Refuting the Trinity Doctrine!

te_lanus · Aug 15, 2009

Hi here is a few Quotes from the second Century Theologian Tertullian

"I bid you also observe, that on my side I advance the passage where the Father said to the Son,
'Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten Thee.'

If you want me to believe Him to be both the Father and the Son, show me some other passage
where it is declared,
'The Lord said unto Himself, I am my own Son, to-day have I begotten myself;'

'Before the morning did I beget myself;'

'I the Lord possessed Myself in the beginning of my ways for my own works; before all the hills,
too, did I beget myself;'

and whatever other passages are to the same effect. Why, moreover, could God the Lord of all
things, have hesitated to speak thus of Himself, if the fact had been so?"

Riverwolf · Aug 15, 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.

Rama seemed to be fully human, as did Krishna.

Renji · Aug 15, 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

I don't wanna offend anyone here, but before I answer your question, why do you believe that God's name is Jehovah? Sorry but I don't think that there is letter "J" in the hebrew alphabet.

Riverwolf · Aug 15, 2009

Lawrence said:
I don't wanna offend anyone here, but before I answer your question, why do you believe that God's name is Jehovah? Sorry but I don't think that there is letter "J" in the hebrew alphabet.

Jehovah is a "translation" of the tetragrammaton Name of God, YHWH, which is often pronounced and written as Yahweh.

Renji · Aug 15, 2009

Riverwolf said:
Jehovah is a "translation" of the tetragrammaton Name of God, YHWH, which is often pronounced and written as Yahweh.

Ok, but Jesus didn't even used this term/name to address the Father... How sure are they that this is the correct "translation?"

Dunemeister · Aug 15, 2009

Riverwolf said:
Rama seemed to be fully human, as did Krishna.

It's not about "seeming" human. Nor is it about "seeming" divine (in a loosely defined way). The more I think about it, the less it seems possible for Hindu categories to fit the Christian notion of what Jesus is about. Jesus was human, all right, but he claimed to be an incarnation of YHWH, a being quite different from any Hindu god. And the claim isn't that he "seemed" human or divine but that he is both, without qualification or codicil.

Katzpur · Aug 15, 2009

Lawrence said:
Ok, but Jesus didn't even used this term/name to address the Father... How sure are they that this is the correct "translation?"

That's because the mortal "Jesus" was the pre-mortal "Jehovah." Jehovah is not the Father. Jehovah is the Son. That's probably the biggest reason why He never used this name to address the Father.

Katzpur · Aug 15, 2009

Dunemeister said:
It's not about "seeming" human. Nor is it about "seeming" divine (in a loosely defined way).

You took the words right out of my mouth, Dunemeister.

Dunemeister · Aug 15, 2009

Katzpur said:
That's because the mortal "Jesus" was the pre-mortal "Jehovah." Jehovah is not the Father. Jehovah is the Son. That's probably the biggest reason why He never used this name to address the Father.

A more salient reason might be that he'd never heard the word "Jehovah" used of anyone, anywhere, for any reason. It's a totally made-up word (around the time of the publication of those first English bible translations). The God Jesus knew was called YHWH, but the people of his day (and he included) would never pronounce the word, saying instead "Adonai", meaning Lord. The characteristic name Jesus used for the Father is "Abba." There's no good translation for this term, but some have said it's an endearing or diminutive form of "Father", something like "Daddy". It emphasizes intimacy. This word was available to other first century Jews, but it was uncommon for them to use it of their God.

In short, "Jehovah" is the name of exactly nobody, not even a fictional character (if you think God himself is fictional). And THAT'S why Jesus never called the Father "Jehovah."

Dunemeister · Aug 15, 2009

Katzpur said:
You took the words right out of my mouth, Dunemeister.

Yeah, I do that sometimes. Sorry.

Renji · Aug 17, 2009

Dunemeister said:
A more salient reason might be that he'd never heard the word "Jehovah" used of anyone, anywhere, for any reason. It's a totally made-up word (around the time of the publication of those first English bible translations). The God Jesus knew was called YHWH, but the people of his day (and he included) would never pronounce the word, saying instead "Adonai", meaning Lord. The characteristic name Jesus used for the Father is "Abba." There's no good translation for this term, but some have said it's an endearing or diminutive form of "Father", something like "Daddy". It emphasizes intimacy. This word was available to other first century Jews, but it was uncommon for them to use it of their God.

In short, "Jehovah" is the name of exactly nobody, not even a fictional character (if you think God himself is fictional). And THAT'S why Jesus never called the Father "Jehovah."

This is the answer that I'm expecting. Thanks.

So I think it is better to "refute the doctrine" which tells us that God's name is Jehovah than refuting the trinity doctrine because trinity has a Biblical basis (the Bible mentioned the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit) unlike the name Jehovah that was never found in the original Hebrew Scriptures nor accepted by the biblical scholars. Peace to all JW's, but that is the truth....

Mattweedhacker · Aug 6, 2011

The ( pronunciation ) of the Tetragrammaton as it was used in the first century - is another subject all-together, which is worthy of a seperate thread on its own.:no:

But the ( word ) Ltn., ( trinitas ) with the emphasis on "TRI{3}" as part of the divinely inspired vocabulary of the accepted books of the Holy Bible and also the ( concept ) of "three-in-one-co-equal-co-eternal-co-almight(ies)-un-created-substance-god" is definitely not there as a straight forward and clear biblical teaching of Moses, any Prophet, Jesus or the Apostles.

It is simply an ( anacronistic ) miss-interpretation from ( later ) centuries that gradually gained the monopoly and dominant posistion through:

1.) Doctrinal inovation and philosophical speculation

reach:
2.) Tradition taking precedent over the word of God itself
3.) Spiritual fornication with the Kings of the Earth
4.) Force of arms:149:
5.) Use of torture
6.) Use of fear
7.) Miss-use of religeous authority:liturgy:
8.) Miss-use of Political backing
9.) Doctrinal compromise:thud:
10.) False-prophets promoted False-doctrine gradually accepted and assimulated:devil:

No-where is it clearly enunciated or expalined.:yes:

Renji · Aug 8, 2011

Mattweedhacker said:
The ( pronunciation ) of the Tetragrammaton as it was used in the first century - is another subject all-together, which is worthy of a seperate thread on its own.:no:

But the ( word ) Ltn., ( trinitas ) with the emphasis on "TRI{3}" as part of the divinely inspired vocabulary of the accepted books of the Holy Bible and also the ( concept ) of "three-in-one-co-equal-co-eternal-co-almight(ies)-un-created-substance-god" is definitely not there as a straight forward and clear biblical teaching of Moses, any Prophet, Jesus or the Apostles.

It is simply an ( anacronistic ) miss-interpretation from ( later ) centuries that gradually gained the monopoly and dominant posistion through:

1.) Doctrinal inovation and philosophical speculationreach:
2.) Tradition taking precedent over the word of God itself
3.) Spiritual fornication with the Kings of the Earth
4.) Force of arms:149:
5.) Use of torture
6.) Use of fear
7.) Miss-use of religeous authority:liturgy:
8.) Miss-use of Political backing
9.) Doctrinal compromise:thud:
10.) False-prophets promoted False-doctrine gradually accepted and assimulated:devil:

No-where is it clearly enunciated or expalined.:yes:

But the word "Bible" itself isn't written on the scriptures itself and yet many "Christian" religions believe in it.... The word "rapture" isn't written too in the book of Revelations but many "Christian" groups preach it as a part of their doctrine.. :shrug:

Renji · Aug 8, 2011

newworldutopia said:
Can you site some bible passages about the existence of the trinity? Thanks.

Trinity= Father, Son, Holy Spirit isn't it? Aren't those words mentioned in the bible? True, the word trinity (trinitas) isn't there, but the essence of the word trinity is there.. The same way with the word "Bible" - this aren't on the scriptures itself, but we believe in every word that is in it. Also, the term "rapture"- have you read any biblical verse stating that exact word, but yeah, many sects believe in it... So, what's the difference with the concept of trinity? :shrug:

Katzpur · Aug 8, 2011

Hi, Grandson. How's school going?

Lawrence said:
Trinity= Father, Son, Holy Spirit isn't it? Aren't those words mentioned in the bible? True, the word trinity (trinitas) isn't there, but the essence of the word trinity is there.. The same way with the word "Bible" - this aren't on the scriptures itself, but we believe in every word that is in it. Also, the term "rapture"- have you read any biblical verse stating that exact word, but yeah, many sects believe in it... So, what's the difference with the concept of trinity?

Since you believe that the essence of the word "Trinity" is in the Bible, could you point me to a few specific verses? I'm thinking of a few verses that might describe the Father, Son and Holy Ghost as being three parts of a single substance.

Renji · Aug 8, 2011

Katzpur said:
Hi, Grandson. How's school going?

Good. Making a thesis kills me though.

Katzpur said:
Since you believe that the essence of the word "Trinity" is in the Bible, could you point me to a few specific verses? I'm thinking of a few verses that might describe the Father, Son and Holy Ghost as being three parts of a single substance.

Didn't Jesus commended His apostles to go and preach every nation to baptize them in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit? That's what consist of the trinity... That's the essence of that word on the first place, just to describe the unity of those divine persons, nothing more.And yeah, there are a lot of apologetic explaining this doctrine, and a lot of heresies hundreds of centuries ago about this doctrine that had already been answered those times. Other sects are just reviving it.

Birddog · Aug 8, 2011

Lawrence said:
This is the answer that I'm expecting. Thanks.

So I think it is better to "refute the doctrine" which tells us that God's name is Jehovah than refuting the trinity doctrine because trinity has a Biblical basis (the Bible mentioned the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit) unlike the name Jehovah that was never found in the original Hebrew Scriptures

The tetragrammaton, יהוה The four consonants denoting the Divine name is found over 7000 times in the Hebrew scriptures. Look at the preface of most of the Bibles used by Christendom and the editors will freely admit that they replaced the Divine name with LORD (in all caps) Look at your KJV and look up Psalm 83:18 or Judges 6:24

nor accepted by the biblical scholars.

Which "bible scholars" are these? The fools that tell bible stories on History Channel religious epics perhaps?

Peace to all JW's, but that is the truth....

Peace be upon you too Larry, but do some research before you post generalisations.

Satan cringes everytime the name Jehovah is spoken, Satan's followers do too.

Renji · Aug 8, 2011

Birddog said:
The tetragrammaton, יהוה The four consonants denoting the Divine name is found over 7000 times in the Hebrew scriptures. Look at the preface of most of the Bibles used by Christendom and the editors will freely admit that they replaced the Divine name with LORD (in all caps) Look at your KJV and look up Psalm 83:18 or Judges 6:24

But if we're talking about the original translation, it's impossible that the correct is Jehova, there's no letter J on their alphabet that time.. Perhaps it should be "Ye" or "Yah" instead of "Je"

Birddog said:
Which "bible scholars" are these? The fools that tell bible stories on History Channel religious epics perhaps?

Well perhaps you could ask one of them so that you could know...

Birddog said:
Peace be upon you too Larry, but do some research before you post generalisations.

Try to see what other sects say about the name Jehova and perhaps you'll know that these are not just generalizations. PS, this is not the topic.

Birddog said:
Satan cringes everytime the name Jehovah is spoken, Satan's followers do too.

It is faith in that name that makes Satan and his followers fear that name, not the name itself.

Mattweedhacker · Aug 9, 2011

Lawrence said:
Good. Making a thesis kills me though.

Didn't Jesus commended His apostles to go and preach every nation to baptize them in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit? That's what consist of the trinity... That's the essence of that word on the first place, just to describe the unity of those divine persons, nothing more.And yeah, there are a lot of apologetic explaining this doctrine, and a lot of heresies hundreds of centuries ago about this doctrine that had already been answered those times. Other sects are just reviving it.

As I said - an ( anacronistic miss-interpretation ) of later days.

The TRI-{3}-nity appears to be a retro-spective reading into rather than out of the Bible.

Which is a dangerous precedent.:banghead3

Anything can be read into a text but not everything can be read out of a text in the Bible.

The absence of the NUMBER THREE or actual - un-mistakible CONCEPT OF THREE-NESS is missing from the Bible.

So how can one ( honestly ) read the idea or NUMBER THREE into it?

And Matt 28:19,20 is capable of other intepretations besides the doctrine of a TRI{3}-nity.

goerge · Aug 9, 2011

Lawrence,

But if we're talking about the original translation, it's impossible that the correct is Jehova, there's no letter J on their alphabet that time.. Perhaps it should be "Ye" or "Yah" instead of "Je"

You might want to check out in a Greek interlinear Matt. 1:8,16. You will see that the "i" is translated into a "j" in every translation that I know of (i.e. Jehoshaphat, Jesus ), this includes the NJB (which used Yahweh in the Hebrew scriptures).

The excuse for not using God's personal name could likewise be used for Jesus name.

We speak English not Hebrew. Jesus name as originally spoken did not sound like "Jesus". We know how important it is to use that name and to translate it as just lord would reflect a devious or misguided intent.

Likewise with the divine name Jehovah; what did Jesus say?
"Hallowed be thy Name" ( Matt, 6:10)
He did not say Hallowed be my name did he?

It is faith in that name that makes Satan and his followers fear that name, not the name itself.

How could one have faith in a broad title that could also be applied to satan (Matt. 12:24-29), while at the same time denying, forbidding, discouraging, and using the divine name.

Whereas Jesus, that is if you want to truly believe in him, was in full harmony with the scriptures, (e.g. Ps. 5:11,12; 9:1,2,10; 18:49; 20:1,7; 22:22, Heb 2:12, Jo 17:6 etc., etc) esp. with regard the use of the divine name.

Now back to the subject of the thread.

Refuting the Trinity Doctrine!

Alien Hybrid

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi

Well-Known Member

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Not your average Mormon

Not your average Mormon

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Not your average Mormon

Well-Known Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Member

New Member