Problems with the Trinity.

[Idolater]

. . . I'm pretty close to completely renouncing the Trinity.

It's Catholic in its origin. That's all you have to do to scare away anybody here, they all run for the hills when there's anything Catholic nearby. All you have to do is show incontrovertibly that the Trinity originated with the Catholic Church, and you won't have anyone arguing against you because of the Puritan streak on this site. No one will defend "Catholic dogma". They'll feel dirty doing it, and if they feel that they must do it anyway, they'll be quick about it, to minimize the unsightly nature of doing the thing.

As long as you don't have any allegiance to the Catholic Church you shouldn't have any problem yourself dropping any potential Catholic contamination out from your ideas.

The reason I'm mentioning it is because in another thread we were remembering AMR. I once posed the question to him, What's the difference between the Catholic teaching on the Trinity, and his Reformed or Calvinist conception, and he said they were exactly the same, so right there you have it on good authority that probably the most intelligent and credentialed theology contributor here over all these years confirmed that the "Catholic" Trinity and AMR's Trinity are the exact same Trinity, and we know which one of those came first on the historical timeline, and it wasn't Calvinism, but it was Catholicism.

And just so you know, it might occur, that someone will say something about the Orthodox conception of the Trinity, one that differs seemingly in a single small way. It's a distraction, because while the Orthodox recite "one, holy, Catholic Church," the Orthodox themselves are multiple churches, and not "one" church. The Catholic Church is one church.

 

[clefty]

And just so you know, it might occur, that someone will say something about the Orthodox conception of the Trinity,

That’s me! That’s me! I did that...thanks for noticing...

one that differs seemingly in a single small way.

seemingly in a single small way? Ha...devil is in the details of this too...not just the whole thingy

has divided Christendom for centuries now...much blood lost over it...Fourth Crusade “accidents” everywhere...so too the northern crusades...Alas the orthodox throughout Middle East/Africa...

Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius...or something...

all this perhaps another good thread?

It's a distraction,

well it remains and does divide...I mean it is a CREED right?...”Filioque”...I mean It proceeds from the Son the Holy Spirit does NOT the Creed itself...

Well I do hope they can resolve their Trinity its Filioque a mystery...

because while the Orthodox recite "one, holy, Catholic Church," the Orthodox themselves are multiple churches, and not "one" church. The Catholic Church is one church.

Welll...six rites in 24 churches...but whose counting?...not silly protestants

But again...thanks for noticing...

 

[clefty]

Without or without two links or two degrees. I'm out.

And with that he takes his ball and runs home...

I wish throughout history the majority view would have quit too and “I’m out” instead of persecuting and killing any dissent...

why so threatened by a minority stance?

but then I image there’d be a different outcome too...

I, even I, am the LORD, And besides Me there is no savior. Isaiah 43:11

HalleluYah

 

[Hilltrot]

But, the fact is, you don't consider yourself to be a Christian. Insofar as you don't consider yourself to be a Trinitarian, you don't consider yourself to be a Christian.

You're equating Trinitarian with Christian the same way a Roman Catholic equates Catholic with Christian. One of major problems with your argument here is that so far you are the only one who has felt fully comfortable with the Trinity. Even Lon has to modify his speech to say "Triune God" instead of Trinity.

Since every Christian is a Trinitarian; since every Trinitarian is a Christian; since no non-, or anti-Trinitarian is a Christian; since every non-, or anti-Trinitarian is a non-Christian; and since you are an anti-Trinitarian, you are not a Christian.

A circular argument.

You obviously do not consider yourself to be a Christian; rather, you consider yourself to be a non-Trinitarian. If you considered yourself to be a Christian, then you'd consider yourself to be a Trinitarian, and to not be a non-Trinitarian.

This is a straw man argument.

Ask yourself: "Do I consider myself to be a non-, or anti-Trinitarian?"

If your answer to this question is Yes, that is nothing other than you considering yourself to be a non-, or anti-Christian.

Answering questions where an anonymous person arbitrarily decides definitions would be foolish.

I have pretty much avoided term Trinity for quite some time now. I would say I have been avoiding it for at least a decade. When TrumpGirl started talking about Mary, mother of God, I decided to deny the term directly in that post instead of just avoiding it.

In another forum, I was speaking with a Calvinist and in the argument, he replied in with the statement 'Jesus was fully man and fully God.' The Calvinist used it to indicate that Jesus was not human like the rest of us. I was going to point out that the Bible presents Jesus as far more human than God.

Before I posted, I stopped. I really noticed how Jesus = God was found only through the same eisegesis process which Augustine-based predestination was found. The similarity in the manner in which both were pushed into the Bible surprised me.

I started with John and after clearing my mind and reading it without the presupposition that Jesus was God, I found that not only did the passages more clearly demonstrate that Jesus was not God, passages which were confusing before became less so.

That's when I posted this Sunday. I was hoping to get some actual decent refutation of this idea or at least a fully coherent explanation which might make me think again or perhaps someone would point out something I would completely miss. Instead, I have gotten lazy responses and condemnations.

A large amount of things are still unanswered as this change basically requires me to reread of the entire Bible and to examine of how this revelation changes many aspects of my theology. For example, I still have no answer to the Holy Spirit, I think I'm keeping amillennialism but the details change, etc.

You are posting in the wrong section.

I already succeeded in refuting this argument elsewhere.

 

[Hilltrot]

Right here, you immediately give away that you're one more lying, self-righteous anti-Christ. It's hilarious that you just said that you are murderous, but that you're "on the cusp" of not being murderous.

Very Funny. First, I said most - not all. And murderous refers not just to people but ideas as well. I have mentioned before that I still have to reconcile the rest of the Bible. If I find something wrong while doing this, I will rethink my position.

Elementary Christian truth you point out, non-Christian.

A good video is the 99-1 rule by David Wood.

If by "questions it", you mean "publicly airs dissent from it", or "tries to get others to dissent from it", you've got that correct! Good riddance to wolves.

Denying Jesus is God was never a criteria used by the Apostles to eject Christians. That didn't happen until the fourth century.

Wait, so you're saying that the Trinity is something Muslims "can discuss in churches"?

You've never invited non-Christians to church? No need to make an altar call - everyone is already Christian.

That was your complaint, no? That one can't "discuss" the Trinity "in churches", unless one affirms the Trinity. So, here, you're complaining because you, an anti-Trinitarian, can't "discuss" the Trinity "in churches", because you don't affirm the Trinity, but Muslims can "discuss" the Trinity "in churches"?

I'm not complaining. I'm just stating facts and the giving the reason why I'm going to an online forum to discuss this. I've seen many who voice opinions opposing the Trinity and get away with it by stating they believe in the Trinity.

Similar in open theism. Writers who have voiced clearly open theist views have gotten away with it by adding to the end the book, "I'm not an open theist."

Renouncing the Trinity again? You already renounced the Trinity, in the first paragraph of your thread-starting post, you arrogant, self-righteous anti-Christ. It was no Trinitarian who wrote your thread-starting post.

You're projecting. John clearly identified Anti-Christs as those who deny Jesus was human.

 

[7djengo7]

You're equating Trinitarian with Christian

What (if anything) do you mean? Are you saying that I'm "equating" the word, "Trinitarian", with the word "Christian"? If so, what (if anything) do you mean by saying that I'm "equating" the two words?

Every Christian is a Trinitarian; no Christian is a non-Trinitarian. Every Trinitarian is a Christian; no non-Trinitarian is a Christian. "Non-Trinitarian Christian" is an oxymoron.

A circular argument.

Oh? Then you'd better go ahead and try to lay out the premise(s) and the conclusion of what (if anything) you are calling "a circular argument", here.

And then, you'd better go ahead and try to explain what (if anything) you mean by calling it "circular".

Of course, any parrot could be trained to just react to something by saying a phrase like, "a circular argument". But you're not just a parrot, right? So, let's see the premise(s) and the conclusion what make up what you are calling "a circular argument".

This is a straw man argument.

What, exactly, are you calling "a straw man argument"? Again, since every argument has one or more premises, and has one conclusion, then go ahead and try to lay out the premise(s) and the conclusion of what (if anything) you are, here, calling "a straw man argument".

Answering questions where an anonymous person arbitrarily decides definitions would be foolish.

By "decide definitions", what do you mean, if not "affirm that ______ is ______"?

Give a couple examples of you "deciding definitions", so that, perhaps, I can come to understand what (if anything) you mean by "decide definitions".

Then, give a couple examples of you doing what you would call "arbitrarily deciding definitions", and a couple examples of you doing what you would call "non-arbitrarily deciding definitions".

I have pretty much avoided [sic] term Trinity for quite some time now. I would say I have been avoiding it for at least a decade.

Why?

And why have you, of late, stopped avoiding it? For instance, just now, by saying "I have pretty much avoided the term Trinity", you failed to avoid the term, 'Trinity'.

I already succeeded in refuting this argument elsewhere.

"this argument"?

I do not know to what (if anything) you are referring by your phrase, "this argument". Once again, please do try to lay out the premise(s) and the conclusion of what (if anything) you are calling "this argument", since every argument consists of a conclusion, and one, or more, premises.

All I said (to which you reacted by saying, "I already succeeded in refuting this argument") was, "You are posting in the wrong section." Is it that single proposition what you are calling "this argument"? Or, are you saying that that single proposition, "You are posting in the wrong section", is a premise, or a conclusion, or both, of some argument you are referring to as "this argument"?

I want to know exactly what (if anything) it is that you are saying you "refuted".

 

[Hilltrot]

What (if anything) do you mean? Are you saying that I'm "equating" the word, "Trinitarian", with the word "Christian"? If so, what (if anything) do you mean by saying that I'm "equating" the two words?

Every Christian is a Trinitarian; no Christian is a non-Trinitarian. Every Trinitarian is a Christian; no non-Trinitarian is a Christian. "Non-Trinitarian Christian" is an oxymoron.

Oh? Then you'd better go ahead and try to lay out the premise(s) and the conclusion of what (if anything) you are calling "a circular argument", here.

And then, you'd better go ahead and try to explain what (if anything) you mean by calling it "circular".

Of course, any parrot could be trained to just react to something by saying a phrase like, "a circular argument". But you're not just a parrot, right? So, let's see the premise(s) and the conclusion what make up what you are calling "a circular argument".

What, exactly, are you calling "a straw man argument"? Again, since every argument has one or more premises, and has one conclusion, then go ahead and try to lay out the premise(s) and the conclusion of what (if anything) you are, here, calling "a straw man argument".

By "decide definitions", what do you mean, if not "affirm that ______ is ______"?

Give a couple examples of you "deciding definitions", so that, perhaps, I can come to understand what (if anything) you mean by "decide definitions".

Then, give a couple examples of you doing what you would call "arbitrarily deciding definitions", and a couple examples of you doing what you would call "non-arbitrarily deciding definitions".

Why?

And why have you, of late, stopped avoiding it? For instance, just now, by saying "I have pretty much avoided the term Trinity", you failed to avoid the term, 'Trinity'.

"this argument"?

I do not know to what (if anything) you are referring by your phrase, "this argument". Once again, please do try to lay out the premise(s) and the conclusion of what (if anything) you are calling "this argument", since every argument consists of a conclusion, and one, or more, premises.

All I said (to which you reacted by saying, "I already succeeded in refuting this argument") was, "You are posting in the wrong section." Is it that single proposition what you are calling "this argument"? Or, are you saying that that single proposition, "You are posting in the wrong section", is a premise, or a conclusion, or both, of some argument you are referring to as "this argument"?

I want to know exactly what (if anything) it is that you are saying you "refuted".

If you have some evidence for the Trinity or that Jesus is God, You're more than welcome to present it.

 

[God's Truth]

If you have some evidence for the Trinity or that Jesus is God, You're more than welcome to present it.

I have many of those scriptures, but you would rather limit your discussion to those who don't have knowledge than to talk to me.

Hiltrot: I will talk to those who don't know anything like me.

 

[Hilltrot]

I have many of those scriptures, but you would rather limit your discussion to those who don't have knowledge than to talk to me.

Hiltrot: I will talk to those who don't know anything like me.

I believe I've responded to all of your questions but if I missed something, please point it out.

I am open to reading and examining any scripture which you provide and a full explanation of how you read that scripture would also be appreciated.

I won't say that I will necessarily change my mind to your viewpoint, but I am more than willing to learn what your view is.

 

[God's Truth]

I believe I've responded to all of your questions but if I missed something, please point it out.

I am open to reading and examining any scripture which you provide and a full explanation of how you read that scripture would also be appreciated.

I won't say that I will necessarily change my mind to your viewpoint, but I am more than willing to learn what your view is.

I've made posts to you that you have ignored.

You and the trinitarians deserve each other.

 

[7djengo7]

Very Funny. First, I said most - not all.

So, every Trinitarian besides you, when you were a Trinitarian, was murderous--so not all, but most Trinitarians were, then, murderous. Let me guess: Now that you are not a Trinitarian, ALL Trinitarians are murderous?

And murderous refers not just to people but ideas as well.

Ideas murder?

Denying Jesus is God was never a criteria used by the Apostles to eject Christians.

No Christians have ever denied Jesus is God the Son.
All Christians deny that Jesus is God the Father.

I've seen many who voice opinions opposing the Trinity and get away with it by stating they believe in the Trinity.

Do you consider people who oppose the Trinity to be Trinitarians? As far as I can tell, the appropriate term for those who oppose the Trinity is not 'Trinitarian', but is, rather, 'anti-Trinitarian'. Do you disagree?

If you can see someone opposing the Trinity, and yet he/she tells you he/she believes in the Trinity--that he/she is a Trinitarian--would you call him/her a Trinitarian? Or, instead, would you call him/her a non-Trinitarian? Which?

You're projecting. John clearly identified Anti-Christs as those who deny Jesus was human.

Deny Jesus was human when? Of course Jesus was not human prior to His conception in Mary's womb. Every Christian would deny that Jesus was human at the time, say, when Solomon was building the temple in Jerusalem, or at the time when the Judges ruled Israel, or at the time when Noah was building the ark. Jesus, the Son of God--God the Son--became a man. Jesus, at a definite point in time, in history, became flesh, and dwelt among men. But Jesus was not human before that--Jesus was not human before He became human.

Where does John say anything about "those who deny Jesus was human"? If you're thinking of 2 John 1:7, why then, there, we do not read about "those who deny Jesus was human"; rather, we read about those "who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh".

Why don't you, though, give us some examples of what (if anything) you mean by "those who deny Jesus was human". Name some names. No Trinitarian--that is to say, no Christian--denies that Jesus was human AFTER He was conceived in Mary's womb.

 

[7djengo7]

If you have some evidence for the Trinity or that Jesus is God, You're more than welcome to present it.

When you say you do not believe that "Jesus is God", to whom are you referring by the word, "God"?

 

[Hilltrot]

I've made posts to you that you have ignored.

You and the trinitarians deserve each other.

I have not answered a lot of posts on this forum.

It is not personal and I am spending a lot of time studying and examining the cases. In some cases I felt as though you were simply making a statement and did not want me to respond.

I just went back over all of your comments and still have no clue what you want me to respond to.

All I have from your beliefs is that Jesus, the Father and the Holy Spirit are one. The Father sent his Spirit to impregnate Mary.

I probably have gotten your beliefs wrong, but you haven't given me much to work with. All I can say is "Great! Tell me more!"

 

[Hilltrot]

When you say you do not believe that "Jesus is God", to whom are you referring by the word, "God"?

Good question!

Whenever God is referenced in the Bible except for cases where it is referring to "little g" gods, it refers to God of Abraham. When the Father is mentioned, it refers to the same God of Abraham.

In the Bible, Jesus is referred to as Son of Man, unique Son of God, Messiah, lord, king, rabbi, Christ, Savior, and prophet. God gave Jesus spirit without limit. For this reason, Jesus speaks God's words. Jesus has revealed God to the world. However, Jesus is not God.

 

[God's Truth]

I have not answered a lot of posts on this forum.

It is not personal and I am spending a lot of time studying and examining the cases. In some cases I felt as though you were simply making a statement and did not want me to respond.

I just went back over all of your comments and still have no clue what you want me to respond to.

All I have from your beliefs is that Jesus, the Father and the Holy Spirit are one. The Father sent his Spirit to impregnate Mary.

I probably have gotten your beliefs wrong, but you haven't given me much to work with. All I can say is "Great! Tell me more!"

Well why didn't you say that before then? Really only thing you did was insult my beliefs and then jump into an argument with the trinitarians.

As for the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit being one that is what the Bible says. As for the Father sending His Spirit to impregnate Mary, He did that is what the Bible says.

 

[clefty]

Good question!

glad you enjoy them as much as I do...

God gave Jesus spirit without limit. For this reason, Jesus speaks God's words. Jesus has revealed God to the world. However, Jesus is not God.

Might I ask you: given that the donkey received His Spirit to speak truth to Balaam what do you suppose might have happened had the Spirit NOT been withdrawn from the donkey?

Please recall what occured when the Spirit was withdrawn from the bronze serpent after its unique mission was fulfilled...

When the Glory departed the first temple Ezekiel 11

When the Spirit left Israel as prophecied Deut 31:17-18 Hosea 9:12

But what if the Spirit had NOT departed?

 

[Hilltrot]

glad you enjoy them as much as I do...

Might I ask you: given that the donkey received His Spirit to speak truth to Balaam what do you suppose might have happened had the Spirit NOT been withdrawn from the donkey?

Bible doesn't say that.

Please recall what occured when the Spirit was withdrawn from the bronze serpent after its unique mission was fulfilled...

Bible doesn't say that.

When the Spirit left Israel as prophecied Deut 31:17-18 Hosea 9:12

You might interpret it that way but these passages do not mention the spirit.

When the Glory departed the first temple Ezekiel 11

But what if the Spirit had NOT departed?

I would say you're using eisegesis.

 

[God's Truth]

Hilltrot

The Bible says Jesus is God.

Isaiah 42:8 I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.


Jesus is the glory of God and must be God because God does not give His glory to another.


2 Peter 1:17 For He received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to Him from the Majestic Glory, saying, "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."


..............................


There is only one God from whom all things came and for whom we live and who is in all, and that is Jesus and the Father who are one and the same.


1 Corinthians 8:6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father,from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

Ephesians 4:6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.


John 1:3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

John 14:23 Jesus replied, "Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them.

Romans 8:9 You, however, are controlled not by the flesh, but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ.


------------------------------


This scripture says Jesus is the Lord who was and is and is to come, and this scripture says it is God Almighty.

Revelation 4:8 And each of the four living creatures had six wings and was covered with eyes all around and within. Day and night they never stop saying: "Holy, Holy, Holy, is the Lord God Almighty, who was and is and is to come!"


-------------------------------

Jesus is the Word of God and was God.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John 1:14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.


Cont.

 

[clefty]

Bible does not say

Sigh...disappointing...

you still seem defensive...remember I am a friendly...and just want to explore your stance of:

“Yah gave Yahushua spirit WITHOUT LIMIT” and yet “Yahushua is NOT Yah”

...is why I use proper names as they better clarify the issue...

the Holy Spirit having NO proper name...

critical key...for me...the trinity...to flee...ha

So hope you do consider these questions...

Bible doesn't say that.

Right but:

Numbers 21:28 “Then the Lord opened the donkey’s mouth, and it said to Balaam, “What have I done to you to make you beat me these three times?”

31 “Then the Lord opened Balaam’s eyes”

Can we at least agree these “openings” were done by the Spirit and NOT biological or otherwise physical?

And if so did the Spirit remain or without limit in either? Or was it withdrawn?

My question remains: what if the Spirit was NOT withdrawn?

And of course what are subsequent results...yes or no...

Bible doesn't say that.

Say what? What happened to the bronze serpent? Well incense was burned to it up until Hezekiah broke it apart 2 Kings 18:4 AND GAVE IT A NAME...Nehushtan...interesting how things worshipped are NAMED right?

So for about 750 years this bronze serpent was WITHOUT the healing Spirit and yet worshipped...finally broken down as an idol BECAUSE the Spirit had left it LONG ago...it was NOT given without limit...

But what if the Spirit HAD been given to it without limit?

You might interpret it that way but these passages do not mention the spirit.

Deut 31:17-18 He hid His Face...being a Spirit...as Yah is Spirit hiding His face is understood the Spirit was withdrawn yes?...Hosea 9:12 makes clear “I depart” so as Spirit Yah departs...as Yah is Spirit agreeable?

But what if Yah the Spirit had NOT departed?

I would say you're using eisegesis.

well if Yah is Spirit...

What if He had NOT departed the Temple?

In fact there was no Spirit in the Second Temple yes? No shekinah glory...is why they wept remembering the old...and It ONLY returned when baby Yahushua was brought to it...

1 Macc 9:27 has the Spirit its prophecy ceased after Malachi and only an “echo” or “Bat Kol” or “daughter of the voice” remained...Dan 4:31 an example of it...

And of course the gospels pick up on this voice from heaven at the time of Yahushua’s baptism...and Transfiguration...

But what if the Spirit of Yah HAD been poured out without limits?

Oh and even the ark of the covenant was used as a weapon for temporal power by Israel as it contained the Spirit...

Imagine if the Spirit was poured into it WITHOUT LIMIT...

How many Europeans and now Americans have DIED on crusade thinking the land over there still has a holiness that was poured out on to it...WITHOUT LIMIT...

 

[God's Truth]

The true God and eternal life is Jesus and the Father, one and the same God.


1 John 5:20 And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.

John 14:6 Jesus answered, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.

1 John 5:11 And this is that testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son.

1 John 5:13 I have written these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life.

1 John 1:2 And this is the life that was revealed; we have seen it and testified to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life that was with the Father and was revealed to us.

John 10:28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand.

John 6:54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.


John 6:40 For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.”

----------------------------------


Whose hands were pierced?


Psalms 22:16 KJV For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.

Zechariah 12:9-10 KJV And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem.
And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: andthey shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.

Revelation 1:7-8 KJV Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, andthey also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.


John 10:28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all ; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. 30 I and the Father are one.”


Jesus is God the Father come as a man in the flesh.