Clearly, since the scriptures do not teach a trinity of gods, they all erred.
You erred because it is taught and they affirmed it!
Clearly, since the scriptures do not teach a trinity of gods, they all erred.
You erred because it is taught and they affirmed it!
They can affirm whatever they want, God does not affirm a trinity.
Clearly, since the scriptures do not teach a trinity of gods, they all erred.
You erred because it is taught and they affirmed it!
You erred because it is taught and they affirmed it!
Clearly, someone doesn't know the specifics of what they're arguing against.
Careful, what Oatmeal is saying is a straw-man argument, "trinity of gods," NOT "Trinity, 3 persons, one God."
You bring up an interesting point.
Years ago, I made the very same point you are making, that is, what is the definition of the trinity?
It may have been over the course of several months that I persisted to request, ask , from trinitarians, any trinitarian for a definition of the trinity.
After what seemed like several months, I think I received only one reply
With all the trinitarians that are members on this website, I would have thought that most trinitarians would be able to define what they believe the trinity is.
Alas, I was wrong, most trinitarians cannot or refuse to define what the trinity is.
Say, in 25-50 words, please define what the trinity is.
Then and only then can we discuss with any semblance of intelligent, scriptural dialogue the status of the trinity in scripture.
Why are trinitarians reluctant to define the trinity?
Trinity: Also called Blessed Trinity, Holy Trinity. the union of three persons (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost) in one Godhead, or the threefold personality of the one Divine Being.
Years later, I get a second response.
Please define persons, Father, Son, Holy Ghost, threefold, personality from the scriptures. Please show where God refers to himself using "threefold" "personality" and "the one Divine being" or trinity, triune, etc.?
This should be easy for a trinitarian scholar who uses the scripture for the sole evidence for his beliefs.
Please remember Jesus Christ is coming back to gather us together, I Thessalonians 4:13-17, so please be mindful of that.
If you believe that God is everywhere present please explain why Jesus Christ will have to return if he already here
Persons: That having personality.
Genesis 1:26 Christian Standard Bible (CSB)
26 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness. They will rule the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, the livestock, the whole earth, and the creatures that crawl on the earth.”
Matthew gives reference to the Trinity:
Matthew 28:19 Christian Standard Bible (CSB)
19 Go, therefore, and make disciples of[a] all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
In your definition I find no mention of the terms equal or co-equal, is the idea of equality among those persons not a part of your definition?
If no, why not? Equality is a popular topic in the discussion of the three persons
Oh, by the way, you have not answered my question about I Timothy 2:5.
Did you forget?
Maybe you had not considered that verse and its implications. very few trinitarians seem to notice that verse.
Could you also define "god" or "God" Theos, Elohim, El, etc. that would fit all the uses of those words in scripture.
Ie, a general definition that fits all of its differing uses including those where God refers to men as gods, You should know which verses those are.
In spite of being proven wrong.I stand by my statement that you quoted, for there is no scriptural evidence for a trinity of gods.
Without any evidence whatsoever.There is sufficient evidence to conclude that the God breathed word has been tampered with by trinitarian scribes and adherents.
Not only in I John 5 but in Matthew and and I Timothy 3:16
If you choose to ignore the evidence, that is your choice and your loss
Reading Genesis 1:26, why would you need to express equality. It is understood if you understand the context. I did not ignore 1 Tim. 2:5, it just doesn't apply. Jesus is only part of the Trinity.
In spite of being proven wrong.
Without any evidence whatsoever.
I have offered a direct argument that specifically addresses your position. You crossing your arms and declaring that you stand by you positon does exactly nothing to refute that argument. In fact, it is worse than that because you refuse to even engage the debate at all. It's as if you think that because you showed up here and declared you position that it is therefore true and unassailable.
That isn't the way it works. Sorry, but it just isn't.
Are you a Jehovah's Witness?
It depends on what you mean by proven.Since you wish to set the standard, please show me how you have proven your case.
I wouldn't ever grant you the intellectual ground that would be required for me to even broach that subject.Did you offer any scriptural evidence that all translations and versions are as perfect and pure as when God moved the holy men of God to speak it forth?
This is called moving the goal posts. It's only done by someone who has lost the debate.II Peter 1:21
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
Are you suggesting that there is not one copier error, not one transnational error, not one interpretation of scripture in all the differing versions of the God breathed word even in all the languages that it is translated into? Are you suggesting that not one iota of meaning or depth of meaning has been lost in all the different manuscripts, texts and versions that man has produced?
Please prove that all versions and texts and manuscripts say exactly the same thing in every verse in comparison to the God breathed scripture.
You bring up an interesting point.
Years ago, I made the very same point you are making, that is, what is the definition of the trinity?
It may have been over the course of several months that I persisted to request, ask , from trinitarians, any trinitarian for a definition of the trinity.
After what seemed like several months, I think I received only one reply
With all the trinitarians that are members on this website, I would have thought that most trinitarians would be able to define what they believe the trinity is.
Alas, I was wrong, most trinitarians cannot or refuse to define what the trinity is.
Say, in 25-50 words, please define what the trinity is.
Then and only then can we discuss with any semblance of intelligent, scriptural dialogue the status of the trinity in scripture.
Why are trinitarians reluctant to define the trinity?
I would have thought that most trinitarians would be able to define what they believe the trinity is.
It depends on what you mean by proven.
What I've done is present an argument that I have no evidence that you've even read. If you have read it, you are either unwilling or unable to respond to it, nevermind refute it.
In other words, the burden of proof is on you, not me. The fact is that the Johannine Comma is in the bible. If you want it removed, it is on you to demonstrate why. My argument proves that demonstrating such is not possible.(It isn't actually "my argument". I've merely presented someone else's work.)
I wouldn't ever grant you the intellectual ground that would be required for me to even broach that subject.
In other words, it isn't relevant. My argument has to do with whether the Johannine Comma is a valid part of the bible.
This is called moving the goal posts. It's only done by someone who has lost the debate.
I notice that there is no answer to the single most important question I asked. I'll give you one single more opportunity to answer it...
Are you a Jehovah's Witness?
ANYTHING other than a straight forward, unambiguous denial will be considered an answer in the affirmative and will end this discussion. I DO NOT DISCUSS ANYTHING WITH CULTISTS.
Clete
According to EW Bullinger, a trinitarian, in his Companion Bible, "The texts read, "the Spirit and the water", and c., omitting all the words from "in heaven" to "in earth" (v.8) inclusive. The words are not found in any Gr. MS. before the sixteenth century. They are first seen in the margin of some Latin copies. Thence they have crept into the text."
You will conclude whatever you want to from that, but for me, it is clear that people have tampered with the God breathed Word.