The Trinity

The Trinity


  • Total voters
    121

Bright Raven

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I was a Trin believer till I saw the errors in it.

Why do you not see the truth?

Yes, I see the truth which you left.

Hebrews 6:4-6American Standard Version (ASV)

4 For as touching those who were once enlightened and tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5 and tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the age to come, 6 and then fell away, it is impossible to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.
 

keypurr

Well-known member
Actually, it does...

Gen 1.26 - 27

And God said, let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the creepers creeping on the earth. And God created (bara) the man in His own image; in the image of God He created (bara)him. He created (bara) them male and female.

This Gen 1 passage informs the reader that our Creator God is plural, via the usage of ‘us’ and ‘our’…repeated three times.

Immediately after this declaration, the creative verb ‘bara’(used only by God) is utilized in three successive acts of creation, when once should have sufficed. Another clear indicator of The Triune Creator.

Nope, this does not support the Trinity.

God's first creation was his express image. God created all through this image. The we/us/our in Genesis is the Father and his son.
 

Rosenritter

New member
Not sure if someone has asked. Have you given a brief doctrinal statement as yet? Mormon? Trinitarian with reservation? Modalist? Unit-arian or some variance? Thanks.
I believe that I have stated that I believe all things that are written in the law and the prophets. I don't claim a creed.

I know little about Mormonism other than it has some overlap with Masonry and Magic.

I had thought until recently (until this last couple weeks) that Trinitarianism was just a fuzzy sometimes three but really One view, a type of cognitive dissonance, but as everyone is arguing here I now see it's really a full blown unapologetic polytheism.

I had one time that I spent a couple weeks just to review my view on this subject by scripture. I had previously had a polytheistic view, like the Trinity folks here express, excepting I believed in two Gods called God, rather than three. I considered that I could be wrong and tried to start from scratch, wanted to give this "Trinity" idea a fair shot. But first I tossed out all preconception (or tried to) and decided to prove whether Jesus was God.

Jesus did turn out to be God. But I also proved more than I intended, because as I read enough scripture Jesus also is revealed to be the same God as appears everywhere else in scripture.

I spent some time with 1 John 5:7 whereas previously I had counted it as a forgery. It finally made sense when I started to read it it was actually written, not as it is typically misquoted. Everything finally clicked into place without loose ends and I wrote to my Trinitarian friend to tell him that I finally understood Trinity and it had built itself up from scripture only.

After listening to me my friend told me that what I had described was not actually Trinity but called Modalism. I tried to look up what that was but mainly just found people condemning it as heresy without being able to say what was wrong with it. Read Tertullian's rant against Praxaes and realized that Tertullian sounded like an illogical raging man and that even from the hostile description given Praxaes sounded to be in agreement with scripture. Wish I had been able to see what Praxaes had written but we cannot. I would even say it is extremely likely that Tertullian misrepresented his opponent.

I did discuss the nature of Christ with a Biblical Unitarian friend. He had debated with Trinitarians before and they had not been able to prove in his mind that Jesus was God. We spent about four months with massive mails back and forth until he admitted that he had seen persuaded two months before. He said that his conclusion was that "biblical unitarianism isn't very biblical."

As for my statement, I am content to believe what the Bible says. I will not profess a manmade creed to evade persecution. That would be akin to idolatry.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lon

marhig

New member
I have already explained it to you in a way that even a child understands.

Yes you have, over and over. But I'm not asking you to explain it to me, I know what you believe, And I keep saying I believe in the blood, but not as you do! I've been asking you to show me where in the Bible it says this, but you haven't! Where is the scripture that says what you have been saying below?

the Holy Spirit cannot help you for He only works within the confines of the finished legal work of the Cross of Calvary for Christ

Or that you have to have faith in the death of Jesus on the cross be saved?

To me, it says in the Bible that we are saved by the grace of God through faith. And that internal life is to know the only true God and Jesus Christ whom he has sent!

And I have complete faith in Jesus Christ and the father. And I know the only true God and Jesus Christ whom he has sent. Yet you tell me I've got no hope unless i believe as you do?

Can you back it up with scripture, that i won't be saved unless i believe in the death of Jesus on the cross, or that the Holy Spirit cannot help me for he only works within the confines of the finished legal work of the Cross of Calvary for Christ. Written like that, I already believe in the verses that speak about the blood, so I don't need read them all again, I'm not talking about the blood but being saved or receiving the holy spirit by believing and having faith in the death of Jesus on the cross. Thanks
 

lifeisgood

New member
Yes you have, over and over. But I'm not asking you to explain it to me, I know what you believe, And I keep saying I believe in the blood, but not as you do! I've been asking you to show me where in the Bible it says this, but you haven't! Where is the scripture that says what you have been saying below?

It is not my opinion, marhig. I have given you Scripture and you openly REJECTED them, saying that that is not what the verses say because you, marhig, do not agree with the Bible. There is nothing else I can do if you reject what the Bible says.

Or that you have to have faith in the death of Jesus on the cross be saved?

You do not believe in Him and His shed BLOOD at the Cross of Calvary which is what rent the veil of separation between you and God, there is nothing else to save you being that you reject the BLOOD.

Remember the ones who say to Christ Jesus, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?' I think that is found in Mark 7.

Notice, how they called Christ Jesus, ‘Lord, Lord’? But Christ Jesus said, ‘I never knew you’.

You cannot separate Christ Jesus from His legal work finished on the Cross of Calvary. If you get Jesus wrong, it matters not what else you get right. You, marhig, got Jesus wrong.

I, lifeisgood, do not have the power, nor want the power, to convince you of anything. That is between you and God.

To me, it says in the Bible that we are saved by the grace of God through faith. And that internal life is to know the only true God and Jesus Christ whom he has sent!

What rent the veil of separation between you and God, marhig? When did Jesus say 'It is finished'? At the Incarnation? While performing miracles? How about when He was healing? When He was preaching?

When you answer that, you will have found what rent the veil of separation between you and God --- it is Christ Jesus and His precious BLOOD shed on the Cross of Calvary.

I, lifeisgood, do not have the power, nor want the power, to convince you of anything. That is between you and God.

And I have complete faith in Jesus Christ and the father. And I know the only true God and Jesus Christ whom he has sent. Yet you tell me I've got no hope unless i believe as you do?

No, you will have no hope if you reject coming through the BLOOD because God said 'When I see the BLOOD...' then, I, God, will pass over you (save you). If God does not see the BLOOD there is no hope.

Can you back it up with scripture, that i won't be saved unless i believe in the death of Jesus on the cross, or that the Holy Spirit cannot help me for he only works within the confines of the finished legal work of the Cross of Calvary for Christ. Written like that, I already believe in the verses that speak about the blood, so I don't need read them all again, I'm not talking about the blood but being saved or receiving the holy spirit by believing and having faith in the death of Jesus on the cross. Thanks

I have. You, marhig, have already rejected the Scriptures.

God said, 'When I see the BLOOD....' I'll pass over you (save you), therefore, the contrary of that is 'When I do not see the blood....' you'll be lost.

I, lifeisgood, do not have the power, nor want the power, to convince you of anything. That is between you and God.
 

Right Divider

Body part
I believe that I have stated that I believe all things that are written in the law and the prophets. I don't claim a creed.

I know little about Mormonism other than it has some overlap with Masonry and Magic.

I had thought until recently (until this last couple weeks) that Trinitarianism was just a fuzzy sometimes three but really One view, a type of cognitive dissonance, but as everyone is arguing here I now see it's really a full blown unapologetic polytheism.

I had one time that I spent a couple weeks just to review my view on this subject by scripture. I had previously had a polytheistic view, like the Trinity folks here express, excepting I believed in two Gods called God, rather than three. I considered that I could be wrong and tried to start from scratch, wanted to give this "Trinity" idea a fair shot. But first I tossed out all preconception (or tried to) and decided to prove whether Jesus was God.

Jesus did turn out to be God. But I also proved more than I intended, because as I read enough scripture Jesus also is revealed to be the same God as appears everywhere else in scripture.

I spent some time with 1 John 5:7 whereas previously I had counted it as a forgery. It finally made sense when I started to read it it was actually written, not as it is typically misquoted. Everything finally clicked into place without loose ends and I wrote to my Trinitarian friend to tell him that I finally understood Trinity and it had built itself up from scripture only.

After listening to me my friend told me that what I had described was not actually Trinity but called Modalism. I tried to look up what that was but mainly just found people condemning it as heresy without being able to say what was wrong with it. Read Tertullian's rant against Praxaes and realized that Tertullian sounded like an illogical raging man and that even from the hostile description given Praxaes sounded to be in agreement with scripture. Wish I had been able to see what Praxaes had written but we cannot. I would even say it is extremely likely that Tertullian misrepresented his opponent.

I did discuss the nature of Christ with a Biblical Unitarian friend. He had debated with Trinitarians before and they had not been able to prove in his mind that Jesus was God. We spent about four months with massive mails back and forth until he admitted that he had seen persuaded two months before. He said that his conclusion was that "biblical unitarianism isn't very biblical."

As for my statement, I am content to believe what the Bible says. I will not profess a manmade creed to evade persecution. That would be akin to idolatry.
And this from someone that believes that the Lamb of God is someone other than the Son of God. Okay.

With that much confusion, you're in no position to "judge" the doctrines of God.
 

Rosenritter

New member
And this from someone that believes that the Lamb of God is someone other than the Son of God. Okay.

With that much confusion, you're in no position to "judge" the doctrines of God.
No, actually. You have been falsely saying that about me that since you did not wish to present a legitimate argument. That technique is also called "the Straw Man." I didn't believe anyone else was confused by what you said so I didn't bother confronting that directly. If I stopped every wild thing you said I would never have time to reply on a cell phone thumb tap interface.

But let us judge your condemnation. I was able to prove the divinity of Christ by scripture to someone who did not believe that before. You would not have been able to do so with the flawed arguments and abusive technique you demonstrate. Shall we judge our understanding by its fruits?
 

Right Divider

Body part
No, actually. You have been falsely saying that about me that since you did not wish to present a legitimate argument. That technique is also called "the Straw Man." I didn't believe anyone else was confused by what you said so I didn't bother confronting that directly. If I stopped every wild thing you said I would never have time to reply on a cell phone thumb tap interface.

But let us judge your condemnation. I was able to prove the divinity of Christ by scripture to someone who did not believe that before. You would not have been able to do so with the flawed arguments and abusive technique you demonstrate. Shall we judge our understanding by its fruits?
Must you actually move to outright lies? I have made NO such false accusations about you, but have consistently QUOTED what you said to make sure that it is clear what you said.

Your second paragraph is completely laughable.

The only way that God could be "three persons" is if you have a different definition of person. For this I would have to ask (for perhaps I might want to agree with you) what you use to decide the definition of person? I can't find it in the bible, so I have to ask you. Perhaps I might agree with your three persons and add even more besides:

1. The Father
2. The Son of God
3. The Holy Ghost
4. The Lamb of God
5. The Lion of Judah
6. The LORD our Righteousness
7. Melchizedek, the priest of the most High,
8. Alpha and Omega, first and the last, beginning and the end
9. I AM

I would affirm that each and every one of those persons is indeed God and fully God as God is God. That seems pretty simple to me. If we are defining person on our own terms, I see at least eight persons so far and I'm not yet done counting. Up to nine now. That's three times better than any Trinity.
So you made the claim, repeatedly, that these were separate INDIVIDUALS when they clearly are NOT.

Jesus is the Son of God, the Lamb of God, the Lion of Judah and the LORD our Righteousness (He is also the Alpha and Omega and I AM, but let's deal with those separately).

Why do you continue to try to make THOSE INDIVIDUAL PERSONS when they are clearly NOT (referring to Lamb, Lion and LoR).

Seriously, is it hard for you to understand something that is this simple?

It appears that you cannot tell the difference between a NAME/TITLE and the PERSON given that NAME/TITLE.
 

steko

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Jesus' Spirit is the Holy Spirit, which is God's Spirit, and he was anointed with the Holy Spirit with power. That means the power of God.

Christ means God, and so does anointed.


King Saul was the LORD's Messiah.
Was King Saul GOD?

2Sa 1:16 And David said unto him, Thy blood be upon thy head; for thy mouth hath testified against thee, saying, I have slain the LORD'S anointed.
2Sa 1:17 And David lamented with this lamentation over Saul and over Jonathan his son:


King David was the LORD's Messiah.
Was King David GOD?

2Sa 23:1 Now these be the last words of David. David the son of Jesse said, and the man who was raised up on high, the anointed of the God of Jacob, and the sweet psalmist of Israel, said,


Cyrus King of Persia was the LORD's Messiah.
Was King Cyrus GOD?


Isa 45:1 Thus saith the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him; and I will loose the loins of kings, to open before him the two leaved gates; and the gates shall not be shut;
 

Rosenritter

New member
Must you actually move to outright lies? I have made NO such false accusations about you, but have consistently QUOTED what you said to make sure that it is clear what you said.

Your second paragraph is completely laughable.


So you made the claim, repeatedly, that these were separate INDIVIDUALS when they clearly are NOT.

Jesus is the Son of God, the Lamb of God, the Lion of Judah and the LORD our Righteousness (He is also the Alpha and Omega and I AM, but let's deal with those separately).

Why do you continue to try to make THOSE INDIVIDUAL PERSONS when they are clearly NOT (referring to Lamb, Lion and LoR).

Seriously, is it hard for you to understand something that is this simple?

It appears that you cannot tell the difference between a NAME/TITLE and the PERSON given that NAME/TITLE.


No, you are creating false arguments for me. That's called a "Straw Man" attack. Considering that you have also judged me as a "Oneness Pentacostal" your accusation is completely insincere and contradictory. Yes, even an outright lie. I have been completely consistent in saying that we have One God, whom we called Jesus.

When I played along and provided a list of "persons" I never said those persons were different individuals. I said that if we were to suppose that God was multiple "persons" then here's ten to get started. I didn't include God in the Garden of Eden, God as he spoke to Moses face to face as one would a friend, or God that wrestled with Jacob and then asked Jacob "Why do you ask my name?" so you may add those to your list as well.

Please note that I said that these might be persons, I did not say individuals. If I had said those were individuals (as you claim God consists of) then that would indeed be polytheism.

I have already asked if you could provide a biblical definition for person, which you declined. You refuse to accept the biblical definition of person with regards to God, so where do we go from here? You have no latitude to declare that any else's definition of "person" is incorrect. Or at least no justification for condemnation of others in that regard.
 
Last edited:

Tambora

Get your armor ready!
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
King Saul was the LORD's Messiah.
Was King Saul GOD?

2Sa 1:16 And David said unto him, Thy blood be upon thy head; for thy mouth hath testified against thee, saying, I have slain the LORD'S anointed.
2Sa 1:17 And David lamented with this lamentation over Saul and over Jonathan his son:


King David was the LORD's Messiah.
Was King David GOD?

2Sa 23:1 Now these be the last words of David. David the son of Jesse said, and the man who was raised up on high, the anointed of the God of Jacob, and the sweet psalmist of Israel, said,


Cyrus King of Persia was the LORD's Messiah.
Was King Cyrus GOD?


Isa 45:1 Thus saith the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him; and I will loose the loins of kings, to open before him the two leaved gates; and the gates shall not be shut;
No.
No.
No.
 

Right Divider

Body part
No, you are creating false arguments for me. That's called a "Straw Man" attack. Considering that you have also judged me as a "Oneness Pentacostal" your accusation is completely insincere and contradictory. Yes, even an outright lie. I have been completely consistent in saying that we have One God, whom we called Jesus.

When I played along and provided a list of "persons" I never said those persons were different individuals. I said that if we were to suppose that God was multiple "persons" then here's ten to get started. I didn't include God in the Garden of Eden, God as he spoke to Moses face to face as one would a friend, or God that wrestled with Jacob and then asked Jacob "Why do you ask my name?" so you may add those to your list as well.

Please note that I said that these might be persons, I did not say individuals. If I had said those were individuals (as you claim God consists of) then that would indeed be polytheism.

I have already asked if you could provide a biblical definition for person, which you declined. You refuse to accept the biblical definition of person with regards to God, so where do we go from here? You have no latitude to declare that any else's definition of "person" is incorrect.
By nature a person IS an individual. If you don't know what a person is, then you should not have replied in the first place.

Is Jesus the Lamb of God and the Lion of Judah?

If yes, then WHY did you put all of those on your "list" of "persons"?
If no, then you need to go to Bible school.
 

Lon

Well-known member
I had thought until recently (until this last couple weeks) that Trinitarianism was just a fuzzy sometimes three but really One view, a type of cognitive dissonance, but as everyone is arguing here I now see it's really a full blown unapologetic polytheism.
Realize that laymen will fall into the tritheism category at times, but the Trinitarian view is not polytheism traditionally/historically.

Thanks for answering btw, and with this much attention to the question.

I had one time that I spent a couple weeks just to review my view on this subject by scripture. I had previously had a polytheistic view, like the Trinity folks here express, excepting I believed in two Gods called God, rather than three. I considered that I could be wrong and tried to start from scratch, wanted to give this "Trinity" idea a fair shot. But first I tossed out all preconception (or tried to) and decided to prove whether Jesus was God.

Jesus did turn out to be God. But I also proved more than I intended, because as I read enough scripture Jesus also is revealed to be the same God as appears everywhere else in scripture.

I spent some time with 1 John 5:7 whereas previously I had counted it as a forgery. It finally made sense when I started to read it it was actually written, not as it is typically misquoted. Everything finally clicked into place without loose ends and I wrote to my Trinitarian friend to tell him that I finally understood Trinity and it had built itself up from scripture only.

After listening to me my friend told me that what I had described was not actually Trinity but called Modalism. I tried to look up what that was but mainly just found people condemning it as heresy without being able to say what was wrong with it. Read Tertullian's rant against Praxaes and realized that Tertullian sounded like an illogical raging man and that even from the hostile description given Praxaes sounded to be in agreement with scripture. Wish I had been able to see what Praxaes had written but we cannot. I would even say it is extremely likely that Tertullian misrepresented his opponent.
Some of the modality of the triune view seems lost this century. While I classically/traditionally embrace the Trinitarian view, I prefer to use 'triune' as it expresses more clearly, I think, what you are getting at here.

I did discuss the nature of Christ with a Biblical Unitarian friend. He had debated with Trinitarians before and they had not been able to prove in his mind that Jesus was God. We spent about four months with massive mails back and forth until he admitted that he had seen persuaded two months before. He said that his conclusion was that "biblical unitarianism isn't very biblical."
They are all an attempt to reconcile scripture but I believe we are served better, not worse, to look to the creeds, simply because there is a tried/true history of debate and discussion of the problems that produced the creeds. For me, it is better to discuss creeds because many men, rather than one or two, worked from their own bible readings, together, and produced what they believed scriptures necessarily had to say about subjects. I don't agree with every precept of every creed, but I believe they are genuinely a good place to start instead of reinventing the wheel. There are scriptural directives, for instance, to listen and learn from our elders. I think reading them more than just a good idea (my two cents and philosophy on the matter).

As for my statement, I am content to believe what the Bible says. I will not profess a manmade creed to evade persecution. That would be akin to idolatry.
Theology is such a large area of study, that short-cuts, even if problematic to our own particular understandings, are good ways to provide another a grasp of where another is coming from. You would know a bit about me if I told you, for instance, that I was a Calvinist. A lot of people, after hearing that, have told me I'm not very Calvinistic, but it is a good place to get a general grasp of where I'm coming from. I certainly disagree on points with other Calvinists, but it at least gives one a place to start hanging ideas about me and getting a handle from where I am coming from. After that, it is merely clarity of where I might differ so you don't have to guess as much where I'm coming from but from where you'd think I diverge or compare it to one's own understanding of Calvinism. I don't seem to really fit the mold in some folk's expectation of what a Calvinist should look like, but for me, it is the doctrine I see best suited to my understanding of scripture.

Thanks for take a few moments both to answer and read this reply as well. In Him -Lon
 

Right Divider

Body part
Nope, I left the darkness and went into the light. I only answer for my faults, I blame no one for my destiny.
I do wish folks would at least study my thought while I am still here.
I have studied your "thought" enough to know that it's false.

Even though I doubt that you'll believe the Bible:
Zech 14:1-5 (AKJV/PCE)
(14:1) Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee. (14:2) For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city. (14:3) Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle. (14:4) ¶ And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which [is] before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, [and there shall be] a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south. (14:5) And ye shall flee [to] the valley of the mountains; for the valley of the mountains shall reach unto Azal: yea, ye shall flee, like as ye fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah: and the LORD my God shall come, [and] all the saints with thee.

Above is the LORD's RETURN, just like the angels said that HE WOULD:
Acts 1:9-12 (AKJV/PCE)
(1:9) And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight. (1:10) And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; (1:11) Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven. (1:12) Then returned they unto Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is from Jerusalem a sabbath day's journey.

So simple that a child can understand it.
 
Top