javajo
Well-Known Member
You asked for a list of Christian Doctrines...I'm not asking you to agree with them.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Refuting the Trinity Doctrine!
- Thread starter Shiner2
- Start date
javajo
Well-Known Member
He asked for a list of Christian Doctrine. This is what I believe, I'm not asking you to.
Shermana
Heretic
Well you see, I am arguing, as this is a debate board, against the validity of some of these things as "Christian" doctrines and making a point that some are not exactly Christian but what Christians think are Christian based on misunderstandings.
outhouse
Atheistically
the trinity was a man made concept to try and define the divinity of yeshua. A man they naver knew or met or heard one word from.
Have you ever thought there was good reason why jesus didnt preach the trinity????
Or why it took 400 years after jesus death for teh trinity to become mainstream among certain sects of christians.
outhouse
Atheistically
I think your confusing scripture as being perfect history without error.
your welcome to your belief but scripture has nothing to do with the trinity
is this because you dont understand the first thing about its history??
it does, dont take me wrong. But you have to find the facts to find out if its valid history.
javajo
Well-Known Member
Ok. The Doctrine of the Trinity is hard for any human to grasp let alone believe so misunderstandings will abound from all sides.
From the Bible, I believe in God the Father, Jesus, the Son of God, who said if that if you've seen him you've seen the father, and in God the Holy Spirit. Jesus did say (in my Bible) to go teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
Shermana
Heretic
Gotquestions.org says its absolutely impossible for the human mind to even comprehend, which at least is one of the most honest things they can say about it, since it's not logically comprehensible. Essentially, the idea of the Trinity is: "It's so mysterious it doesn't make sense, therefore you should believe it".
He also said, no one has seen the Father except he who has come down from Heaven. Yashua was the representative of the Father. Why else did he say no one has seen Him?
InChrist
Free4ever
As an artist places his signature on a piece of artwork, I think there are things in the natural world of His creation which God gave us as pictures of His triune nature:
The universe-time/space/matter
Time-past/present/future
Space-height/width/depth
Matter-solid/liquid/gas
Human beings-body/soul/spirit
The universe-time/space/matter
Time-past/present/future
Space-height/width/depth
Matter-solid/liquid/gas
Human beings-body/soul/spirit
outhouse
Atheistically
the above is the reality of all nature, ancient hebrews attributed to deities [yes plural]
BUT ancient hebrews were not the first people on the planet, they were shy by some 197,000 years homo sapiens exusted before hebrews.
the trinity was just ancient man trying to define a deity and they put theirselves in a trick bag they tried to get out of by created a godhead out of thin air to keep the monotheistic tradition alive.
Last edited:
InChrist
Free4ever
My perspective is that the reality of nature reflects the reality of God's nature.
The heavens declare the glory of God;And the firmament shows His handiwork.
Psalm 19:1
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse. Romans 1:20
Yes, seen the Father, but in what sense?
People saw Jesus in the physical, did people claim to see God in the physical ?
-John 6v46
Wasn't John clear at 1st John [4v12] that No person has seen God at any time ?
John also wrote in his gospel [1v18] that No person has seen God at any time.
Didn't people continue to live after they saw Jesus ?
Exodus [20v33] assures that No one can see God and live.
outhouse
Atheistically
because the gospel writers NEVER looked at jesus as part of the trinity concept
for them he was the son of god who died for our sins, and its obvious
Shermana
Heretic
Don't buy into the out-dated Documentary Hypothesis, I'm assuming you haven't caught up with the recent Israeli software that boiled it down to what everyone knew way before that, there was just a Deuteronomist in addition to the "J" source. It helps to actually know what the holy name means.
Anyways, "Elohim" simply "gods" or "god" in the majestic plural, this confusion led the original D-Hypothesists to their error. Also, the Canaanites didn't have a god named "El", the word "El" was just their term for "Top god". Likewise, in Psalms 136:2, the Hebrew god is called "god of the gods".
outhouse
Atheistically
thast not even close to mainstream scholarships.
there were 5 authors
E and J and R and P and D
elohim was not yahwey, elohim was the one of many and yahwey a complete opposite was a warrior god, both were used by previous religions in the levant.
No one debates that early hebrews were polytheistic, its a known fact.
E and J go back almost 1000 BC, hebrews didnt make the switch to monotheism until the period of second isaiah around 606 BC
Shermana
Heretic
When you say "Mainstream scholarship", you should note that the Documentary Hypothesis is not as popular today now that the Israeli software kind of debunked it. Also, you apparently don't understand what the word "Elohim" means, nor are you aware that it used for angels as well. Moses was said to be "the elohim to Pharoah".
I don't debate that the Israelites often turned to idolatry, no Rabbi debates that. There is no proof whatsoever for the "E" source. At all. It is pure fantasy based on elementary linguistic misconceptions.
I don't debate that the Israelites often turned to idolatry, no Rabbi debates that. There is no proof whatsoever for the "E" source. At all. It is pure fantasy based on elementary linguistic misconceptions.
Can you elaborate or give sources/links please?
I honestly have never found the concept of the Trinity to be that mind-boggling. Perhaps its because I was taught it from childhood, and so I have become immune to its strangeness.
The concept is just one super-God with 3 distinct aspects, called "persons". Why is that impossible? The analogy, though imperfect, I like best is of the 3 stages of H20: ice (solid), water (liquid), and steam (gas). All have the same chemical makeup-- two hydrogens joined to one oxygen-- but in different environments, it behaves differently. Three distinct aspects to one super molecule.
Being very ill from a neck problem for the past few weeks, I have found it difficult to sit at the computer for more than a few minutes at a time, which has slowed me down quite a bit.
Mark, what "bad transliteration" are you referring to that I supposedly copied to support what you call my "doctrine"? If you are referring the W&H transliteration, the point you brought up is not actually relevant to the point I was making, so it does not make any difference anyway. I simply use that particular interlinear because it is easy to search and to copy and paste. It does reproduce via transliteration the Greek text as well as Strong's numbers, and that was the reason I presented it. I would not, however, say it is a 'bad transliteration' any more than the transliteration link that you gave.
I gave solid scriptural reasons for what I presented. Indeed, if one takes into consideration the usage of "the beginning of" throughout the NT, as well as the usage of the word "beginning" (as related to creation) and "world" (kosmos), what I have presented should be considered the default reasoning.
On the other hand, are we to think that when the writer of Hebrews said "in that He [God] put all in subjection under him [man], He [God] left nothing that is not put under him [man]," that God was subjecting absolutely everything in the universe to man? The immediate context of Hebrews 2:8 does not suggest otherwise, but when we look at the context of Psalm 8:6, we find that "all things" does not mean "all things" in the universe, but "all things" living on the earth and its heavens. Although "all things" were subjected to man as recorded in Genesis 1:26,28, as we read in Hebrews 2:8, we do not yet see all things subjected to man. Other scriptures show that all things have not yet subjected to man because of sin, and the bondage God put on man because of sin. -- Ecclesiastes 1:13-15; Romans 5:12-19; Romans 8:20-22.
When scriptures say that Jesus "expounded all things to his disciples" (Mark 4:34), does this mean that Jesus expounded absolutely all knowledge about absolutely everything in the universe to the his disciples? Obviously,, the "all things" is in reference to the parables that Jesus had spoken.
When Jesus said to his disciples: "I have foretold you all things" (Mark 13:23), are we to think that Jesus foretold about every minute, second, etc., of the lives of all peoples and events that were come upon the planet earth, not to mention all the movements of all galaxies, stars, planete, etc.?
I could go through the NT (as well as the OT) with hundreds of examples of how "all [things]" (forms of PAS in the NT, forms of KOL in the OT) is being used with the evident understanding that it is being applied to what is understood, either by context or just by what is commonly evident, as Paul speaks of in 1 Corinthians 15:27.
I cannot yet provide links, but one can go to biblestudytools com and search for "all things" and see how it is being used.
The immediate context of John 1:3 is pertaining the beginning of the world (Kosmos) of mankind that God made through the Logos, the world into which the Logos came, which world did not recognize the Logos, the same world that Adam was born into, an into which sin came due to Adam's disobedience. -- John 1:1,10; 17:5; see also: Matthew 24:21; Romans 5:12. For more usage of the word Kosmos in the NT, see that word at biblestudytools com.
"In the beginning" refers to the beginning of the world of mankind, not to the "beginning" the created universe or even the material universe. The default understanding should be related to "the world that was made through" the Logos, as shown in John 1:10 and other verses throughout the New Testament. It is only because of neglect of the context and the rest of the Bible regarding the "all" of John 1:3, and the zeal make Jesus the Creator God, that it has become popular to think that "In the beginning" in John 1:1 and Genesis 1:1 means absolutely everything in the universe.
In Matthew 24:21, Jesus speaks of the beginning of the world.
For then will be great oppression, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, nor ever will be.
Is he here speaking of the world of the angels? No, he is speaking of the world of mankind on the earth.
It is the "beginning of the world" that was made through him, into which world he came, and which world did not recognize him. -- John 1:10.
It is the "beginning of the world" that is spoken of in Romans 5:12, into which world sin was introduced through the first man Adam. That "world" is the world of mankind on the planet earth, not the entire universe, nor does it include the angels.
In Mark 10:6, Jesus is recorded as saying:
But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female.
The "beginning of creation" here is not the material universe, but the "whole creation" that Paul writes about in Romans 8:20-22. It is the human creation under subjection to its present sun of vanity and futility that is being spoken of, under which sun there can be no new creation. -- Ecclesiastes 1:2,9-17; 2:11,17; 3:19; 8:14; 12:8.
The angels the spirit sons of God were already in existence at the creation that Jesus spoke of. Job 38:4-7; see Job 1:6; 2:1.
At the "beginning of creation" as spoken of in Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1, we find that there were already sons of God present (Job 38:4-7), so that the earth spoken of in Job 38 must not mean the same thing as "earth" in Isaiah 44:24, since in the latter verse Yahweh is depicted as being alone. So the "beginning of creation" here is not the beginning of the creation of the spirit world.
Therefore, "the beginning" spoken of of Genesis 1:1 begins with and includes all six days of creation, as can be seen from Exodus 20:11; 31:17. As the Logos already "was" at the beginning spoken of in John 1:1, so the planet earth itself already "was" as the beginning spoken of in Genesis 1:1, with a watery surface that was covered with darkness. (Genesis 1:2) Thus, the "beginning" of the heavens and earth spoken of in Hebrews 1:10 is not the material universe, nor even of the planet earth itself, but rather the heavens, the sky, as shown in Genesis 1:8,9 (and things in and pertaining to the sky), and the earth [land] as spoken of in Genesis 1:10 (and things in and pertaining to the earth). The "earth" created is not the planet, for it already was.
Thus, the beginning of creation that is spoken of in John 1:1 is the same "beginning" that is spoken of in Genesis 1:1, which beginning refers, not to the planet earth that already "was" (Genesis 1:2), but to the six days of making the earth [land masses and the things in it, and its seas and the things in the seas] and sky [and the things in it], the single "day" "that Yahweh God made earth and the heavens." (Exodus 20:11; 31:17; Genesis 2:4) Before those "six days" began, the planet earth itself, already "was". -- Genesis 1:2.
Thus, by placing the scriptures in chronological order, we find:
First, Isaiah 44:24 could mean that God created the material universe, when he was still alone, before he created any living creature.
Second, God brought forth His firstborn. -- Colossians 1:15; Revelation 3:14.
Third, God, through his firstborn, created all dominions (with the evident exclusion of "God" and his firstborn), in the invisible heavens, that is of the invisible spirit beings, and any ranks assigned to those spirit beings. -- Colossians 1:16.
Fourth, God, through his firstborn creature (the Logos), created the world of mankind and all things in it, the visible dominion on the earth. -- John 1:3,10; Acts 14:15; 17:24; Colossians 1:16 (Genesis 1:26,27).
Mark, what "bad transliteration" are you referring to that I supposedly copied to support what you call my "doctrine"? If you are referring the W&H transliteration, the point you brought up is not actually relevant to the point I was making, so it does not make any difference anyway. I simply use that particular interlinear because it is easy to search and to copy and paste. It does reproduce via transliteration the Greek text as well as Strong's numbers, and that was the reason I presented it. I would not, however, say it is a 'bad transliteration' any more than the transliteration link that you gave.
I gave solid scriptural reasons for what I presented. Indeed, if one takes into consideration the usage of "the beginning of" throughout the NT, as well as the usage of the word "beginning" (as related to creation) and "world" (kosmos), what I have presented should be considered the default reasoning.
On the other hand, are we to think that when the writer of Hebrews said "in that He [God] put all in subjection under him [man], He [God] left nothing that is not put under him [man]," that God was subjecting absolutely everything in the universe to man? The immediate context of Hebrews 2:8 does not suggest otherwise, but when we look at the context of Psalm 8:6, we find that "all things" does not mean "all things" in the universe, but "all things" living on the earth and its heavens. Although "all things" were subjected to man as recorded in Genesis 1:26,28, as we read in Hebrews 2:8, we do not yet see all things subjected to man. Other scriptures show that all things have not yet subjected to man because of sin, and the bondage God put on man because of sin. -- Ecclesiastes 1:13-15; Romans 5:12-19; Romans 8:20-22.
When scriptures say that Jesus "expounded all things to his disciples" (Mark 4:34), does this mean that Jesus expounded absolutely all knowledge about absolutely everything in the universe to the his disciples? Obviously,, the "all things" is in reference to the parables that Jesus had spoken.
When Jesus said to his disciples: "I have foretold you all things" (Mark 13:23), are we to think that Jesus foretold about every minute, second, etc., of the lives of all peoples and events that were come upon the planet earth, not to mention all the movements of all galaxies, stars, planete, etc.?
I could go through the NT (as well as the OT) with hundreds of examples of how "all [things]" (forms of PAS in the NT, forms of KOL in the OT) is being used with the evident understanding that it is being applied to what is understood, either by context or just by what is commonly evident, as Paul speaks of in 1 Corinthians 15:27.
I cannot yet provide links, but one can go to biblestudytools com and search for "all things" and see how it is being used.
The immediate context of John 1:3 is pertaining the beginning of the world (Kosmos) of mankind that God made through the Logos, the world into which the Logos came, which world did not recognize the Logos, the same world that Adam was born into, an into which sin came due to Adam's disobedience. -- John 1:1,10; 17:5; see also: Matthew 24:21; Romans 5:12. For more usage of the word Kosmos in the NT, see that word at biblestudytools com.
"In the beginning" refers to the beginning of the world of mankind, not to the "beginning" the created universe or even the material universe. The default understanding should be related to "the world that was made through" the Logos, as shown in John 1:10 and other verses throughout the New Testament. It is only because of neglect of the context and the rest of the Bible regarding the "all" of John 1:3, and the zeal make Jesus the Creator God, that it has become popular to think that "In the beginning" in John 1:1 and Genesis 1:1 means absolutely everything in the universe.
In Matthew 24:21, Jesus speaks of the beginning of the world.
For then will be great oppression, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, nor ever will be.
Is he here speaking of the world of the angels? No, he is speaking of the world of mankind on the earth.
It is the "beginning of the world" that was made through him, into which world he came, and which world did not recognize him. -- John 1:10.
It is the "beginning of the world" that is spoken of in Romans 5:12, into which world sin was introduced through the first man Adam. That "world" is the world of mankind on the planet earth, not the entire universe, nor does it include the angels.
In Mark 10:6, Jesus is recorded as saying:
But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female.
The "beginning of creation" here is not the material universe, but the "whole creation" that Paul writes about in Romans 8:20-22. It is the human creation under subjection to its present sun of vanity and futility that is being spoken of, under which sun there can be no new creation. -- Ecclesiastes 1:2,9-17; 2:11,17; 3:19; 8:14; 12:8.
The angels the spirit sons of God were already in existence at the creation that Jesus spoke of. Job 38:4-7; see Job 1:6; 2:1.
At the "beginning of creation" as spoken of in Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1, we find that there were already sons of God present (Job 38:4-7), so that the earth spoken of in Job 38 must not mean the same thing as "earth" in Isaiah 44:24, since in the latter verse Yahweh is depicted as being alone. So the "beginning of creation" here is not the beginning of the creation of the spirit world.
Therefore, "the beginning" spoken of of Genesis 1:1 begins with and includes all six days of creation, as can be seen from Exodus 20:11; 31:17. As the Logos already "was" at the beginning spoken of in John 1:1, so the planet earth itself already "was" as the beginning spoken of in Genesis 1:1, with a watery surface that was covered with darkness. (Genesis 1:2) Thus, the "beginning" of the heavens and earth spoken of in Hebrews 1:10 is not the material universe, nor even of the planet earth itself, but rather the heavens, the sky, as shown in Genesis 1:8,9 (and things in and pertaining to the sky), and the earth [land] as spoken of in Genesis 1:10 (and things in and pertaining to the earth). The "earth" created is not the planet, for it already was.
Thus, the beginning of creation that is spoken of in John 1:1 is the same "beginning" that is spoken of in Genesis 1:1, which beginning refers, not to the planet earth that already "was" (Genesis 1:2), but to the six days of making the earth [land masses and the things in it, and its seas and the things in the seas] and sky [and the things in it], the single "day" "that Yahweh God made earth and the heavens." (Exodus 20:11; 31:17; Genesis 2:4) Before those "six days" began, the planet earth itself, already "was". -- Genesis 1:2.
Thus, by placing the scriptures in chronological order, we find:
First, Isaiah 44:24 could mean that God created the material universe, when he was still alone, before he created any living creature.
Second, God brought forth His firstborn. -- Colossians 1:15; Revelation 3:14.
Third, God, through his firstborn, created all dominions (with the evident exclusion of "God" and his firstborn), in the invisible heavens, that is of the invisible spirit beings, and any ranks assigned to those spirit beings. -- Colossians 1:16.
Fourth, God, through his firstborn creature (the Logos), created the world of mankind and all things in it, the visible dominion on the earth. -- John 1:3,10; Acts 14:15; 17:24; Colossians 1:16 (Genesis 1:26,27).