
His view was an early form of Trinitarianism where the Father, Son and Holy Spirit
are said to be all the same one god but distinct from each other making it impossible
for them to be a real Father and Son.

His view was a further but deteriorating change to what Tertullian believed with
the Holy Spirit not yet claimed to be a literal being. That came later.

Mainstream history states Arius taught Christ was created, but the Church burnt
what Arius believed and some historians claim they altered records and falsely
rumoured that he taught Christ was created in order to discredit him.

The Catholic Church is known for creating false historical records to their interpretation
of events to hide the real truth at times. Consider the following for instance.

The view of Athanasius was highly influenced by Origen who was a Greek philosopher
and theologian who reinterpreted Christian doctrine through the philosophy of Neoplatonism.

His work was later condemned as unorthodox. Origen taught the doctrine of Purgatory,
transubstantiation, transmigration and reincarnation of the soul, the Holy Spirit was
a feminine force, Jesus was only a created being, there would be no physical resurrection,
the creation account in Genesis is a fictitious story and is known to have publicly castrated
himself based on Matthew 19.


-

Arius on the other hand was a pupil of Lucian of Antioch. Lucian was responsible
for the work that gave us what is known as the Textus Receptus which was completed
by Erasmus, and is what gave us the trusted New Testament of the KJV Bible.

These and other facts reveal that Athanasius was influenced by Greek philosophy
and that Arius probably taught Biblical truth despite mainstream history.

Some believe Constantine was the first Christian Roman Emperor but he was actually
a sun worshiper who was baptized on his deathbed. During his reign he had his eldest
son and his wife murdered. His belief at best was a blend of paganism and Christianity
for political purposes, and so he neither cared nor really understood this dispute but was
just eager to bring the controversy to a close and keep unity in his empire.


When the bishops gathered at Nicea on May 20, 325 AD to resolve the crisis, very few
shared Athanasius's view of Christ as most held a position midway between Athanasius
and Arius. The religious debates lasted two months before the Council rejected the minority
view of Arius, but having no alternative, Constantine approved the view of Athanasius,
which was also a minority view. And so the Church was left supporting a belief held by
only a minority of those attending.

The Encyclopedia Britannica states: “Constantine himself presided, actively guiding
the discussions, and personally proposed ... the crucial formula expressing the relation
of Christ to God in the creed issued by the council ... Overawed by the emperor, the bishops,
with two exceptions only, signed the creed, many of them much against their inclination.”
— (1971 edition, Vol. 6, “Constantine,” p. 386)


Horrific religious persecution followed the decision made by Constantine who was
essentially a pagan Emperor who imposed an invented creed never preached by Jesus.

Constantine exiled those who refused to accept the creed as well as the bishops who
signed the creed but refused to join in condemnation of Arius. He also ordered all copies
of the Thalia to be burned, which was the book in which Arius expressed his teachings.
But several years later Constantine became lenient toward those he condemned and exiled
at the council and allowed them to return. In AD 335, they brought accusations against
Athanasius and so now Constantine had Athanasius banished! This was not about Biblical truth.

As a pagan sun worshipper, Constantine also enforced the first Sunday law just four years
earlier and hence played a major role in bringing two pagan traditions into the Church.

It was four hundred years after the cross when they formulated this creed that never existed
before hand, and so the Apostles and the early Church could never have taught it either.
See Encyclopedia Britannica and historical quotes.

Many of the Bishops who formulated the doctrine of the trinity were steeped in Greek
and Platonic philosophy, which influenced their religious views. In fact the language they
used in defining the trinity is taken directly from Platonic and Greek philosophy.

The Platonic term trias, meaning three, was Latinized as trinitas, which gave us the English
word trinity which is neither biblical nor Christian. As Bible scholars John McClintock and
James Strong (wrote the famous Strong's Concordance) explain, “Towards the end of the
1st century, and during the 2nd, many learned men came over both from Judaism and paganism
to Christianity. These brought with them into the Christian schools of theology their Platonic
ideas and phraseology.” — (Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature,
1891, Vol. 10, “Trinity,” p. 553)


So the trinity was not derived from scripture but was conceived in philosophy.
Greek philosophers were greatly influenced by Plato (427-347 BC) who was considered
the greatest of all Greek philosophers. Plato was ingrained with Trinitarian thought
and knew that all the ancient religions had triad deities, and so he desired to come up
with a better definition to define God above all the deities of Greek mythology.

Plato's definition of God was,
(1) The “first God,” who was the Supreme Being in the universe;
(2) the “second God,” whom Plato described as the “soul of the universe”; and
(3) the “third God,” defined as the “spirit.”

The Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria (15 BC-AD 50) who followed
Greek philosophy was influenced by Plato's version and saw God as,
(1) Father, who created all things (Philo named him “the Demiurge”),
(2) Mother, who was Knowledge the Maker possessed and
(3) the Beloved Son was the world. -Supposedly the union of demiurge and
knowledge produced man's world. This esoteric type of thinking is what led
to the birth and development of the trinity.


Notice how these quotes document a belief in a divine trinity in many regions and religions
of the ancient world and that the origin of the conception is entirely pagan. Egyptologist
Arthur Weigall summed up the influence of ancient beliefs on the adoption of the trinity
doctrine by the Catholic Church in this excerpt from his book Paganism in Our Christianity.


And so the Council of Nicea did not end the controversy and the bishops went on teaching as
they had before, and the Arian crisis continued for another sixty years. Athanasius was exiled
no fewer than five times and it was very difficult to make his creed stick. The ongoing disputes
were violent and bloody at times. Noted historian Will Durant writes,

“Probably more Christians were slaughtered by Christians in these two years (342-3)
than by all the persecutions of Christians by pagans in the history of Rome.” —
(The Story of Civilization, Vol. 4: The Age of Faith, 1950, p. 8). So Christians fought
and slaughtered one another over their differing views of God.


So after Constantine's death in 337 AD, disputes continued. Constantine's son
Constantius II favoured the Arians and set out to reverse the Nicene Creed.

Constantius used his power to exile bishops adhering to the Nicene Creed and especially
Athanasius who fled to Rome. The debates resulted in numerous councils. Among them
the Council of Sardica in 343 AD, the Council of Sirmium in 358 AD and the double Council
of Rimini and Seleucia in 359 AD, and no fewer than fourteen further creed formulas
between 340 and 360 AD.

After Constantius' death in 361 AD, his successor Julian, who was a devotee
of Rome's pagan gods, declared that he would no longer favor one Church
faction over another and allowed all exiled bishops to return, which resulted
in further increasing dissension among Christians.

The material posted by prove-all in this post is borrowed from Watchtower literature such as, "Should You Believe in the Trinity?" There's actually a lot of error to this, both factual and historical, which I will explain in my forthcoming post.

 

[mpaper345]

I do not look at it as a trinity,but the 3 relationships that God has with His children,designated by titles.

Father-God's parental role.

Son-God's visible relationship to the saints,and the way the saints will see God forever,which the throne in heaven,is the throne of both God,and the Lamb,God in the glorified body of His Son.

Holy Spirit-God's invisible relationship to the saints,that dwells in them.

The Bible states there is one God,the Father,who is above all,who is in all,and through all.

God said there was no God beside Him,He knows not any,and there was no God formed before Him,and no God shall be formed after Him.

I look at it as there is only one God,who is a Holy Spirit.Father is a title for God,and the Son,is the man Christ Jesus,which the Bible says the Son was made of a woman,made under the law,and made according to the flesh.

Luke said baptize in Jesus' name,and the name of the Father,Son,and Holy Ghost,is Jesus.In the Old Testament,God said He would reveal a new name to the Jews,and speak to them.Jesus said He came in His Father's name,and the Son inherited the name from the Father.Jesus said the Holy Spirit comes in the name of Jesus.The prophet Agur said that God,and His Son,would share the same name.

The Old Testament says the Son shall be called the everlasting Father,and Jesus said if you have seen Him,you have seen the Father,and it is the Father that dwells in Him that does the works.

The Bible says God calls things that have not happened,as though they already happened,which it says the Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world,although we know it did not happen until 4000 years later.The Son can exist in the beginning before He is born,because if it is a plan of God to happen in the future,is is the same as if it happened in the beginning.

The Old Testament says Adam was created in the image of God,and in the New it says Adam was created in the image of Christ.The image of God is the image of Christ.God had the plan to come in the future in flesh,and created Adam in the image,which the Word of God,is God revealing Himself in flesh.

Adam was created in the image of God,which is the image of Christ,so when the Bible says Let us make man in our image,the man Christ Jesus has to be there,so it is God,and the man Christ Jesus.

The Bible says Jesus sits at the right hand of God,but the Bible says there is only one throne in heaven,and one who sits on that throne,which is the throne of both God,and the Lamb.

The Bible says that the Son will sit at the right hand of God,until His enemies are conquered,so the Son sitting at the right hand of God is a temporary role.

The Bible says there is one God,and one mediator between God and men,the man Christ Jesus.The man Christ Jesus is our savior,for only a sinless man can reconcile mankind back to God.No man is sinless so God manifest Himself in the flesh,and reconciled mankind back to Himself,in the person of Jesus Christ,God,and man,in harmony.

Jesus being at the right hand of God means that God exalted the man Christ Jesus to exercise the throne of power,because He is the savior,and must rule until His enemies are conquered,and when His enemies are conquered,then the Son shall submit to God,which means He will stop exercising the throne of power,that God may be all in all.

I do not see a trinity,but one God with no distinction of persons,that created all things,which the Spirit moved to create,and manifest Himself in flesh,which Jesus was conceived of the Holy Spirit,and the Spirit dwells in the saints.

They say there is 3 persons in one God,so it would take all 3 to make one God,so they could not call them God individually,but then they say God the Father,God the Son,and God the Holy Spirit,saying there is 3 Gods.

If someone believes in a trinity,there is contradictions,but believe in one God,with no distinction of persons,and there is no contradictions.

Jesus said when He resurrects to heaven,for the disciples to ask Him nothing,but only ask the Father,but in another passage of scripture Jesus said when He resurrects to heaven,for the disciples to ask Him,and He will do it.

The Son will deliver up the kingdom to the Father,but in another passage of scripture Jesus will present the Church to Himself.

1Ti 6:13 I give thee charge in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and before Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession;
1Ti 6:14 That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukeable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ:
1Ti 6:15 Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords;
1Ti 6:16 Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.

 

[jaybird88]

Re: not trinity hater, but truth seeker

The material posted by prove-all in this post is borrowed from Watchtower literature such as, "Should You Believe in the Trinity?" There's actually a lot of error to this, both factual and historical, which I will explain in my forthcoming post.

are you saying all this is made up because some watch tower group has it on a website? with due respect most all this is historic fact taught in all history books.
if something is wrong why not prove it wrong with facts, scripture or logic. why say its wrong because jimmy down the road supports it and jimmy is an idiot because i say so. that make sense?

 

[john832]

Amen!..I fully 100% believe in the Trinity....One in purpose and nature and in union with each other....sharing mutual love and respect and oneness with each other..yet maintaining distinctiveness and yet being One.

Good for you, one question, if God is a trinity, three in one, Who died? And Who was around to resurrect Him?

A second question is why is the Holy Spirit not mentioned in the salutation in EVERY epistle? That would be quite a slam if the Holy Spirit were truly a person.

 

[BeyondET]

Good for you, one question, if God is a trinity, three in one, Who died? And Who was around to resurrect Him?

A second question is why is the Holy Spirit not mentioned in the salutation in EVERY epistle? That would be quite a slam if the Holy Spirit were truly a person.

Gods complete self could never fit in a human body he is too big to contain in one place. He give just a small portion of the whole of Himself. I have heard of the Godhead example people have spoke of, basically the brain/thought is God, the ears/eyes is the spirit, the mouth is the voice of Jesus, all part of the head but yet separate.

 

[john832]

Re: not trinity hater, but truth seeker

The material posted by prove-all in this post is borrowed from Watchtower literature such as, "Should You Believe in the Trinity?" There's actually a lot of error to this, both factual and historical, which I will explain in my forthcoming post.

Well, show us the error by scripture. Opinion does not impress me.