Refuting the Trinity Doctrine!

Riverwolf · Aug 12, 2009

Shiner2 said:
Riverwolf!
It may well be that the Trinitarian's agree with this accurate description you speak of; but the entire Israelite Nation Jehovah, his Son, the Christ, and all of the first Century Christian's don't agree with it. My money goes on their opions at every turn of the page. Trinitarians, you name the description of them, haven't a clue as to what they are talking about, and it would appear, neither do you! Shiner2

Does God look the same no matter where you're looking at him?

Riverwolf · Aug 12, 2009

Shiner2 said:
To All!
Do you all wish to know what the real problem here is? Let me tell you, why all of this confusion is going on. To begin with, the Apostle John tolds us that this entire World 'lies in the power of the wicked one.' Then he told us that satan is' misleading the entire inhabited earth.' 1 John 5:19} {Revelation 12:9} Coupled with that, one must be 'granted to understand the sacred secrets of the kingdom of God. {Matthew 13:10,11 Then, one must have his 'mind fully opened to grasp the meaning of the scriptures.' {Luke 24:45} Paul also explained that satan has 'blinded the minds of the people of this world, so that the illumination about the glorious good news about the Christ might not shine through.'{ 2 Corinthians 4:3,4}That's why this ugly mess exists right now. Very few actually are allowed to get the true sense of the Bible. On and on it goes! No one ever gets anywhere, because of what I've told you all here! Shiner2

So basically God decides himself whether or not someone gets into heaven or not, and has nothing to do with what we do.

Riverwolf · Aug 12, 2009

Dunemeister said:
That's because you are thinking in terms of the physical reality with which you are typically confronted. There are no better terms to use in English to distinguish the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit than "person." However, in every formulation of the trinity accepted since Nicaea, there has been great care to emphasize that the distinctions (called "persons") are not dividing "the substance", that is, the divine being. There is one divine being who exists as three persons.

The problem, really, is not with the doctrine of the trinity so much as the fact that, in English, the only terms we have available for us to discuss the distinctions being made involve ideas we typically identify, such as "person" with "being."

What's wrong with using new words we have now, such as avatar to describe Jesus?

Dunemeister · Aug 12, 2009

Riverwolf said:
What's wrong with using new words we have now, such as avatar to describe Jesus?

I don't know what it means. But if it means what the words "being" or "person" are supposed to mean, then there's no problem.

Riverwolf · Aug 12, 2009

Dunemeister said:
I don't know what it means. But if it means what the words "being" or "person" are supposed to mean, then there's no problem.

From the Glossary of the Bhagavad-Gita As It Is

Avatara - "one who descends"; a fully or partially empowered incarnation of God who descends from the spiritual realm for a particular mission

snow duck · Aug 13, 2009

The trinity doctrine makes no sense in logical terms. Most things in the Bible don't. Why do some people accept some of it's teachings but reject others? Some people accept the trinity doctrine but think the idea of the virgin birth is ridiculous for example.The Bible must only be accepted by faith or it becomes just another book.

sojourner · Aug 13, 2009

It is common knowledge today, that the Israelite's Nations way of worship was a Monotheistic way of Worship of only one single God; who had instructed that entire Nation, that was the way he wished to be viewed, and worshipped, in their days. This can be seen from the conversation Moses was having with Pharaoh of ancient Egypt: Notice now:

You're stumbling right out of the gate. You can't win the race if you stumble at the gate.
The ancient Hebrews weren't monotheistic. They were henotheistic. At any rate, even monotheism does not conflict with the understanding of God as Trinity.

sojourner · Aug 13, 2009

Trinitarians, you name the description of them, haven't a clue as to what they are talking about, and it would appear, neither do you! Shiner2

Projecting will get you nowhere.

the Christ, and all of the first Century Christian's don't agree with it.

Are you so sure that Christ doesn't "agree with it?"
In fact, there were many different ideas about the nature of God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit prevalent in the different first-century Xian communities.

sojourner · Aug 13, 2009

Shiner2 said:
To All!
Do you all wish to know what the real problem here is? Let me tell you, why all of this confusion is going on. To begin with, the Apostle John tolds us that this entire World 'lies in the power of the wicked one.' Then he told us that satan is' misleading the entire inhabited earth.' 1 John 5:19} {Revelation 12:9} Coupled with that, one must be 'granted to understand the sacred secrets of the kingdom of God. {Matthew 13:10,11 Then, one must have his 'mind fully opened to grasp the meaning of the scriptures.' {Luke 24:45} Paul also explained that satan has 'blinded the minds of the people of this world, so that the illumination about the glorious good news about the Christ might not shine through.'{ 2 Corinthians 4:3,4}That's why this ugly mess exists right now. Very few actually are allowed to get the true sense of the Bible. On and on it goes! No one ever gets anywhere, because of what I've told you all here! Shiner2

"The devil made me do it" didn't work for the comedian, nor does it work for the Xian. And it won't hold up in court as a valid argument. You're setting up a straw man here.

sojourner · Aug 13, 2009

snow duck said:
The trinity doctrine makes no sense in logical terms. Most things in the Bible don't. Why do some people accept some of it's teachings but reject others? Some people accept the trinity doctrine but think the idea of the virgin birth is ridiculous for example.The Bible must only be accepted by faith or it becomes just another book.

That's because "virgin birth" is a construct -- not a fact.
The Trinity is a theological understanding of God.
The Bible must be accepted for the realities of its literary design.

Dunemeister · Aug 13, 2009

Riverwolf said:
From the Glossary of the Bhagavad-Gita As It Is

Avatara - "one who descends"; a fully or partially empowered incarnation of God who descends from the spiritual realm for a particular mission

Well that sounds something like "incarnation" but not anything that gets at the distinction between the "divine substance" and divine "persons", which is the topic at issue.

Dunemeister · Aug 13, 2009

snow duck said:
The trinity doctrine makes no sense in logical terms.

Logically, it's fine. There are no contradictions involved. It is, however, mysterious. That is, I can't tell you in complete detail how all the relations work. But that's nothing against the idea. Gravity is mysterious, too. How can one object affect another without even touching it? Scientists can't really explain how one object can affect another over a distance. Nevertheless, they assert that it happens and have mathematical models that accurately predict phenomena. If you keep pressing the issue, eventually the scientist will have to throw up his hands and just ask you to accept it. And we do, because the notion of gravity, despite its mystery, explains the data.

Something similar goes for the trinity. Despite its mystery, it explains the biblical data, especially what we find in the new testament, about the activity of God and Jesus and what they are said to be like. To explain the range of data, something like the trinity doctrine has to be right.

Dunemeister · Aug 13, 2009

sojourner said:
That's because "virgin birth" is a construct -- not a fact.

Not the purpose of this thread, but I for one would say "Not so fast, mister!"

sojourner · Aug 13, 2009

"Avatar" removes the human element from Jesus (who was fully human). "Avatar" sounds like something that is other than fully human. For Jesus to be an "avatar," reconciliation could not be effected, for it is precisely the fact that Jesus was both fully human and fully Divine that reconciled humanity to God. We could not become God, so God became us.

"Avatar" does not work.

Vesuvius · Aug 13, 2009

The main problem with the Trinity is the fact that three separate beings are equally the same person and yet are separate beings at the same time. Not only does that not logically make any sense, but it's not entirely monotheistic

I think it makes perfect sense. If you accept the concept of God, then you accept that God is a divine being capable of doing whatever he wants. You say "God" can't do this, then you're basically arguing against God's divinity. God could make himself/herself a million different beings if he/she wanted. Regardless, we could compare this debate to arguing on the finer points of the mating habits of unicorns, or the flight patterns of fairies.
Believe, but realize you cannot rationally prove or debate any of the finer points around the nature of what God does or doesn't do, or wish to do, or want to do. God's ways are God's ways...we are like ants (if ants were capable of rational thought) trying to understand Einstein.

sojourner · Aug 13, 2009

Dunemeister said:
Not the purpose of this thread, but I for one would say "Not so fast, mister!"

It's implied, but not explicit. The Greek term is "young woman." Therefore, the understanding of "virgin birth" is a construct. The implications weigh heavily, I think, in favor of a meaning of virginity, though. A "young woman" who was not married would have most likely been a virgin. Joseph would not have worried about his reputation if she were a virgin. Therefore, I think we can assume that Joseph thought she was a virgin, until he was informed that she was pregnant, which tipped him off that she was not -- hence, the worry about his reputation.

Edit: Neither Jesus' Divinity, nor reconciliation are dependent upon Mary's virginity. The classic doctrine is a construct, therefore, not a fact.

Dunemeister · Aug 13, 2009

sojourner said:
"Avatar" removes the human element from Jesus (who was fully human). "Avatar" sounds like something that is other than fully human. For Jesus to be an "avatar," reconciliation could not be effected, for it is precisely the fact that Jesus was both fully human and fully Divine that reconciled humanity to God. We could not become God, so God became us.

"Avatar" does not work.

Ah, well if that's what "avatar" does, then you're absolutely right. It won't work.

Dunemeister · Aug 13, 2009

sojourner said:
It's implied, but not explicit. The Greek term is "young woman." Therefore, the understanding of "virgin birth" is a construct. The implications weigh heavily, I think, in favor of a meaning of virginity, though. A "young woman" who was not married would have most likely been a virgin. Joseph would not have worried about his reputation if she were a virgin. Therefore, I think we can assume that Joseph thought she was a virgin, until he was informed that she was pregnant, which tipped him off that she was not -- hence, the worry about his reputation.

Edit: Neither Jesus' Divinity, nor reconciliation are dependent upon Mary's virginity. The classic doctrine is a construct, therefore, not a fact.

Thanks for this, sojourner. Your explanation raises more questions than it answers (and the answers it in fact provides are confusing on several levels). I'd like to take them up with you, but they are off this thread's topic, so I won't. Suffice to say only that I don't see the entailment (the force of your "therefore" in your edit).

sandy whitelinger · Aug 13, 2009

Shiner2 said:
It is common knowledge today, that the Israelite's Nations way of worship was a Monotheistic way of Worship of only one single God; who had instructed that entire Nation, that was the way he wished to be viewed, and worshipped, in their days. This can be seen from the conversation Moses was having with Pharaoh of ancient Egypt: Notice now:

9 "And Moses said to Pharaoh, Glory over me, for what time shall I intreat for thee, and for thy bondmen, and for thy people, to cut off the frogs from thee and from thy houses; [so that] they shall remain in the river only?
10 And he said, For to-morrow. And he said, Be it according to thy word; that thou mayest know that there is NONE LIKE JEHOVAH OUR GOD."
11And the frogs shall depart from thee, and from thy houses, and from thy bondmen, and from thy people: they shall remain in the river only." Exodus 8:9-11 (D.T.)

How, then would this ancient ruler have viewed Jehovah after hearing the words of Moses? The answer is quite obvious, isn't it? 'None like him'! No other, would be on the mind of Pharaoh. No Polytheism even hinted at there, now is there? As the Trinitarians view it?

Something else of a very serious nature should be kept in mind, as I deal with this discussion, are the Words of the Apostle Peter, that reflects on this very subject. Consider now, these words:
20 "knowing this first, that [the scope of] no prophecy of scripture is had from its own particular interpretation,
21 for prophecy was not ever uttered by [the] will of man, but holy men of God spake under the power of [the] Holy Spirit."
2 Peter 1:20,21(DARBY) These words, spoken by Moses, was written by one of Jehovah's 'Holy Men of old' this Bible writer wrote while under the influence of Jehovah's Holy Spirt, and for anyone, I don't care who it is, to even dare suggest something other than what was written was meant, would be tantamount to committing the sin against the Holy Spirit, was they to try and support the Trinity Doctrine from them. To do that, would be calling Jehovah's Holy Spirit a liar. Very, very dangerous ground to found treading on, at any time. With this in mind, consider the following:
24 "Scarcely have they been planted,
Scarcely have they been sown,
Scarcely has their stock taken root in the earth,
But He merely blows on them, and they wither,
And the storm carries them away like stubble.
25"To whom then WILL YOU LIKEN ME
That I WOULD BE HIS EQUAL?" says the Holy One.
26 Lift up your eyes on high
And see who has created these stars,
The One who leads forth their host by number,
He calls them all by name;
Because of the greatness of His might and the strength of His power,
Not one of them is missing." {Isaiah 40:24-26 (N.A.S.B.)

What now, is Jehovah tellings us through the pen of his inspired Bible Writer? He's telling us that he has no equal, isn't he? Any Trinitarian care to go against those words, and say, that there are three co-eternal, three co-equal God's within, what they describe as a God-Head?

Keeping in mind, that it's not just Jehovah's Holy Man speaking, but Jehovah himself speaking through the mouth and pen of his Prophet Isaiah in this following instance:
8"Remember this, and be assured;
Recall it to mind, you transgressors. {Trinitarians}
9"Remember the former things long past,
For I am God, and there IS NO OTHER;
I am God, and there is NO ONE LIKE ME,
10 Declaring the end from the beginning,
And from ancient times things which have not been done,
Saying, My purpose will be established,
And I will accomplish all My good pleasure' Isaiah 46:8-10 (N.A.S.B.)

A sensible person reading this statement must conclude, that one single God is speaking here! Not two, not three, just one single one alone. It says: "My purpose." "I will accomplish." "My good pleasure." It doesn't say, "OUR" now does it? "I AM GOD!" Not "we are GOD'S" as Trinitarians would have us believe.

In one of the most beautiful prayers to Jehovah, ever expressed, King Solomon makes it clear to all of us today, just how Jehovah was viewed by the entire Israelite Nation, when he prayed the following:
14 "and he said, O Jehovah, the God of Israel, there is NO GOD LIKE THEE, IN HEAVEN, or on earth; who keepest covenant and loving-kind-ness with thy servants, that walk before thee with all their heart"; 2 Chronicles 6:14 (A.S.V.) As Solomon prayed that prayer, the glorious Angel that was to come to this earth and take on the identity of the Christ was right there 'alongside Jehovah', while King Solomon was praying, yet he could still say, there was 'no God "in heaven" like Jehovah. Jesus himself told us all that he was 'alongside his Father before the World was.' Yet even in the face of that, Solomon did not view this Glorious Angel as Jehovah God. Niether should we! Neither should the Trinitarians! {John 17:5}

Was this Monotheistic way of worship carried over into the first Century while the Christ walked this earth? Could it have been possibly changed over to a polytheistic way of Worship, so the Trinitarian's just might have an excuse for their false teaching? Absolutely not! I should have pointed out at the outset, that Jehovah 'never changes'.

What he required of the Israelite Nation, he required of all of the first Century Christians. The only difference was, now, instead of being under the Old Law Covenant, they was now under the New Covenant established on the Blood of the Christ, doing away with all of the animal sacrifices offered under the Old Law Covenant. {Malachi 3:6}

Anyone, and I mean anyone, reading the Christian Greek Scriptures would easily see, that the Monotheistic way of Worship of only one God, was still in practice. Nothing had changed regarding that particular way of Worship.
All one need do, is examine closely every scripture that deals with this in the New Testament and it is easily seen, Monotheism was still very much in practice. I will now set these Chapters and verses forward, for examination to prove my point.
1 Corinthians 8:5-7- Galatians 1:1-3- Ephesians 6:22-24 - Philippians 2:10-12- Colossians 1:2,3;3:16-18- 1 Thessalonians 1:1-3- 2 Thessalonians 1:1-3-1 Timothy 1:1-3 -2 Timothy 1:1-3 - Titus 1:3-5 -
1 Peter 1:1-3 - 2 Peter 1:17 - Jude 1:1 -

Monotheisim was the way the Hebrew Nation Worshipped! Was the way first Century Christian's worshipped, and if Christian's today are worshipping 'in Spirit and truth' as required, that is the way they will worship today too. If not, their worship is in vain and will avail them nothing. {John 4:23,24}

Now since this Trinity Doctrine is a Poytheistic way of worship; that of course runs counter to the Monotheistic way of Worship of the ancient Jewish Nations, who was the very first Nation on this earth to worship the God of the Bible. That particular type of Worship was condemned by Jehovah, because they was not to intermingle their Worship with the surounding Nations all around them. Who some from among those Nations worshipped a Trinity of Gods. Since that is true, then why would the Trinitarians try to push this doctrine to the fore, self codemning themselves for doing so?

Monotheism refutes the Trinity Doctrine, without even using the scriptures to do it, although, I have used some. Shiner2

Wow, no one's ever tried to refute THAT doctrine here before.

sojourner · Aug 13, 2009

Dunemeister said:
Thanks for this, sojourner. Your explanation raises more questions than it answers (and the answers it in fact provides are confusing on several levels). I'd like to take them up with you, but they are off this thread's topic, so I won't. Suffice to say only that I don't see the entailment (the force of your "therefore" in your edit).

I agree. Begin a thread, if you wish. I'll join in.

Refuting the Trinity Doctrine!

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi

Well-Known Member

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi

New Member

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

Meshman Fember

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006