The Trinity Doctrine

Participant

Quote (TimothyVI @ Mar. 17 2007,19:55)

Hi Nick,

I never said that scriptures are often untrue. I said that bibles are.

We have undisputed proof of that. I wish I could stick my head in the sand and
pretend that it isn't so. It would be much easier studying the bible.
But unfortunately, it is so.

I could show you proof of what I say, but you would not believe absolute, indesputable proof anyway.
I am invious of, and admire that in you, what would I gain by trying to destroy that.

Blessings,

Tim

Hi Tim,
The word is a lamp to our feet.
The OT is uniquely preserved as pure truth.
Christ came as the light of the world and fulfilled scripture and records that were not as well preserved remain. There was only one original manuscript for each record but many have grown from the one.
We do need to prayerfully study it with the Spirit and alongside the OT to retrace the steps to purity. Men manipulate the differences which are relatively few to foster confusion for their ends.
We need it all because the NT interprets the OT under the new covenant and new wine bursts old wineskins. Men prefer old wine and some try to solve the problem by preferring the OT. But the wise storeman can take new and old things from his storeroom.
Do not doubt the whole but believe it as it is your lifeline and resolve those few verses that are difficult over time.

March 17, 2007 at 7:41 pm#45238

Participant

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Mar. 17 2007,19:56)

Hi W,
The Son has been begotten of God as another being-he proceeded from God.
The Spirit ever proceeds from God uniting them as one.

So was the Spirit begotten since he proceeds from the Father, and since there is no scripture showing preincarnate
begettal?

Did the Spirit have a beginning also?

March 17, 2007 at 8:14 pm#45240

Participant

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Mar. 17 2007,19:56)

Hi W,
The Son has been begotten of God as another being-he proceeded from God.
The Spirit ever proceeds from God uniting them as one.

Hey NH can you please give me some scriptures that back up these statements which you made:-

1) The Son has been begotten of God as another being.

2) The Spirit ever proceeds from God uniting them as one

Thanks.

March 17, 2007 at 9:33 pm#45244

Participant

Quote (david @ Mar. 18 2007,03:52)

Is 1:18

“Henotheism is similar but less exclusive than monolatry because a monolator worships only one god, while the henotheist may worship any within the pantheon, depending on circumstances.”–Wickipedia link from Is 1:18

Monolatry is “the worship of a single god [Jehovah] but without claiming that he is the only god [in the Bible, there are others where that term does rightfully fit].”–wordnet.princeton.edu

And while Jehovah may not be “the only god” he is the only true God in comparison to all others. The Israelite judges were gods (mighty ones) in reference to the others. Angels are gods in reference to humans. Satan is a god (mighty one) over this world. But none of these are worshiped.

Compared to everyone else, Jehovah is the only one who doesn't have a god (mighty one). We are often told that Jesus has a God. Never that Jehovah has one.

So, that word “henotheism” definitely doesn't apply to my beliefs. Of course, most people don't use words like this and if one said “monotheism” that would

monotheism: The belief that there is only one God

God: Object of worship…

Hence, monotheism fits pretty well too. I believe that there is only one object of worship, one we should worship. If you wanted to get extremely technical, “Monolatry” may be a better word.

He he.

When he can't beat them with scripture, he resorts to words like 'ontology' and 'henotheism' to try and baffle them.

But that won't work here.

This method probably contributed to the rise of false doctrine like the Trinity. Using fancy words (like Trinity) against uneducated people could have given the impression that they were experts and the common people knew nothing and shouldn't dare to question, you see the same thing in Science particularly Evolution.

But in this day such a method has less power. Many Christians today are educated, usually have access to the scriptures themselves to see if teachings are true, and many also have access to the Internet where there is an abundance of tools and teachings.

So using fancy words doesn't hide the truth, especially here.

As it is written:

1 Corinthians 1:20
Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?

March 17, 2007 at 9:46 pm#45248

Participant

To WorshippingJesus.

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 18 2007,01:39)

Phoenix

Sorry to hear that.

It is true that all the confusion here on this forum about the scriptures is not a good witness, and sometime I wonder about the fruit of it.

Then why do you come here and oppose those who challenge and seek out. It appears to me that you are only interested in keeping the Christian status quo and therefore want to keep people imprisoned in Babylon's false teachings. So you will inevitably be against those who want the truth to set them free.

If you really sought the truth and were willing to challenge all things instead of keeping them as they are, then that would be less of a bad witness and less of the fruit you mention.

March 17, 2007 at 9:57 pm#45249

Participant

Hi Phoenix.

Generally speaking, it us up to us to see each person as they are and to not give the wrong people credit or input into your life. Listen to them sure, that is how we know what manor of person each is, but when you can see that a person doesn't have the truth in mind, then we should by no means give them the power to distract or discourage.

When people seek the truth with all their hearts, the enemy sends all kinds to distract them. That would be pretty much expected and it happens.

I think people need to judge by the fruit from each individual and not everyone together because it is obvious that not all who come here have the truth in mind and it would be unfair to judge everybody as one because they are not.

The nature of forums is that anyone can come. Sheep, wolves, nice people, nasty people. They can all come here.

March 17, 2007 at 10:42 pm#45254

Participant

Quote (t8 @ Mar. 17 2007,22:46)

To WorshippingJesus.

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 18 2007,01:39)

Phoenix

Sorry to hear that.

It is true that all the confusion here on this forum about the scriptures is not a good witness, and sometime I wonder about the fruit of it.

If you really sought the truth and were willing to challenge all things instead of keeping them as they are, then that would be less of a bad witness and less of the fruit you mention.

As I said it is the confusion on “this” forum and the fruit of it, and its not all trinitarian debate.

So I am compelled to come here and let the light of the Glorious Gospel of Jesus Christ to shine in this darkness through the truth of his word.

2 Cor 4:4
In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious *gospel of Christ,* who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

1 Pet 4:17
For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the *gospel of God?*

If you look at the scriptures by the spirit, Paul didnt make any distinction of the Gospel of Christ and God!

One God, One Gospel!

March 18, 2007 at 3:17 am#45258

Participant

Hi Timothy VI

Quote

I never said that scriptures are often untrue. I said that bibles are.

I think that would be a fair statement.

Scripture is true, bibles are imperfect translations.

We need to consider this and use a wide range of translations. Background knowledge with scripture is also good. For example: some verses were added in some bible versions when they shouldn't have been.

March 18, 2007 at 3:54 am#45259

Participant

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 17 2007,00:38)

Why not isnt that what t8 is doing by the label Trinitarian!

WorshippingJesus I do not label people Trinitarian, they label themselves as Trinitarian.

I call them Trinitarian if that is what they say they are.

I don't call myself a JW or a Polytheist, yet people have labeled me as both.

That is the difference. We are being labeled incorrectly and we call those who have labeled themselves by the name that they represent.

E.g., I call david a JW because that is what he says he is. I could call your a Trinitarian because that is what you and others say you are.

Correct me if I am wrong, but you are a self confessed Trinitarian? If so, then is it a problem if I call you Trinitarian?

I label myself as a believer. It is up to you to call me that, unless you consider me to not be a believer.

March 18, 2007 at 3:59 am#45261

Participant

Quote

As I said it is the confusion on “this” forum and the fruit of it, and its not all trinitarian debate.

So I am compelled to come here and let the light of the Glorious Gospel of Jesus Christ to shine in this darkness through the truth of his word.

WorshippingJesus, I'm not talking about the gospel, I am talking about your opposition to those who have a unction to test all things.

Such people are always met by traditionalists who wish to keep the status quo. Luther for example would have faced no end of opposition and God knows why they want to keep things as they are but they fight tooth and nail against anything that challenges traditions and doctrines that men created.

It seems obvious that some here love scripture and are willing to be challenged while others hold to tradition and man-made doctrines and use scripture (incorrectly) to support these.

It should be scripture that teaches us, not us using scripture to say what WE want it to say.

You for example come here teaching the Trinity which isn't taught or mentioned in scripture but was a doctrine that developed over time. But others come here without a creed or doctrine that they fit scripture into, and just look fair and square at scripture and accept what it is saying..

The idea with these forums is that a Berean attitude is present. Even at the price of challenging traditions that may be many 100s perhaps even thousands of years old.

March 18, 2007 at 4:04 am#45263

Participant

Hi W,
The OT does not teach of any trinity.
Jesus and the apostles also taught of no such God.
Men came up with the theory 200 years later.
Would it not be wiser to go back to the utterly reliable sources of truth?

March 18, 2007 at 4:06 am#45265

Participant

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 17 2007,20:41)

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Mar. 17 2007,19:56)

Hi W,
The Son has been begotten of God as another being-he proceeded from God.
The Spirit ever proceeds from God uniting them as one.

So was the Spirit begotten since he proceeds from the Father, and since there is no scripture showing preincarnate
begettal?

Did the Spirit have a beginning also?

Hi W,
Take off those trinity glasses and see that as God is eternal then so is His living Spirit in Him and poured out from Him.

However the monogenes son who was sent into the world was a being with God and begotten of God all other beings were created through him.

March 18, 2007 at 4:39 am#45274

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henotheism
http://www.answers.com/topic/henotheism

Participant

Quote (Is 1:18 @ Mar. 16 2007,05:14)

Yes, it's an accurate label, based on the teachings outlined in his writings.

Correct me if i'm wrong t8, but as I see it you have acknowledged openly that the Father is the “Most High” God, the source of Jesus (via a supernatural and pre-incarnate begettal) who is properly described as “a god” (not “the” God). The Father alone is eternal. The “Comforter” is exclusively the Father's personal Spirit. YHWH is unipersonal, and neither Yeshua nor the Holy Spirit are YHWH, only the Father is. There exists many uncreated gods but the Father is the greatest of these.

That's just a quick synopsis, not an exhaustive description. So please tell me if I have misprepresented any aspect of what you believe, set me straight now, because those precepts are what you will be defending in the debate.

t8, do you have any objections to my description of your theology (the parts relavent to our impending debate). This is what you will be defending. Please speak now or forever hold you peace.

March 18, 2007 at 5:01 am#45276

Participant

Quote (toteachachild @ Mar. 17 2007,07:34)

hi phoenix,

please don't give up. God is true. man is not. the internet is certainly not. you truly can find support on the internet to give “undeniable evidence” to any idea under the sun. that does not make it so. keep seeking, keep asking, keep knocking. endure till the end. although i am still seeking and still have many questions… i keep resting in the fact that God is true. and He is faithful.

i think i read somewhere that you have kids. please do not give up… for their sakes.

Phoenix,
TTAC is right, there is a big picture here. Further to what she wrote, I would encourage you to face up to and test the contradictions. For every contradiction there will be an explanation. Read them both and decide for yourself which is more plausible. Pray about it. If you come through this with faith intact, then it will be stronger for it.

Matthew 13:3-9
3And He spoke many things to them in parables, saying, “Behold, the sower went out to sow; 4and as he sowed, some seeds fell beside the road, and the birds came and ate them up. 5″Others fell on the rocky places, where they did not have much soil; and immediately they sprang up, because they had no depth of soil. 6″But when the sun had risen, they were scorched; and because they had no root, they withered away. 7″Others fell among the thorns, and the thorns came up and choked them out. 8″And others fell on the good soil and yielded a crop, some a hundredfold, some sixty, and some thirty. 9″He who has ears, let him hear.”

Matthew 13:18-23
18″Hear then the parable of the sower. 19″When anyone hears the word of the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what has been sown in his heart. This is the one on whom seed was sown beside the road. 20″The one on whom seed was sown on the rocky places, this is the man who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy; 21yet he has no firm root in himself, but is only temporary, and when affliction or persecution arises because of the word, immediately he falls away. 22″And the one on whom seed was sown among the thorns, this is the man who hears the word, and the worry of the world and the deceitfulness of wealth choke the word, and it becomes unfruitful. 23″And the one on whom seed was sown on the good soil, this is the man who hears the word and understands it; who indeed bears fruit and brings forth, some a hundredfold, some sixty, and some thirty.”

Blessings

March 18, 2007 at 6:26 am#45282

Participant

Hi,
Since as W has pointed out no one can agree what the trinity is why should they be labelled as a group?

March 18, 2007 at 7:28 am#45290

Participant

Quote (t8 @ Mar. 18 2007,04:59)

Quote

As I said it is the confusion on “this” forum and the fruit of it, and its not all trinitarian debate.

So I am compelled to come here and let the light of the Glorious Gospel of Jesus Christ to shine in this darkness through the truth of his word.

WorshippingJesus, I'm not talking about the gospel, I am talking about your opposition to those who have a unction to test all things.

It seems obvious that some here love scripture and are willing to be challenged while others hold to tradition and man-made doctrines and use scripture (incorrectly) to support these.

It should be scripture that teaches us, not us using scripture to say what WE want it to say.

The idea with these forums is that a Berean attitude is present. Even at the price of challenging traditions that may be many 100s perhaps even thousands of years old.

First of all I dont hold to a creed. I have never brightened the door of a Catholic Church, nor have I joined any Denomination.

My theology and belief is strictly base on the scriptures and has grown through much prayer and study of the scriptures.

Your view of Trinitarians coming here to teach tradition and doctrines of men is false.

Your claim that Trinitarians fight “tooth and nail” against any thing that challenges Tradition is all backwards.

Trinitarian are defenders of the truth, which liars and decievers have come and sought to steal out of the hearts and minds the Honour that is due our Lord and creator God, Jesus.

You see all of what you claim is also held by Trinitarians view of the Apossers, for the reason that “the truth” has always been attacked by the enemy, for it is satans job to kill, steal and destroy, for he is the master deciever.

Men have come along and sought to change what has been settled in the word and then make claim that they have a new truth and they have seperated themselves from the whole of the movement of God throughout the earth. This is nothing new. For this is how all cults start.

I find it amusing that you have mentioned Luther several times in the past in defence of what you believe as persecution for your brand of truth. Somehow comparing yourself with him!

Especially when Luther was a Protestant who believed that Jesus is God. How many times have I heard it from you and others that Protestants are “Daughters of the great whore”.

A sermon by Martin Luther from his Church Postil, 1521-1522

But if the Word had been in the beginning and not before

Page 181 —————————

the beginning, it must have begun to be before the beginning, and so the beginning would have been before the beginning, which would be a contradiction, and would be the same as though the beginning were not the beginning. Therefore it is put in a masterly way: In the beginning was the Word, so as to show that it has not begun, and consequently must necessarily have been eternal, before the beginning.

“And the Word was with God.”

21. Where else should it have been? There never was anything outside of God. Moses says the same thing when he writes: “God said, Let there be light.” Whenever God speaks the word must be with him. But here he clearly distinguishes the persons, so that the Word is a different person than God with whom it was. This passage of John does not allow the interpretation that God had been alone, because it says that something had been with God, namely, the Word. If he had been alone, why would he need to say: The Word was with God? To have something with him, is not to be alone or by himself.

It should not be forgotten that the Evangelist strongly emphasizes the little word “with.” For he repeats it, and clearly expresses the difference in persons to gainsay natural reason and future heretics. For while natural reason can understand that there is but one God, and many passages of Scripture substantiate it, and this is also true, yet the Scriptures also strongly oppose the idea that this same God is only one person.

22. Thus arose the heresy of Sabellius, who said: The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are only one person. And again Arius, although he admitted that the Word was with God, would not admit that he was true God. The former confesses and teaches too great a simplicity of God; the latter too great a multiplicity. The former mingles the persons; the latter separates the natures. But the true Christian faith takes the mean, teaches and confesses separate persons and an undivided nature. The Father is a different person from the Son, but he is not another God. Natural reason can not comprehend this; it must be apprehended by faith alone. Natural

Page 182 —————————

reason produces error and heresy; faith teaches and maintains the truth; for it clings to the Scriptures, which do not deceive nor lie.

“And God was the Word.”

23. Since there is but one God, it must be true that God himself is the Word, which was in the beginning before all creation. Some change the order of the words and read: And the Word was God, in order to explain that this Word not only is with God and is a different person, but that it is also in its essence the one true God with the Father. But we shall leave the words in the order in which they now stand: And God was the Word; and this is also what it means; there is no other God than the one only God, and this same God must also essentially be the Word, of which the Evangelist speaks; so there is nothing in the divine nature which is not in the Word. It is clearly stated that this Word is truly God, so that it is not only true that the Word is God, but also that God is the Word.

24. Decidedly as this passage opposes Arius, who teaches that the Word is not God, so strongly it appears to favor Sabellius; for it speaks as though it mingled the persons, and thereby revokes or explains away the former passage, which separates the persons and says: The Word was with God.

But the Evangelist intentionally arranged his words so as to refute all heretics. Here therefore he overthrows Arius and attributes to the Word the true essential of the Godhead by saying: And God was the Word; as though he would say: I do not simply say, the Word is God, which might be understood as though the Godhead was only asserted of him, and were not essentially his, as you, Arius, claim; but I say: And God was the Word, which can be understood in no other way than that this same being which every one calls God and regards as such, is the Word.

Source
http://www.orlutheran.com/html/mlsejo1.html

You see Luther believed Jesus the Word, is God!

So I am curious still as to any heros or Fathers of your faith.

Are there any men of God that we know of with any credibility that were “henothiest”?

You talk about the Beri
ans! Well my friend!

I find Trinitarians taking scripture literally by faith as they are. Have you not noticed, its the Trinitarians that use more scriptures here than others, comparing scripture with scripture?

Your 100 scripture proof.

Soon I will post 100 scriptures as proof that this God we serve the True God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Blessings

March 18, 2007 at 7:36 am#45292

Participant

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 19 2007,03:28)

First of all I dont hold to a creed. I have never brightened the door of a Catholic Church, nor have I joined any Denomination.

My theology and belief is strictly base on the scriptures and has grown through much prayer and study of the scriptures.

Your view of Trinitarians coming here to teach tradition and doctrines of men is false.

To WorshippingJesus.

Are you a Trinitarian or not?

Yes or no.

March 18, 2007 at 7:38 am#45293

Participant

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 18 2007,08:28)

Have you not noticed, its the Trinitarians that use more scriptures here than others, comparing scripture with scripture?

Yes, now that you mention it, I have noticed that! They also dodge less questions IMO….very telling.

March 18, 2007 at 7:41 am#45295

Participant

To WorshippingJesus.

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 19 2007,03:28)

Your claim that Trinitarians fight “tooth and nail” against any thing that challenges Tradition is all backwards.

Actually I didn't say specifically Trinitarians, but I have also found the same thing from others who follow after traditions.

Trinitarians are not the only ones who follow mens tradition but I have found such people to fight for their traditions with a passion similar to a die hard soccer hooligans.

Also see my previous post.

March 18, 2007 at 7:43 am#45297