The burden of proof falls to you, then. Show where the scriptures explicitly speak of the Trinity and of its utmost importance to the faith.Scripture says it is so.
Christ, the apostles, and all of the early church actively devoted and risked their lives for the gospel. Multiple corresponding accounts were written to speak of the life, death, and teachings of Christ along with all the letters and revelation shared between the churches after that. They did all this to preserve these teachings and to share them with others that they might believe and be instructed in the faith. Do you really think it reasonable that they would leave out the - ostensibly - most important/core belief of the faith? Of course not - they would be very explicit about it, and it would be a recurring topic throughout the NT. Like love or Christ's sacrifice (aka, actual core beliefs of the faith).>> and especially if they held it to be of the utmost importance to the faith
What evidence do you have that they did not?
Incorrect; while the an argument from silence can be misapplied, there are valid cases for it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_silence#Convincing_applicationsArgument from silence is a logical fallacy.
It would be highly questionable for the "core" belief of Christianity to not be elucidated in detail by Christ and his followers throughout the NT in detail. Thus their silence on the matter, and the fact that they spend their time teaching other things, speaks volumes as to what they actually believed and thought important to share with others.
Every Trinitarian may say they agree with the above statements (for they are undeniably biblical), however they don't actually believe them. They cannot - for they are contradictory statements to the Trinity doctrine.>> Jesus is the Son of God in scripture, the mediator between God and man - the man Jesus Christ. He is at the right hand of God.
Which EVERY trinitarian believes. Duh.
A son is never the same being as the father. One necessarily comes before the other, for the father is the/a source of the son. The early church fathers recognized this basic truth. Tertullian (2nd/3rd century) wrote "There was a time when there was no Son and no sin, when God was neither Father nor Judge."
This statement is based upon the obvious fact that one is not a father until they have a son, nor can God serve as a Judge when there has been no wrong doing.
If you truly accepted what scripture says - that Jesus is the Son of God - then you would be forced to recognize that he is not God Almighty himself, for the relationship of father and son logically prohibits them from being one in the same being (though they maybe one in spirit/will/purpose/etc).
Similarly, it is completely contradictory to speak of Jesus being at the right hand of God and also being God. These are opposing ideas. So you can assert you believe them - but you are merely asserting contradicting beliefs; which is non-sense.
There is folly in refusing to accept the relationship that God and Christ have presented to us with respects to themselves: Father and Son. You would treat these as mere titles and refuse to accept the logical implications of that relationship - for it contradicts your Trinitarian beliefs.There's no folly in recognizing who God is.
Christ's message was one of love for all, repentance, and of obeying God's will. Christ served as a perfect example of how we ought to live and devote ourselves to God and to others. Through his sacrifice, the New Covenant was established by means of which all may be saved. None of this requires that he be God, nor does scripture ever assert that he needed to be God.Christ's entire message was centered around Himself. The only way that's not blasphemy is if He's God.
Scripture never asserts that God is TriuneOnly for unitarian entities, like humans.
However, God is TRIUNE, He is THREE PERSONS in ONE GODHEAD.
Whereas humans are one WHO, one WHAT.
Those scriptures in no way teach the Trinity at all; you are reading what you want into them. You also misunderstand forgiveness and Christ's sacrifice. Forgiveness is not someone else paying off your debt - it is the forgetting of that debt without it being paid.>> There's nothing to back that up
Particularly the Matthew passage. Here's why:
Jesus thrice asks His Father if there's any other way to save mankind from their sins, other than going to the cross, to let the cup of that trial pass from Him, but if not, then He would do His Father's will, that being going to the cross. We have the fact that He went to the cross to show that there was no other way other than Him going to the cross.
In the Psalm passage, we see that no man can redeem his brother from going to hell (the Pit), and in Romans Paul tells us that the wages of sin is death. Any man who sins must pay for his sins.
Any Savior who is going to save ALL mankind from going to Hell MUST be infinitely more valuable than all men who ever existed, and will exist, combined. Each individual man is already of infinite value. The only Being who is capable of satisfying that demand for justice is God Himself.
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." - John 3:16
Thus, God's Son must also be God in order to satisfy the demands of justice to pay for the sin of every man, while also being capable of not sinning, which would thereby annul His own value with His own sin.
Who you claim is the same being. It is obviously blasphemous and wrong to believe that God died. But you would have us believe that simply calling God something different makes it OK to believe.Because it IS heresy.
God the Father did not come down.
God the Son did.
According to the Trinity doctrine, they are equally God - one in the same God - the same being. Thus, yes, it is simply a different moniker. Either God died or he didn't. Or will you assert that only part of God died now?He's not a moniker.
He's a Person. A different Person than the Father is, while being the same Being.
Thus you show your lack of faith in God and Christ. Sin is always a decision. Christ's accomplishment is that he - a fellow man - faced all those same temptations that we all face and rose above them to serve God perfectly to the end. The Trinity doctrine makes a mockery of this - for if he is God then he cannot truly be tempted and there is no chance that he could sin and fall. You might as well be a Gnostic at that point, for you are teaching that Christ's perseverance and suffering were all theatrics.Because no human could ever do so, since we are all descendants of Adam, and have inherited his sinful nature. (NOTE: I'm not talking about the doctrine of Original Sin, here.)
As I said above: Had Christ sinned, He would have been unable to pay for ANY of mankind's sins, because His death would only satisfy the demands of justice for His own sin.
You are simply contradicting scripture - scripture does not speak of any exception to the fact that God cannot be tempted by evil. You are trying to inject your own ideas into scripture to protect your doctrine rather than face up to the fact that your doctrine is in conflict with the scriptures.There are two kinds of temptation. The first kind, the kind that Jesus experienced, was the option being presented to Him to sin, as a human, because He was probably really hungry at that point, and Satan proffered the idea to turn stone into bread so He could eat, etc.
The kind of temptation that James is talking about is when one actually considers acting on the option.
An "internal" vs "external" temptation, so to speak.
God cannot be tempted (internally) by evil, but He was tempted (externally) by Satan in the wilderness. Jesus was tempted, yet without sin. But He will never be tempted to commit sin.
Does that make sense?
Both are real temptations, but they're not quite the same thing.