Thanks for that Paul s

I've been tangling with this issue for quite some time.

It sometimes seems that the concept of the Trinity exists primarily because it is taught rather than because it is read.

I decided to read the Bible from start to finish as I started to believe in God. I do not come from a church background but had been an avid atheist for 40 years.

As I started to look into which church was best for me I started to realise that so many are Trinitarian. Why?  It's not because people read the Bible without outside influence and think that way. I had to look at the history.

It's man-made. Simply added leverage to get pagans into the church. Exactly the same as the Christmas and Easter festivals. No more. No less.

If one appoaches the Bible with the assumption of Trinity you will get a biased view.
If one approaches the Bible with the assumption of no Trinity you will get a biased view.

This is why churches really want you to join before you read the bible so they can influence your understanding of what you read.

The problem is that in history the story was altered (with additions and edicts) and the reformation only resulted in the shedding of some of the man-made doctrines of the Roman Catholic church.

We still had Christmas and Easter and the Trinity.

There were even biased Bible versions that somehow remained falsified. The KJV most of us have has an addition to the Book of Revelation. Remember this is the one book where it is stated that addition to or subtraction from it is bad (plagues and/or the second death basically).

And the addition there is one added to justify the Trinity doctrine.

If it were true, why add to the "unalterable book"?


There are tough verses for the non-Trinitarian believer. There are more verses and much more general issues for the Trinitarian (particularly because Jesus said many of them so, in some cases they are in multiple accounts).

Unfortunately much work by scholars has been written to analyse the Bible based upon Trinitarian ideals. This of course has been perpetuated by church based seminaries and trinitarian-only colleges withing universities. And a non-trinitarian article today gets the verbal and literary attacks that may have come in times of the inquisition. The extremity of hatred is almost tangible with some people.

But the fable of the "Emperor's new clothes" should teach us that we should all look for ourselves and not rely on what others say or, on this issue, insist or rant about or views stating that, no matter what, we are right and others are wrong. I've even heard the argument "most Christians think this so it must be right" which worried me a little.

I'm still torn on the issue as both sides can be argued well.

I know Jesus was the Son of God and was given a divine position when he ascended to sit with God. I've read that clearly in the Bible. I know his death was the ultimate sacrifice so that we can be covered by it if we enter into Christ by letting him into our lives.

But I have to admit my feelings are like this. Jesus was born of Mary and was Fathered by God's spirit. Before that there is no evidence of Jesus, there is no evidence Jesus was a God. He has been able to do what he did because he was THE SON OF GOD, a man. If he was God then you end up with the Trinity becoming some crazy word game of God being 3 persons except one person is two people but mianly one at this time and was mainly the other while he was alive. God (the Father) is complex. Trinitarian belief is nonsense because it tries to wedge pagan belief into a monotheistic religion.

For me I think knowing Jesus is our High Priest at God's right hand side and he was once man and died for our sins...  well that's enough for me :)


-- Edited by TaSwavo on Monday 14th of September 2009 11:17:43 AM

-- Edited by TaSwavo on Monday 14th of September 2009 11:27:41 AM

TaSwavo wrote:

---

Thanks for that Paul s

I've been tangling with this issue for quite some time.

It sometimes seems that the concept of the Trinity exists primarily because it is taught rather than because it is read.

I decided to read the Bible from start to finish as I started to believe in God. I do not come from a church background but had been an avid atheist for 40 years.

As I started to look into which church was best for me I started to realise that so many are Trinitarian. Why?  It's not because people read the Bible without outside influence and think that way. I had to look at the history.

It's man-made. Simply added leverage to get pagans into the church. Exactly the same as the Christmas and Easter festivals. No more. No less.

Actually, this is not true.  You simply have not studied the issue indepth from the Scriptures.  The doctrine of the Trinity is found in the Bible.  The word itself is not, but that's no real point.  The teaching clearly is there, and that's why the early church had to come up with a way to describe what they saw. 

If one appoaches the Bible with the assumption of Trinity you will get a biased view.
If one approaches the Bible with the assumption of no Trinity you will get a biased view.

This is why churches really want you to join before you read the bible so they can influence your understanding of what you read.

The problem is that in history the story was altered (with additions and edicts) and the reformation only resulted in the shedding of some of the man-made doctrines of the Roman Catholic church.

We still had Christmas and Easter and the Trinity.

There were even biased Bible versions that somehow remained falsified. The KJV most of us have has an addition to the Book of Revelation. Remember this is the one book where it is stated that addition to or subtraction from it is bad (plagues and/or the second death basically).

And the addition there is one added to justify the Trinity doctrine.

If you are going to make assertions like this, you need to back them up with some form of documentation.  That is one of my rules.  What "addition" are you talking about?

If it were true, why add to the "unalterable book"?


There are tough verses for the non-Trinitarian believer. There are more verses and much more general issues for the Trinitarian (particularly because Jesus said many of them so, in some cases they are in multiple accounts).

Unfortunately much work by scholars has been written to analyse the Bible based upon Trinitarian ideals. This of course has been perpetuated by church based seminaries and trinitarian-only colleges withing universities. And a non-trinitarian article today gets the verbal and literary attacks that may have come in times of the inquisition. The extremity of hatred is almost tangible with some people.

But the fable of the "Emperor's new clothes" should teach us that we should all look for ourselves and not rely on what others say or, on this issue, insist or rant about or views stating that, no matter what, we are right and others are wrong. I've even heard the argument "most Christians think this so it must be right" which worried me a little.

I'm still torn on the issue as both sides can be argued well.

I know Jesus was the Son of God and was given a divine position when he ascended to sit with God. I've read that clearly in the Bible. I know his death was the ultimate sacrifice so that we can be covered by it if we enter into Christ by letting him into our lives.

But I have to admit my feelings are like this. Jesus was born of Mary and was Fathered by God's spirit. Before that there is no evidence of Jesus, there is no evidence Jesus was a God.

The above statement is not true.  John clearly said, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word (the Greek original order, John 1:1).  The Word there is Jesus who became flesh in 1:14.  Jesus is called God several times in the Greek of the New Testament, from John 20:28 to Hebrews 1:8, where even the Father calls Him God.  Jesus Himself said He was the "I am" of Exodus 3:14 in John 8:58.  And THEN they wanted to stone Him for it!  So please, do not tell me that "there is no evidence Jesus was a God."  That statement is bore of grand ignorance, not accurate and careful knowledge of the Bibe.

 He has been able to do what he did because he was THE SON OF GOD, a man. If he was God then you end up with the Trinity becoming some crazy word game of God being 3 persons except one person is two people but mianly one at this time and was mainly the other while he was alive. God (the Father) is complex. Trinitarian belief is nonsense because it tries to wedge pagan belief into a monotheistic religion.

Here again you are making assumptions about a doctrine you know little of.  It is by no means "pagan," despite what many ill-informed websites try to argue. 

For me I think knowing Jesus is our High Priest at God's right hand side and he was once man and died for our sins...  well that's enough for me :)

No, TaSwavo, that's not enough.  A mere man is not good enough to be a High Priest before God.  If that were the case, then Aaron would have been good enough.  Or perhaps Moses.  The testimony of all Scripture supports the Trinity doctrine.  If you do not realize this, then you are simply ignoring the passages which prove this, and focusing on the ones which SEEM to disprove it.  I have an article out you should read:

http://www.geocities.com/adaniels700/WeakAntiTrinityArguments.html

---

 

-- Edited by Topscholar1 on Thursday 1st of October 2009 11:30:01 PM

Anonymous wrote:

---

Your reasoning in this proves nothing. We all know that matter can exist in three, maybe four forms (plasma) but this has nothing to do with the subject at hand.
If you can just try to read the New Test objectively, looking not to be right, or wrong, but for the truth for its own sake, the argument for Jesus the Son and not actually God is overwhelming.

The arguments used to support theTrinity Doctrin are very weak. In fact, the strongest argument for the Trinity Doc comes in John 1,2,3.
Sadley, if you take the time to again, objectively research how these first few verses came to be you will find that these first few lines were taken from a doctrine written and supported by a Trinity minded church. It was REPLACED to support their argument.
I cannot recall the name of the three main interpretaions, but what I am saying is true, I'll try to find it and get back on it.

Tell me fellow Christian, how do you answer this? When God Himself states concerning Jesus, "THIS IS MY SON, IN WHICH i AM PLEASED. I HAVE PUT MY SPIRIT UPON HIM." ? Now is God confused because He is not saying, This is me?

How do you explain when in the Grden Jesus is praying to his Father.....?
What..is he praying to himself? Of course you will use the usual man'made arguments and reasoning to argue against me, but I challenge you to PLEASE use only arguments that are actually printed in the Bible to explain any of this.


How do you exlain that Jesus IS God, but states, "If I come in my own name, dont believe me." (may have mis quoted slightly but the point stands.

I mean why would you even want to try to denie the evidence as written in the book?  OK, the Bible says, or Jesus says, "I and the Father are one."
Thats a HUGE argument used for the trinity. But if you grab any decent teaching Bible and read the accepted meaning, it tells you Jesus ment one in spirit, not that He and God are the same.

---

Anonymous.  Actually, the fact that nature, made by God, has elements that exhibit trinitarian qualities is very important here.  If God created the world and all that is in it, including water and other elements, then it makes no sense that this God would create them with qualities LIKE something that He is not.  But according to Romans 1:20, God made the world to exhibit qualities of Himself.  And one of the qualities we find in nature is the triple-point of elements, the ability to exist in all three forms of matter AT THE SAME TIME. I am not talking about the ability to change forms, but the ability to BE all of them at once, and yet remain "one" in essence, a perfect example of what the Church means by God being one Being in three Persons.  You cannot get around the clear implications of this by simply saying "your reasoning in this proves nothing." On the contrary, it prove a great deal if you understand the simple principle of logical inference from Scripture and nature.

Again, the Bible clearly calls Jesus God over and over.  In John 20:28 Thomas called Jesus "God."  Jesus did not correct him.  And if he was wrong, then He should have.  Jesus accepted worship (Matt. 9:18; 28:9,17).  Jesus forgave sin as God does (Mark 2:5-10).  Jesus said He sent prophets (Matthew 23:34), yet only God sends true prophets. 

As we can see in the Greek of Phillipians 2:5,6, Jesus was God before becoming human, and yet remained God while on earth.  He was "en morphe theou" in the "form" of God, and you cannot be in the "form" of God according to the meaning of this word without being God.  Since He was the God-man, He had traits of both divinity and humanity.  So as a man he needed sleep, but as God He could know the hearts (John 2:24,25) and know things that ordinary humans could not (John 1:48).  So He was the "Son" in His humanity, but God in His divinity.  He was not either the "Son" or "God"; He was both God and the Son or God the Son. 

So now in Scripture we have the Father called God (Philippians 2:11), the Son called God (John 20:28; Titus 2:12 Greek text; 2 Peter 1:1, Greek text), and the Holy Spirit called God  (Acts 5:3,4), and yet only "one" God.  The doctrine of the Trinity, then, makes perfect sense in light of Jewish monotheism as described in the entire Bible. 
It also makes perfect sense that within the Trinity there would be cross-communication, as when the Father spoke to the Son and vice versa.  So in a very real sense, He was talking to Himself.  God can do that without being crazy. LOL.

The balanced truth is not that Jesus is the Son and not God or God and not the Son, but that He is both God and man, the Son of God and the Son of man.  And within that truth is another - that God has revealed Himself as a Triune Being.  That's not so hard to understand, and it is not impossible for God.  We make things hard by making up false dichotomies and flawed arguments based on a distorted view of the Bible which focuses only on the humanity of Jesus and ignores all else.  Unless you can answer why Jesus is called God over and over, and why He Himself claimed to be the "I am" of the Old Testament, then you really don't have a valid argument against the Trinity doctrine found plainly in Scripture and nature.

 

may i ask john1:1 is always the verse the trinitarian used,
"in the beginning was the word"
(word is something we do, i mean to speak it out from our mouth, in the beginning was God's WORD. jesus is being described here as GOD's Word this is how jesus was begotten just like a word that came out from GOD's heart as the bible said out of abundance of the heart the mouth will speak )

"The WORD was with GOD" (see that this is a past tense meaning before the creation the word was still with GOD meaning the command IS STILL with GOD, execution of the creation was through jesus as the word, as the bible said though everything was made through him-jesus )

"The WORD was GOD" (in my understanding, since the word came from GOD, just as jesus came from GOD, jesus was a GOD being before the creation, as said in hebrews 1:3 The son is the radiance of GOD's Glory and the Exact representation of his being" he is a blood line i must say of GOD calling jesus as his own.

"He was with GOD in the beginning" JESUS Was WITH GOD in the beginning. (as we can see all the linking verb used was past tense, why because later on the word became flesh, meaning, JESUS humbles himself for GOD's purpose and will alone... following his FATHER's will which is not his own... see the obedience of jesus is uncomparable, it is unique and set apart.. that makes him pleasing to GOD his FATHER. it could've been IS instead of WAS but it was a WAS means it was past tense. if it said the word is GOD then this form will not be exisitng.

for the plural form of ELohim ill study this on further it may have been connected with the construction of the sentence. some words need to be plural and then singular but we will see this is a greek word, some singular may not be gramatically incorrect if stated as singular and may need a plural form to complete the sentense.

i can understand trinitarian trying to make ends meet that they are thinking that jesus will loose his deity if he will not be The FATHER GOD be the son only. JESUS never ever claimed his FATHER's throne, He always humbles himself even to the point of death on the cross. remember jesus is being seated at the right side of the father, how can GOD be seated on 2 thrones saying that he is only one. i believe that GOD created the bible with all possible ways for us to understand his words, because if it's too high to understand that GOd himself and his son and the angels then the bible is not for man but you see the word is there for us.

See jesus is begotten and will not loose his deity if he will not be the FATHER, SON and holy spirit. some times we need to be with the animals to be human again. lets not push jesus to becoming the one who is trying to get equal with GOD, jesus already said that there is only one GOD and that is his FATHER in heaven. not himself, he could've said it upfront if he is GOD, he always claim to be the SON of GOD not GOD himself. JESUS always goal for GOD's GLory not men. how can you aim for GOD's glory if you are GOD as part. How can you pray to GOD if you are part of the GOD oneness. how can you ask for the cup of suffering to be taken away from you if you are GOD. JESUS is a GOD being having the name of GOD being heir and SON JESUS is GOD's blood line. that's why he was GOD being and became flesh. JESUS always taught that the son will always inherit the kingodm, also paul taught us that all authority have been given to jesus but the one who gives him all authority will not be subject under him since GOD gave him all authority he will not be under jesus. you see GOD gave jesus all authority on heaven and on earth still GOD will not be subjected to anyone. paul understood GOD is one and jesus is the son and the holy spirit is god's spirit.

please do not use the classic saying that you will not understand trinity because it's hard to explain. how can you accept a teaching if you cannot understand it? jesus always uses parable to teach and layman's term to let the people understand even to the lowest type of person possible. jesus is humble and meek. he will not use high fa looting words such as omniscience people made this omniscience word to describe God's power trying to put God in a word that will stop you from looking further and deeper to God's holiness GOd cannot be contained in a word he is limitless, holy and not even our language can contain him.

in my conclusion NO OTHER ENTITY IN THE BIBLE SEEKS EQUALITY WITH GOD EXCEPT WHOM YOU KNOW IS EVIL. JESUS in contrary always exalt GOD and always gives glory to him. non in the bible that jesus seeks equality with GOD he always humbles himself before the on and only GOD who is jesus' FATHER.

just my inputs on these.