The Trinity Doctrine

[SearchingForTheTruth]

T8,
I feel that you have explained the apperant mystery of seeing GOD in the Old Testament. I now have one that is a little long winded but should challenge anyones thinking on the trinity forum.

I would like to dig deeper into the trinity arguments and show that many people are in argeement but dont even realize it. I am not saying that I have figured out an age old problem but I would like to shed some light on a very complex subject that I dont feel has been addressed. First I will list a poem and start from there.

"There were three men of Indostan, to learning much inclined,
Who went to see the elephant,
though all of them were blind,
That each by observation might satisfy his mind.

The first approached the elephant, and happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side, at once began to bawl, GOD BLESS ME! but the elephant is nothing but a wall!

The second, feeling of the tusk, cried: HO! what have we here, so very round and smooth and sharp? To me, its mighty clear, this wonder of an elephant is very much like a spear!

The third no sooner had begun about the beast to grope, than seizing on the swinging tail that fell within his scope, I see, quote he, the elephant is like a rope!

And so these men of Indostan disputed loud and long, each in his own opinion exceeding stiff and strong, though each was partly in the right, and all were in the wrong!

So, oft in theologic wars the disputants, I ween, rail on in utter ignorance of what each other mean, and prate about an elephant NOT ONE OF THEM HAS SEEN!
-John Godfrey Saxe"

I feel that sets the tone for my argument so here I go.

Let me begin by defining the trinity according to the Nicene Creed.
“We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father by whom all things were made; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was made man, and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried, and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father. And he shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead, whose kingdom shall have no end.
And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets. And we believe one holy catholic(unified) and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen. “
I feel that most trinitarians are argueing for a triad and not the definition of what a trinity is. Some of the desperate attempts to apply scripture using circular reasoning just weakens their argument. I also must say that I feel most arians (The belief Jesus is not GOD, pre-exisist or not) misrepresent the trinity. Both groups are argueing against the triad not the trinity.

Triad = 3 seperate GODs (Mormonism)
Trinity = 3 seperate people or beings that are ontologically the same not functionally the same.

Ontologically the same would be the same nature. The president of the United States is functionally higher than me but he is no more human than me. Ontologically he is of the human nature. IE, the trinitarian creed says same substance/nature.

So we have GOD the Father who is 100% divine.
They have his son Jesus, who they say is made up of the divine nature and the human nature. So ontologically he is divine in nature thus it makes him GOD. He is also human in nature thus it makes him man. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the father and the son so ontologically he is of the divine nature, IE GOD. In this sense three people equal one GOD.

The father is GOD which always was, is, and will be eternal. The son is begotton from the father which means he had a beginning either outside of time or when he was born of the virgin Mary. If he is of the same nature (divine) then the divine nature originates within the father who always existed. So to say they are co-eternal is correct because the divine nature is eternal. To say they are co-equal is also correct because the divine nature is equal. To say they are very GOD, of very GOD, and light of light then that is also correct according to the trinitarian view.

Now as far as the arian point of view goes, I don’t have a creed but to sum it up there is One GOD the father, and one Lord Jesus the Christ. Arian point of view says GOD is the father and is supreme and Jesus is the son of GOD and not GOD. I have seen 2 points of view on the arian concept.

1.Jesus existed as a divine being with the father in heaven and created the worlds.
2.Jesus came into existence through his birth on earth.

For the sake of this argument I have classed the two under arian thought. I am not going to dive into the details of either one. The common ground is both say that Jesus was more than just human nature.

*There is an arian school of thought that says Jesus was just a man in nature and nothing more IN NATURE. He was more than a man in other ways (IE, a prophet, a representative of GOD, sinless, perfectly obedient to the father, was given the spirit without measure, and an example for us all.) I will address this school of thought later but for right now we are going to approach the argument that Jesus had a divine nature.

I would like to use the argument that I heard on a message board.

John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

To better understand this, a good analogy was provided.
In the beginning was Women, and Women was with Man, and Women was Man.

Hence women came from man (the rib of Adam). This now makes women separate from man but of the same nature, HUMAN.

So to say that the Word (Jesus) was in the beginning, was with GOD, was GOD; Is to say the same about women and man.

So common ground has it, Jesus was once a part of GOD(the father) and the divine nature. Both views say Jesus originated with the father and has the same substance.
I am not going to argue the Holy Spirit point but both views are clear that the Holy Spirit originated and proceeds from the father as well.
Jesus, as God’s Word and Wisdom, was and is eternally an attribute of God the Father. Just as our own words and thoughts come from us and cannot be separated from us, so it is that Jesus cannot be completely separate from the Father. But there is more to this explanation, related to the distinction between functional subordination and ontological equality. We speak of Christ as the "Word" of God, God’s "speech" in living form. But a word did not need to be uttered or written to be alive. A word was defined as “an articulate unit of thought, capable of intelligible utterance” or “an expression of a thought” It cannot therefore be argued that Christ attained existence as the Word only "after" he was "uttered" by God. Some of the second-century church apologists followed a similar line of thinking, supposing that Christ the Word was unrealized potential within the mind of the Father prior to Creation. This agrees with Christ’s identity as God’s living Word, and points to Christ’s functional subordination (just as our words and speech are subordinate to ourselves) and his ontological equality (just as our words represent our authority and our essential nature) with the Father. A subordination in role is accepted by both sides, but a subordination in position or essence (the "ontological" aspect) is a heretical view by both sides called subordinationism.
To summarize here is the common ground by both sc
hools of thought.

GOD is not a triad. There is not three separate GODs, Only one.
The Father is GOD and is divine.
The Son is divine, of the same nature of the Father.
The Holy Spirit is divine and of the same nature of the Father.

Three divine beings, but one in divine nature.

Ontologically one.

The Father was first, then the Son, and then the Holy Spirit.

Functionally three.

This is where the three in one aspect comes from.
3 people, 3 separate wills, 1 in divine nature.

If you claim that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are divine with the Father than you believe in the trinity.

Here is where the main problem lies. The trinitarians use scriptures to argue for the triad and try to prove that the Son is equal in functionality with the Father but deny that they do. The arians argue against the triad and prove it with scripture that the Son is subordinate to the Father. If both sides come to agreement and realize what they are arguing for the same thing then we can better come to a better understanding the truth and the unity of the church.

Hopefully this as challlenged the thinking of everyone.
GOD BLESS

[Larry Gibbons]

I believe your exposition is very sound, and I particularly like your example of light striking a prism. John 14:10 is the key that unlocks the mystery which is further explained in so many places such as II Cor 5:19, "God was IN [indwelling the man, directing and empowering him who was meek and lowly] Christ, reconcilling the world unto Himself."
With regard to God using a man in the O.T., certainly the account in Genesis 18 and 19 is crucial. Here we first see God’s appearance as a man to Abraham. Abraham appears to recognize the man, perhaps because of a previous visit by the LORD recorded in Genesis 17:1 Because this is the first mention of such an instance and because God has devoted two entire chapters to this account, it deserves our closest scrutiny. This “Genesis man” provides a picture of how God will speak through His forthcoming Son. Other accounts lack the detail depicted here. If they are to be understood, this first account is most helpful. A careful study can shed light on God’s other appearances as an Angel of the Lord, who is so often attributed to be the pre-incarnate Christ. The angel always seems to appear as a man. We read of him staying Abraham’s hand when Isaac was on the altar, of Moses beholding him in the burning bush; there is the story of Jacob’s wrestling match, of Gideon’s encounter, of the angels appearing to Balaam and even to his donkey, too many instances to recount here.
If we stick solely to scripture and let it interpret itself, apart from our cultural presumptions such as the trinity, we see mystery revealed rather than created anew.

[Proclaimer]

I know I haven't posted for a while. I have been busy updating the site and have created some new pages too.

First of all I appreciate Larry's positive feedback and additional thoughts on the subject.

SearchingForTheTruth, I read your post a while ago and it made me laugh, (in a good way). The way you built up your argument and your conclusion about why there really doesn't need to be a division between those that push the trinity and those that refuse it, if we understand the true meaning of the Nicene Creed.

Anyway, my reply will come soon. For now I thought I would add the following verse to summarize God's differing appearances throughout the millennia.

Hebrews 1:1-3

1 In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways,
2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe.
3 The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven

The verses confirm that God has appeared in many different ways over time and in the last days his son appeared on his behalf.

It also points out firstly, that Jesus sits at the right hand of the Majesty on High, so it is clear that he himself is not that Majesty. Secondly it may be significant for the Who is Jesus Post that you started. I have added the second comment there, because it belongs there.

[Proclaimer]

The Nicene Creed:
The Nicene Creed was written by the early Church and adopted (in a slightly
different version) by the Church Council at Nicæa in AD 325 and appears in
its present form by the Council at Chalcedon in AD 451. It has remained in
use since that time.

We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally
begotten of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true
God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father; through him all
things were made. For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven, was
incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became truly human. For
our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was
buried. On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he
ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will
come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will
have no end.
“We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds
from the Father, who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets. We believe in one holy catholic and
apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come.
Amen. ”

LodeRunner quoted some of the Creeds and in short, I replied by saying:

I have no qualms with the The Apostle's Creed as it is written in your post. (Note he quoted a different Nicene Creed, probably an older one). In my opinion I think that it is accurate. It doesn't mention the trinity, but acknowledges the Father Son and Holy Spirit and describes who they are. I think that God hasn't been made into an idol yet.

The bit about the catholic church may be questionable. But I think that it is referring to the universal church, which is what catholic means. I don't think it is referring to the Roman Catholic church, but if it is, then yes I have a problem with that.

---

The Apostle's Creed:
This creed is not the direct work of the Apostles, it has its roots in apostolic times times. It must be pointed out that the received form of the creed is not its oldest or original form. The creed exists in two forms, a shorter and a longer; the former, known as the Old Roman Form, going back certainly as early as the middle of the 2nd century (about 140 AD), the latter, the enlarged form, in its present shape, of much later date. Its final form was probably given to it in South Gaul not before the middle of the 5th century, and one or two clauses, as late as the 7th.

I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.
I believe in Jesus Christ, God's only Son, our Lord.
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried; he descended to the dead.
On the third day he rose again; he ascended into heaven, he is seated at the right hand of the Father, and he will come again to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting.

I don't think that I have a problem with this creed as it is written here. But again, if the reference to the catholic church is the Roman Catholic church, then I have a problem.

---

The Athanasian Creed
Exact, elaborate Roman Catholic statement on the Trinity and the Incarnation. It is no longer believed to have been written by Athanasius, but rather by an unknown Western author of the 6th century. An English translation appears in the English Book of Common Prayer.

Whoever wills to be in a state of salvation, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic [apostolic/universal] faith, which except everyone shall have kept whole and undefiled without doubt he will perish eternally.

Now the catholic faith is that we worship One God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity, neither confounding the Persons nor dividing the substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy Spirit.
But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, is One, the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal.

Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit; the Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated; the father infinite, the Son infinite, and the Holy Spirit infinite; the Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal. And yet not three eternals but one eternal, as also not three infinites, nor three uncreated, but one uncreated, and one infinite. So, likewise, the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty; and yet not three almighties but one
almighty.

So the Father is God, the Son God, and the Holy Spirit God; and yet not three Gods but one God. So the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord; and yet not three Lords but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by Christian truth to acknowledge every Person by Himself to be both God and
Lord; so are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say, there be three Gods or three Lords.

The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone, not made nor created but begotten. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and the Son, not made nor created nor begotten but proceeding. So there is one Father not three Fathers, one Son not three Sons, and Holy Spirit
not three Holy Spirits. And in this Trinity there is nothing before or after, nothing greater or less, but the whole three Persons are coeternal together and coequal.

So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the trinity in Unity and the Unity in Trinity is to be worshipped. He therefore who wills to be in a state of salvation, let him think thus of the Trinity.

But it is necessary to eternal salvation that he also believe faithfully the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. The right faith therefore is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man.

He is God of the substance of the Father begotten before the worlds, and He is man of the substance of His mother born in the world; perfect God, perfect man subsisting of a reasoning soul and human flesh; equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, inferior to the Father as touching His Manhood.

Who although He be God and Man yet He is not two but one Christ; one however not by conversion of the GodHead in the flesh, but by taking of the Manhood in God; one altogether not by confusion of substance but by unity of Person. For
as the reasoning soul and flesh is one man, so God and Man is one Christ.

Who suffered for our salvation, descended into ####, rose again from the dead, ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, from whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies and shall give account for their own works. And
they that have done good shall go into life eternal, and they who indeed have done evil into eternal fire.

This is the catholic faith, which except a man shall have believed faithfully and firmly he cannot be in a state of salvation.

Again I replied LodeRunner with regard to this particular creed.

Here is an abbreviated form of my reply:

First of all it states, as written in your post, that we will perish eternally if we do not agree with it. This type of control is just not scriptural, it is the mind of man and fear of man, it clearly shows his reasoning. Show me some scriptures to back up this exceptional claim.

Second, I would lik
e you to compare the following statement
“But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, is One, the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal”, with
Mark 10:17-18 (English-NIV)
17 As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. “Good teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
18 “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good, except God alone.

and John 14:28 (English-NIV),
“You heard me say, `I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.

and John 10:29
29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.

Which one shall I believe? The Creed or the scriptures. Or perhaps the scriptures have been altered or need to be put in a context? What are your thoughts here.

Thirdly the quote: “the father infinite, the Son infinite, and the Holy Spirit infinite; the Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal”.

I am not to sure about this one. If the Son is begotten as the scriptures teach, can we draw the conclusion that Jesus is infinite and eternal. I mean to be begotten (born) or come from, in my human reasoning means that Jesus had to have come from God, but what was before that……

I also registered a lot of other disagreements with this creed to LodeRunner but I won't go into them as it was rather long, but I think you could probably guess most of it once you have read this creed.

---

Conclusion:

This was also written to LodeRunner as to why I thought creeds were a bad idea.

In my opinion, I can see the cunning of the serpent here. Just as he decieved Eve in the Garden, he uses subtle lies that look like truth. He is leading people from the scriptures and revealed things of God, to the created things, which leads to idol worship. History bears this one out, because creed followed creed and eventually idols, icons, Mary and the saints were worshipped, all permissible by the wisdom of man and his so-called creeds and church. It all happened at a slow enough pace so that deception gradually caught people unaware. What comes from the spirit of man cannot possibly come from the Spirit of God. Mans wisdom is utter foolishness in the eyes of God, I think creeds is Mans wisdom. We have no excuse for this behaviour, as we have the scriptures and the Holy Spirit to guide us. But that is too much hard work for some. They need summaries written by men, so it saves them the trouble of finding it themselves. Summaries are ok as long as you check them with scripture and as long as you do not dictate that this is the faith or the only truth. To answer such things we need scripture…………..

The truth that the enemy is trying to seperate from us is contained in the scriptures. If he can get men to summarise the faith and give it a name like the ? creed”, then this will help the devil's cause by allowing for the creation of a comfortable religion, which takes all the hard work out of seeking the truth (Jesus). Now we can now just read this creed and say yeah I believe that now, I am saved, great that was easy, don't need to check it out from the scriptures either, most people are happy when I confess the creed, very convenient. The the first creed would have to be accurate or near accurate for men to follow it, especially considering the amount of truth and revelation in the beginning. Once you have men trusting in a creed it is then possible to slowly introduce appealing philosophies that although may based in scripture, can lead to halmful consequences later on, such as replacing the fear of God with the fear of man, and serving God to serving an organisation. Once people believe a creed that gives authority to an organisation that threatens death to heretics, people will be to scared to question, especially if the churches preach damnation and #### fire every Sunday. Now the net has been cast, and it is time to introduce some idolatory, but you can excuse it by saying that you must be using it to worship God, at this stage you can get men to worship icons, idols, Mary and the Saints a departing from the truth.

I would just like to add that I don't think the trinity doctrine as we know it today is based on the Nicene Creed. It developed slowly and surely over time. It's just that trinitarians say that their beliefs are based here, when in reality, I don't think anyone could derive a trinity from the Nicene Creed, but I suppose a little error here and another one there can morph into a completely different thing hundreds of years later.

[SearchingForTheTruth]

T8,
I agree with you on what people today think the trinity doctrine truely is. The apostles creed and the Nicene creed seem to support the ontological arguement but when you fast forward a few hundred years you end up with the Athansian creed which seems to imply a triad if anything. I have seen trinitarians use the athansian creed as their basis but for the most part the ones that I debate with lean on the first two creeds and the ontological argument. (They probably do this because they know they cant prove the triad with scriptures so you have to back off a little and reason with oneself on what to debate.) I feel they have found a happy medium using the ontological argument which I feel is gaining acceptance as the trinity argument. I can say that they havnt always used this argument that for many years as you can see in the athansian creed they where forcing a triad on people. Also within the creeds I think they are talking about the universal church and not the Roman Catholic church.

GOD BLESS

[Proclaimer]

I have also noticed that the creedal statements of many denominations and the “What we believe” part of many christian web sites, either use the The Athanasian Creed or the The Athanasian Creed as the base. So they admit that this is the foundation of their faith. This foundation is completely different to the foundation that Jesus and the Apostles laid and I suggest that these people should repent. As it is written:

Galatians 1:8-9
8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!
9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!

1 Corinthians 3:11
For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ.

Matthew 16-18
16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.
18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

Luke 6:46-49
46 “Why do you call me, 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I say?
47 I will show you what he is like who comes to me and hears my words and puts them into practice.
48 He is like a man building a house, who dug down deep and laid the foundation on rock. When a flood came, the torrent struck that house but could not shake it, because it was well built.
49 But the one who hears my words and does not put them into practice is like a man who built a house on the ground without a foundation. The moment the torrent struck that house, it collapsed and its destruction was complete.”

2Thessalonians 2:3
Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

[e man]

What is God doing in His relationship with fallen man? What does it mean in the scripture that says that the secret things belong to God? Why did God not simply tell us everything clearly and fully from the beginning?

I believe that the answer to these questions is one answer: God ever designs to prove to man all of man’s guilt, from the first to the last error, and all errors in between. It is only by man’s pride that man’s mind fails to learn the truth without guidance and correction, and instead he deceives himself with errors. Man is not so much blind as blinded.

Whatever God says or does, man, in his pride, tends to warp it and to teach the error in place of the truth. History is a trial over which God presides; Everything God says and does is designed to force men, over time, to realize that they are the one’s being tried, and to show them that they have, even from the beginning, been guilty of every error.

With man’s ways, no truth is free from being warped or denied. There is not one truth of God or man, and not one truth of the relationship between God and man, that man cannot warp in his own proud mind. With man, even the most simple truth about the relationship between God and man can be turned into an error. A little leaven goes a long way.

Man replaces the spirit with the letter. Knowledge of the truth is cummulatively undone by very the words used to express it. As close in form, but as far apart in spirit, as is rape and the marriage act, so every word of God is made to no effect, and become a bondage. A true word spoken long enough without understanding leads to a wrong understanding of the words. In pride, the foolish child loves his position of delegation above understanding what his father means by his words: "Daddy <I>said</I> so, so I’m right and you’re wrong!" The wise father seeks to delegate His authority, but will cease giving more to the child who loves being a delegatee above being humble enough to ask his father, "What do you mean by these words?"

That we are as sheep does not justify those in position of authority trying to make us dull as sheep. The child was born ignorant not to remain ignorant, but to be lead into all truth.

(Edited by e man at 7:03 pm on June 7, 2003)

[Proclaimer]

I think what you have said here is true. But it does ultimately depend on what you hinge it to. You can hinge these words to truth or lies. So just as God judges by the heart and not the outward appearance, we can also use these words to justify both bad and good and the heart is what really matters.

Now this Topic is about the validity of the Trinity Doctrine and your quote below can equally apply to those who formulated this doctrine and to those that follow it.

Whatever God says or does, man, in his pride, tends to warp it and to teach the error in place of the truth. History is a trial over which God presides; Everything God says and does is designed to force men, over time, to realize that they are the one's being tried, and to show them that they have, even from the beginning, been guilty of every error.

Ultimately we have the promptings of God's Spirit and the scriptures to guide us to truth and away from error.  

We find in the New Testament that many of the doctrines and principles are based on, or at least supported by Old Testament scripture and so it is with this Topic. We use scripture to help us learn the truth, but not at the expense of listening to God's Spirit. Indeed it is God's Spirit that leads us to such convictions in the first place.  After that we use scripture to show others what God is saying, rather than say “believe me because God told me.”

[Underground2012]

Wow, 15 pages of posts and counting.  This is one very important subject.

In order to understand the true nature of God, it is necessary to do much reading and praying.  In order to not repeat what many have already said here, I would simply direct you to our website below where we have over 300 papers posted on every subject important for salvation.  The heresy of the trinity is one major topic that is covered in probably at least 10 different papers from every angle you can imagine.  T8 had it right very early on in these posts and now it seems that this topic has begun to digress into trying to prove something that is false by using other false documents such as made up creeds and the like.  If the various creeds are actually an issue, we even have a paper covering what was the original apostle’s creed if there ever was one officially…

Christ was an Elohim, the first-born of the creation (protokoos) and became the only-born (monogene) son of God here on earth.  John 17:3 puts it quite plainly:  "And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the One True God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent."  These two seperate beings cannot be equal in any way shape or form with regard to seperate HYPOSTASES in one OUSIA as Augustine would like us to believe.  And certainly not in rank either.  God the Father is uncreated, Christ was created.  The Holy Spirit is the power of God by which we have communion through Christ.  It is the power that allows God to search our minds and hearts, not some seperate being that has to telepathically communicate back to God what we said and did, etc.

Anyway, I don’t want to sound like I’m babbling so go to our website and read some of the lower numbered papers like #002 and #003.  The’ll give you a good feel for the major reasons why belief in the trinity is the purest form of breeching the first commandment.

(Edited by Underground2012 at 8:57 pm on June 14, 2003)

(Edited by Underground2012 at 8:59 pm on June 14, 2003)

[GJG]

Hi all!

Well done all, on another very interesting subject.

It seems the differing veiws all share a certain hit and miss about them: Just when it seems the truth is going to come out…BANG…another error! (although genuine as they may be, the self imposed contradictions only throw up more to come later!)

At this point I would like to paste in a previous post:

We must all remember that the mystery (God manifest in the flesh) was revealed to Paul and the saints of the early church Eph 3:3-9 Col 1:26.
In his earlier years Saul(now Paul) was taught my the great teacher Gamellio regarding the one true living God. So that Saul believed with all his heart that he was serving God while persecuting the believers of Christ. However on his way to Damascus Saul had the opportunity to ask his one true God this question:Who are you? Acts 9:5…I AM JESUS…simple. {if you were to be asked the same question I’m sure you would reply with your own name!}
Now that God almighty has revealed his only true personal name being Jesus, let us see how Jesus himself answered when he was also asked the same question.
John 8:23-25 shows us that Jesus is again making a point that he and his father(God) are one and the same. When asked directly Who are you? Jesus wisely redirects them to scripture of old Isa 41:21-22 (it would have acheived little if they were given the name of the man standing before them).
Obviously we all know we would be able to gather a huge number of scripture that shows God to be Jesus, which should also remind us that never before did God have a personal name till the birth of Jesus as this was the one time that God was manifest in created substance;man, a PERSON! This now raises the question of the Man-God Jesus. By now I expect some readers will be thinking :what about this…what about that…! Read on!

To understand Jesus being the name of God we must first understand WHAT God is to then believe WHO God is.

Look these up: Col1:15 1Tim1:17 Heb11:27 Deut33:27 Jer23:24 John4:24 so we now have a simple description of WHAT God is: The Invisible, Eternal, Omnipresent Spirit that inhabits all of creation! There is obviously room for only ONE such being!
The Holy Ghost or Spirit of God is again the very same substance that is God, also this Spirit of God is the same Spirit of Christ 1Pet1:11 1John3:24,4:12-13 Phil1:19. This same Jesus Christ is refered to as the image of the invisible God Col1:14-15. Again this Jesus who was recieved up into glory is refered to as God 1Tim3:16.
So we can easily see that the Holy Ghost is not a separate person (spirit is different substance to a person anyway) but rather, the indwelling substance that is the Spirit of God is the very same substance that inhabits all creation!
Lets get back to the MAN-GOD Jesus. Fully man and fully human is controversial to those that do not fully understand. Yet if God’s word says it, than we must look at accepting it as absolute truth. The combination MAN-GOD seems to denote a certain dual nature about Jesus. As a man he: ate, slept, cried, bled, just like you and I do, yet this mans flesh was pure and without sin. So that as a created living creature, God could now become that unblemished sacrificial lamb to take away that sin that once seperated us from Him. When Jesus performed miracles, it was the God within him doing the things which no mere mortal could do. DIVINITY clothed in HUMANITY! To believe this we must first find sripture that emphatically agrees with this: Col1:19,2:9. So now we understand that when the man Jesus prayed, it was his HUMANITY having a need that only his DIVINITY could address. The substance within Jesus is the very same God of the old testament, unchanging.
We now see the one, unchanging, almighty God for what He is, but more importantly who He is, for this reason the scripture tells us: Acts 4:12
Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
KJV

Also, the word ‘logos’ is more likened to ‘creative thoughts’ rather than: ‘logos means Jesus’.

As always: Look forward to replies!

[Proclaimer]

GJG
Your quote:

It seems the differing veiws all share a certain hit and miss about them: Just when it seems the truth is going to come out…BANG…another error! (although genuine as they may be, the self imposed contradictions only throw up more to come later!)

I feel that you have said this because you judge through the God/Man doctrine you have posted. If something disagrees with it, then you judge it as wrong.

If so, I then understand where you are coming from, because all writing that says that Jesus is not God will appear as an error to you. In other words you see everything through this filter.

What this site is trying to do, is get people to test the filters that they see through, in order to see the truth as it is with no prejudice or preconception. In other words just to take the scriptures as they are and receive them gladly, accepting what they say without altering the meaning to suit an already existing doctrine.

I am trying best to understand the doctrine of Christ by listening to his words and trying to steer clear of formulas and other doctrines of men and demon.

Let's face it, we can use just about any scripture to justify any doctrine. It's real easy. e.g. The bible says “There is no God”. This could be used by Aitheists. But Believers would quote the first part “The Fool has said”.

In other words, to read the scriptures with the innocence of a child because God reveals his secrets to the innocent, not the proud.

I will remind you that the scripture that says that “God was manifest in flesh”, doesn't prove that Jesus is God just as God is not creation, even though he is also manifest in creation and we (the Church) who are the manifestation of Christ are not Christ himself, rather his image.

Also God's name is not Jesus. Jesus or Yahshua is the name of God's son. Yahweh has a son called Yahshua.  Yahweh is not Yashua.

[Larry Gibbons]

TO CJG:
Concerning your remarks refuting the Trinity, you mention that there always seems to be another question arising. Coming to an understanding of this issue is no easy matter, is it?

Let me quote from a part of your argument that seems at the heart of what you say:

“The combination MAN-GOD seems to denote a certain dual nature about Jesus.  As a man he: ate, slept, cried, bled, just like you and I do, yet this man’s flesh was pure and without sin.  So that as a created living creature, God could now become that unblemished sacrificial lamb to take away that sin that once separated us from Him.  When Jesus performed miracles, it was the God within him doing the things, which no mere mortal could do.  DIVINITY clothed in HUMANITY!”

Your mention of the dual nature of Christ is insightful. I wonder if you are familiar with the conclusions reached at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 A.D. Referred to as the Hypostatic Union, its premise may be stated as follows:

In the person of Christ there are two natures (deity and humanity) united in such a way as to be without mixture, confusion, separation, each nature retaining its own absolutes.

I believe this is the key to solving the puzzle of Christ’s divinity, even though its full implication has been missed because of a Trinitarian disposition. However, since it represents men’s attempt to explain scripture, it should be examined in the light of scripture.

First, it’s interesting that it mentions only two natures in one person (not three, for in no way is the Trinity in view here). Further, we must ask if these two natures are literally in Jesus himself, that is, was he both God and man in His own right? The answer, I believer, must be no. The two natures are “without mixture, confusion, separation, each nature retaining its own absolutes.” If the man Jesus Christ were to take on the nature of deity, he would of course no longer be human, since deity and humanity cannot be united in that sense. This is not to question Christ’s deity but to focus on its source. Is it His own as a man, or is His deity that which proceeds from being in union with His Father, who appointed Him from everlasting that He be the perfect image of God?

How are the two natures united? How else but by a common will and purpose? Jesus repeatedly insisted that his will was to do the will of his Father, so that he was not only in union with God but was the perfect expression of God’s nature, unknowable to us any other way. Should this be such a mystery to those of us who have been miraculously born again as redeemed human beings united to God in our spirits by faith? No, we cannot class ourselves with Christ in the sense of His being the firstborn, but our relationship to him in God is similar. He is the firstfruits of a family born in His nature. Are we not to walk as He walked, claiming nothing for ourselves, acknowledging our complete dependence on God, and seeking to honor Him?

If this is what you mean, then we are in complete agreement. But a couple other things you say cause me to wonder. Let me quote your words again and express my concern:

First, you say, “So that as a created living creature, God could now become that unblemished sacrificial lamb to take away that sin that once separated us from Him.”

My question is can God become a man or for that matter anything He has created? Not according to Malachi 3:6, “For I am the LORD, I change not.” Some claim that when Christ died on the Cross that God died. No, God could never die, but a man could, and that’s why God needed a man, not another God. If God had died, how could He have raised Christ from the grave? I’m sure you know this. The solution, I am convinced, is that, while God could not BECOME a man, He could BEGET a man and INDWELL him. You express this perfectly when you remark that, “When Jesus performed miracles, it was the God within him doing the things, which no mere mortal could do.  DIVINITY clothed in HUMANITY!”

Related to the above is your remark, “So now we understand that when the man Jesus prayed, it was his HUMANITY having a need that only his DIVINITY could address.” Here again, I know the difficulty of expressing the truth without being misunderstood. I suspect what you mean is in accord with what has been stated above. But it might be misconstrued as meaning that Jesus was actually praying to his own divinity, as Trinitarians believe. If that were true, if he was just praying to himself, so to speak, where is his Father?

The Bible is explicit. There is one true God, the Father. Even before creation, God foreordained that the Messiah should be born in the fullness of times, that in accord with the Everlasting Covenant, Christ, for his suffering on the Cross, he should be granted all rule and authority until all enemies are put under his feet.

Is Christ then denigrated because he himself is not God. No, because God could be known by none other than his Son. God has determined that Jesus Christ should be the star of this drama. To worship Him is to worship the Father.

1John 5:20 And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.
2 John 1:9 He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.

Father/Son. You can’t have one without the other. We just need to know the nature of each and their relationship to each other and ours to them. Yes, the answer to the mystery is simple when you see it.

[GJG]

Hi all!  
Thank you for your replies.

Let me try to explain what I mean:

‘There are two sponges within Lake Taupo (this represents the One, Invisible, Spirit that is God).  One sponge still has its plastic wrapping (sin: separated from the substance that surrounds it) while the other does not (filled with the substance that surrounds it: Spirit of God).’

t8:
I will remind you that the scripture that says that "God was manifest in flesh", doesn’t prove that Jesus is God just as God is not creation

I kind of agree as the above example shows, Jesus (Sponge without plastic) has the Omnipresent Spirit that is God, dwelling within him.  This fact is clear within scripture, even in different versions.  

1 Tim 3:16
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.  KJV

1 Tim 3:16
Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: He appeared in a body, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory.  NIV

Who was seen by angles and received up into glory? :  Jesus!

Col 1:19
For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; KJV

Col 1:19
For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him,  NIV

Col 2:9
For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.  KJV

Col 2:9-10
For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form,  NIV

Everything in creation has a name, yet, as you rightly put it: God is not created (created substance).  Therefore, common sense tells us that for something to receive a name, it must first be made of created substance.  God indeed has many titles much like you and I. Being a father/son, I know very well they are just titles; I have only one personal name!
God, Alpha and Omega, Heavenly Father, Jehovah, Jealous (Ex 34:14)…etc.  These titles are WHAT God is.  For God to receive His own personal name and become that sacrificial lamb, He sired a pure flesh to dwell inside that flesh.  Divinity clothed in Pure Humanity (flesh).  WHO God is, is briefly explained in my past post.  No longer a mystery!  

YES! There is only one true God, which God keeps telling us; being the first and most important commandment of all!    Scriptual evidence putting across this most vital fact is quite simply overwhelming!  Please study the word one mentioned in the bible.

Mark 12:29
And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:  KJV

Mark 12:29
"The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: `Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.  NIV

All the scriptual evidence I have put forward shows without a doubt, that God remains the one true living God, unchanging from beginning to everlasting!  Lake Taupo still remains the same one Lake, at the same time dwelling within a totally different substance; the sponge. Just as the Holy Ghost is the very same substance that is the Invisible, Eternal, Omnipresent, Spirit; God!  Please refer to my past post.

Larry Gibbins:
My question is can God become a man or for that matter anything He has created?

Common sense shows us that God is the only UNCREATED!  I agree: God did not BECOME CREATED SUBSTANCE. The created flesh (Jesus) had the Invisible, Eternal, Omnipresent, Spirit, God, dwelling inside him.  God cannot die, flesh can! This pure, holy flesh was conceived when God Himself provided the seed.  

Luke 1:35
And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.  KJV

For this reason, Jesus the man, could rightly lay claim to being God.  Interestingly enough, there is much scriptual evidence pointing to this one fact alone.

John 10:33
"We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."  NIV

John 10:33
The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.  KJV

So I agree with much of what you both wrote, t8 and Larry Gibbons (I spelt your name correct).  Mine: GJG not CJG.  

As always: Look forward to reply!

[Proclaimer]

1 Tim 3:16
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Manifest:
to make manifest or visible or known what has been hidden or unknown, to manifest, whether by words, or deeds, or in any other way.

John 1:14
The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only,[ 1:14 Or the Only Begotten] who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Became:
to become, to come into existence, begin to be, receive being, to come to pass, happen.

So the difference between the words 'manifest' and 'become' are notable.
If I become 30 years old, then it means that my age has changed. If I become and Australian citizen then it means that I have changed my citizenship. If I become angry, then my emotional state is now angry. If the Word became flesh, then it means that the Word of God has become a human.

Now if we look at the word manifest in other sentences, we can see clearly what it really means.
e.g. He is manifesting a demon. God is manifest in creation. Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. (1 Corinthians 12:7)

So we can see that the word manifest doesn't imply that you are the vessel in which you manifest. Just as demonic manifestation doesn't imply that the person who is possessed is the demon, or God who is manifest in creation is creation or that the Holy Spirit who is manifest in us, doesn't mean that we are the Holy Spirit. So if God is manifest in Christ, then he is working through Christ as the vessel. Not Christs body, but Christs will. Christs body merely served to manifest the Word to us who are human.  

In fact it seems weird that most people use the word manifest correctly except in 1 Tim 3:16
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

The reason that such bias happens is because people have been indoctrinated and then they use verses to support that indoctrination. In doing so, many obvious mistakes are made and overlooked. I think that it is peoples belief in the trinity doctrine that makes it easy to take the word manifest out of context. But if we just start with the scripture and hammer out our doctrine from scripture, then we will be using scripture the way we were meant to. Like I said before, if we start with a doctrine first, then we can use scripture to support it, it is really easy. But do we want truth or do we want to defend our pride.

---

Col 1:19
19 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him,

As you have mentioned, this fullness is also mentioned in Colossians 2:9-10 (English-NIV)
9 For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form,
10 and you have been given fullness in Christ, who is the head over every power and authority.

Now these verses say that we have been  given fullness in Christ, yet no one that I am aware of uses this verse to say that we are Christ, yet many use these verses to say that Jesus is the Almighty God. So again the trinity doctrine blinds people from seeing the truth. It is obvious that 'fullness' like the word 'manifest' doesn't mean that you are actually that fullness, just as a cup full of wine is not the wine. Have a look at the following scripture:

Revelation 3:21
To him who overcomes, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I overcame and sat down with my Father on his throne.

So we can see that Christs inheritance is from the Father and our inheritance is from Christ. Jesus is the image of God and we are the image of Christ. Another way to look at it is to say that Jesus is not God he is like him and we are not Christ, rather we should be like him. So Jesus Christ looks to God and to be filled with God and we look to Christ our redeemer who will present us to God holy and blameless.

---

So my conclusion is that we both have a lot in common with our beliefs but I believe that there are no scriptures that teach that Jesus is God, therefore I do not have to come up with a theory that tries to explain that he is God and also Man. I simply believe that he is the Word, the Christ, the Son of God. This confession is actually the foundation that Jesus built his church on, and on this foundation I will build.

[GJG]

The following scriptures refer to Jesus:

He is worshiped (Matt. 2:2,11; 14:33; 28:9)
He is prayed to (Acts 7:59; 1 Cor. 1:1-2)
He was called God (John 20:28; Heb. 1:8)
He was called Son of God (Mark 1:1)
He is sinless (1 Pet. 2:22; Heb. 4:15)
He knew all things (John 21:17)
He gives eternal life (John 20:28)
The fullness of deity dwells in Him (Col. 2:9)

Obviously, these qualities belong only to the one true living God.

Also, I find it interesting that some believe that Jesus is not God.  True his flesh is humanity, however that which dwelt in him, is the one true living God Himself.  Thus Jesus can rightfuly claim to speak as God Himself.  After all, did he not get stoned for this reason?

Jesus himself put this point across many many times.

John 10:30  I and my Father are one.  KJV
John 14:9  Jesus answered: "Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, `Show us the Father’?  NIV

REMEMBER:  It is the NAME that belongs to God as I explained previously.  This can be shown quite easily if God Himself said ‘I am Jesus’ after being asked the direct question: WHO are you?

Acts 9:5-6 "Who are you, Lord?" Saul asked. "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting," he replied. 6 "Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do."  NIV

The person asking the question (Saul) did not believe in Jesus Christ, yet he instinctively knew that the awesome manifestation before him was indeed the one true living God.  As a young man, Saul was a student of one of the greatest scriptual teachers at that time.  Serving this one true living God, spoken of in scripture, fuelled Sauls desire to destroy followers of this man who claimed to be God; Jesus.  So this man Saul (who would later become Paul), beleived just as others do today, that Jesus cannot possibly be God.  Yet, God himself says otherwise.  

So if God Himself shows us in the bible that He has recieved the name Jesus as His name, then that fact should help us to understand this:  

Acts 4:12
Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved."   NIV

Please give me your thoughts on Jesus being Man-God; dual natured, humanity clothed in Divinity.

[Proclaimer]

GJG,

You are asking all the same questions that were asked previously in this Discussion.

I think the most productive thing right now would be to refute the arguments that we have already supplied with regards to these scriptures, otherwise we will just repeat everything again. I believe the reasoning is sound and no one has been able to disprove this reasoning yet.

I will remind you that I am not trying to prove who is right and who is wrong, rather what is the truth and do I need to change my theology.

I see that you quoted (Col. 2:9) again even after I gave an explanation for the meaning of that scripture. Wouldn't it be better to disprove my reasoning, rather than ignore it and quote it in your view again. I mean the ball is in your court with that one.

Perhaps I can I do a deal with you? I will give you the explanations that have already been provided in this Discussion, but in a more condensed version, on the understanding that you will disprove the reasoning if you do not agree with it.  I think this way we will save ourselves covering old ground, after all there is no benefit in repeating ourselves and this Discussion is very long and it seems pointless kind of starting again with the same points.

If you do not feel like reading the earlier explantions on these subjects, then you could try a more condensed version of this at https://heavennet.net/answers/answer08.htm, in particular the part called “Scriptures that are used to support the trinity doctrine' , which is located @ https://heavennet.net/answers/answer08e.htm

I leave it up to you, but I want you to know that a condensed explanation of the scriptures that you quoted won't be a problem, but I do expect that you will show me why it's wrong if you disagree with it.

Look forward to your reply.

[GJG]

Thanks t8 for your reply,

I must admit, you seem to be the closest to what I beleive is the original church doctrine, very close!

Also your solution seems the best avenue to take.

Please give me time to put together some scriptual evidence that I hope will explain my differing beliefs.

Finally, YES! the trinity is without a doubt a man-made doctrine.  I should know, as I was born into and raised in it!

see you online soon.

[GJG]

BTW, I didn’t in any way shape of form say that God was the vessel (Jesus flesh). Jesus’ flesh (vessel) is created, God is uncreated!

Just needed to get that off my chest.

As before: see you on line soon

[Proclaimer]

Please give me time to put together some scriptual evidence that I hope will explain my differing beliefs.

Great, I look forward to it.
Thanx for the time you have put in so far.

[GJG]

Hi there all!

First of all I would like to say well done to all those who put the time and effort into putting together writings that attempt to show how the trinity is a man-made doctrine.

From your writing:

The next verse we will look at is a blatant attempt by man to give the doctrine of the trinity credibility. That verse is 1 John 5:7 (English-KJV)
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
All other translations do not have the words " the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." ; Apart from the King James translation. Translators agree that the last part of this verse was added in later and is actually a footnote in the Textus Receptus, the Greek text that the King James Bible was translated from. Now this same verse in the NIV for example simply says the following:
1 John 5:7 (English-NIV)
For there are three that testify:
Why do you think this verse was tampered with ?
The translators added in the footnote into the King James translation to possibly give the Trinity Doctrine more credit as they were pro-trinity. Another possibility may have been to avoid being judged for taking away from scripture, that is if they weren’t sure to add it or not. I think it would be safe to say that this verse would not have needed to be inserted into the Bible by any man if the doctrine were correct, because the bible would teach this doctrine clearly and in many places. But none of the writers in the bible taught this doctrine. Jesus himself never taught this doctrine either. On the contrary he taught us that his Father is his God and our God see John 20:17 (English-NIV)
Jesus said, Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, `I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.

John 10:29
29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand.
There are other discrepancies found in the King James Bible, such as John 9:35 (English-KJV) All translations say "Son of Man." The the King James says "Son of God". See the NIV translation of this verse.
Of course Jesus is the Son of God, but this translation does change verses to to make the trinity more credible. In other words the translators of the King James bible had a trinity bias and altered many versus to fit this theology. Most Biblical scholars are in agreement when they say that more modern translations such as the NIV Or the NASB are more accurate than the King James because they are translated from older more reliable texts and they rightly acknowledge that certain words and verses have been added into the King James Bible by the translators. Another problem with the King James version is that it uses old English and many words in old English have either changed there meaning or are no longer used. Ironically there are some cults out there that teach that the King James is the only true translation of the bible and they use some of these very scriptures to prove their point. They say for example does your bible have the verse 1John 5:7.
If we try to push a doctrine that is not biblical then the scriptures are there to correct us according to 2 Timothy 3:16 (English-NIV)
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness

Here is my response to the above section of your writing:

The bible speaks to us about walking by faith and not by sight, in that we must believe that He (God) is, and that Gods omnipotence gives Him complete control over ALL of creation.  Space, time, gravity, EVERYTHING.  If we have any doubt whatsoever regarding this fact, then our faith is an absolute waste of time, we would be better off being back in the world, not knowing God at all.  Obviously this is not easy, however, this is what walking by faith is truly all about.

You will have noticed that I have not yet used scriptural evidence – this is why:

I was strangely confused with trying to figure out where you were coming from.  I have no problem with the historical facts whatsoever, rather, the assumption that: man is able to make a blatant attempt to tamper with the Word of God, and that there are discrepancies within the Word of God.  Think about it.  If your reasoning is correct, then building my faith upon a flawed foundation can only lead to failure.  I thought the bible was pure and accurate truth! To make matters worse, in the very beginning of your writing you yourself take a scripture out of the bible and deliberately change the words around, in order to put across your own belief:

If we change the word ‘Word’ for Eve and God for ‘Adam’ we get the following: In the beginning was Eve. And Eve was with Adam, and Eve was Adam. She was in the beginning with Adam.

Is this not a blatant attempt on your part?

Then just when I thought I had it worked out, (that SOME scripture is not of God), you use scripture to remind me of what I believed I thought was true in the first place:

If we try to push a doctrine that is not biblical then the scriptures are there to correct us according to 2 Timothy 3:16 (English-NIV)
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness

ALL scripture?!  Haven’t you only just finished saying that some scripture is flawed? Why would you make an assumption that God made a mistake regarding the very thing that you also say He authored?  It seems that maybe you are doing the very thing that you warn others not to do.

The KJV is not, and cannot be flawed in any way whatsoever, if it was truly authored by omnipotent God Himself.  Especially, in light of the previous scripture.  

Therefore, it would be unwise for me to bring out any scriptural evidence, until you help me to understand the above writing, as my whole reasoning is based upon simply accepting scripture for what it is, with complete harmony throughout.  I too disagree with the trinity as I also disagree with a few of your points, however, the one thing that both views lack is scriptural harmony.  It is this missing ingredient that I hope to share with both sides.  

The ball is now in your court.

As always: I look forward to your reply!  

 

 

[Author]

Posts