• 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!

Non-Trinitarians: What's wrong with the Trinity?

101G

Well-Known Member
Does that have any foundation for the trinity?
No, Not the trinity, but it is bibical.

#1. Equal Natures. Philippians 2:6 "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God"
here the term "Form" is Jesus nature as God, (which is Spirit). it's the Greek word, G3444 μορφή morphe (mor-fee') n.
1. form.
2. (intrinsically) fundamental nature.
[perhaps from the base of G3313 (through the idea of adjustment of parts)]
KJV: form
Root(s): G3313

and it's ROOT gives us the kind of natures that makes him equal in nature, which is G3331.
G3313 μέρος meros (me'-ros) n.
1. a portion (i.e. an amount allotted, a part of something).

ANOTHER word for "portion" is SHARE. so our Lord's nature is the EQUAL "SHARE" of God in Flesh.

#2. his G2758 κενόω kenoo (ke-no-ō') state. the very next verse. Philippians 2:7 "But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men"
the word "no reputation" is the Greek word, G2758 κενόω kenoo (ke-no-ō') v.
1. to make empty.
2. (figuratively) to abase, neutralize, falsify.
[from G2756]
KJV: make (of none effect, of no reputation, void), be in vain
Root(s): G2756

as the definition above state, he don't have his Godly powers while in Natural flesh and bone with blood. hence the ability to see him. and he dose nothing of himself, because of this G2758 κενόω kenoo (ke-no-ō'). which is the reason why the Spirit dwells in him from his baptism.

My source for both definitions above is the Mickelson's Enhanced Strong's Dictionaries of the Greek and Hebrew Testaments.

PICJAG.

PS and thanks for asking. for many argue without asking.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
No, Not the trinity, but it is bibical.

#1. Equal Natures. Philippians 2:6 "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God"
here the term "Form" is Jesus nature as God, (which is Spirit). it's the Greek word, G3444 μορφή morphe (mor-fee') n.
1. form.
2. (intrinsically) fundamental nature.
[perhaps from the base of G3313 (through the idea of adjustment of parts)]
KJV: form
Root(s): G3313

and it's ROOT gives us the kind of natures that makes him equal in nature, which is G3331.
G3313 μέρος meros (me'-ros) n.
1. a portion (i.e. an amount allotted, a part of something).

ANOTHER word for "portion" is SHARE. so our Lord's nature is the EQUAL "SHARE" of God in Flesh.

#2. his G2758 κενόω kenoo (ke-no-ō') state. the very next verse. Philippians 2:7 "But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men"
the word "no reputation" is the Greek word, G2758 κενόω kenoo (ke-no-ō') v.
1. to make empty.
2. (figuratively) to abase, neutralize, falsify.
[from G2756]
KJV: make (of none effect, of no reputation, void), be in vain
Root(s): G2756

as the definition above state, he don't have his Godly powers while in Natural flesh and bone with blood. hence the ability to see him. and he dose nothing of himself, because of this G2758 κενόω kenoo (ke-no-ō'). which is the reason why the Spirit dwells in him from his baptism.

My source for both definitions above is the Mickelson's Enhanced Strong's Dictionaries of the Greek and Hebrew Testaments.

PICJAG.

PS and thanks for asking. for many argue without asking.

Thanks for taking time to respond brother. I understand.
 

101G

Well-Known Member
Hi 101G,



I certainly agree with the above verses. But you asked how it is that the Almighty God can receive power. And that is the simple answer. God is taking back power from Satan that rightfully belongs to himself. (I already noted that God allowed Satan to have that power temporarily.)

"We give thanks to you, Lord God Almighty, who is and who was, for you have taken your great power and begun to reign." (Revelation 11:17)
Not saying that you're right or wrong, but in the context of the scriptures he also recieved "GLORY". listen to the context.
Revelation 4:11 "Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created". here he is not taking back any thing, because the Power that was given accord to you is his anyway. so one cannot take back what's already yours.

so my Question still stand. "Who gave the one on the throne POWER". if it's the Father who sits on the throne. see the problen now?.

now here's the crust of the matter. God is a "Diversity" or the EQUAL "SHARE" of himself in flesh. hence the term "ANOTHER" Comforter. for the term "ANOTHER" is snigfying the one in flesh in a G2758 κενόω kenoo (ke-no-ō' states as a man, or as the bible say in the "likness" of a man. this is why God is "Father" and "Son" in the G2758 κενόω kenoo (ke-no-ō' state which bare this out.

so no, Receiving here is not taking back.

I hope that helped.

PICJAG.
 

TJ1

Member
Hello,

so one cannot take back what's already yours.

Except that's quite literally what Revelation 11:17 says, "Lord God Almighty...you have taken your great power."

so no, Receiving here is not taking back.

The underlying Greek word for "receive" at Revelation 4:11 is just another form of the same Greek word rendered "taken" at Revelation 11:17 where it is certain that the referent is God Almighty.

I sincerely don't see any problem then with understanding the One on the throne in Revelation 4, who created all things, as the Father. This seems to fit quite naturally with Jesus appearing before his throne as the Lamb.
 

101G

Well-Known Member
Except that's quite literally what Revelation 11:17 says, "Lord God Almighty...you have taken your great power."
Not so, listen to what was said,
Revelation 11:17 "Saying, We give thee thanks, O Lord God Almighty, which art, and wast, and art to come; because thou hast taken to thee thy great power, and hast reigned".

Taken to thee, not from someone else. and here's the scripture to bare this out,
Matthew 28:18 "And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth". why? because according to Philippians 2:7 "But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men". while in that flesh he was, abase, (made Lower, meaning in flesh), neutralize. here it's the Greek word,
no reputation: G2758 κενόω kenoo (ke-no-ō') v.
1. to make empty.
2. (figuratively) to abase, neutralize, falsify.
[from G2756]
KJV: make (of none effect, of no reputation, void), be in vain

here in this definition, he, (the Lord Jesus), while in natural flesh, (as the equal share) of himself as God, which is Spirit, was neutralize or was of none effect of his all powerful attributes. Now resurrected, (Revelation chapter 5 the Lamb Standing), is sent into all the earth, (the Holy Spirit), now in Glorified flesh, see John 17:5, now HAS all Power, see again Matthew 28:18). supportive scripture,
Revelation 3:1 "And unto the angel of the church in Sardis write; These things saith he that hath the seven Spirits of God, and the seven stars; I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead". who is this?
Revelation 5:5 "And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof.

Revelation 5:6 "And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.
there he is Jesus, on the throne and standing, being sent forth into all the earth. that's the POWER that was given unto him, the power as you stated in 11:17, "because thou hast taken to thee thy great power, and hast reigned". if one is reigning then he's on the throne. because reigning means, "occupying the throne; ruling". please google "reigning".

NOW ONE OTHER THING to support my position, meaning that Jesus is the Diversified Spirit, the Holy Spirit. as we read in Revelation 3:1, it is the Lord Jesus who address all the churches in chapter 3 & 4 correct. I'M, now asking you to read see how each letter ends, all seven letter ends this way, "He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches". WAIT, hear what the "Spirit" say? is it not the Lord Jesus who is speaking to all the churches? so read how all the letters end. it's the Spirit who is Speaking to the 7 churches, the Lamb who stands in Chapter 5.
so again my question still stand, "if it's the one whom many say, it's the Father who sits on the throne", well just give me book chapter and verse as to who gave the Father POWER.

I hoped that helped.

PICJAG.

P.S. this is how a discussion go, ask question, and respond. here I have put "Diversified Oneness" on the table. so the proper response is to question it. because if it's true it will stand, else it will fall.

I thank God for any and all question on this doctrine. for if a doctrine is of God then it can be tested for TRUTH by the scriptures.

PICJAG
 

101G

Well-Known Member
There is something TJ1 said that must be brought out about "diversity", and now is a good time to do it.. in his translation, it states,
Revelation 11:17 says, "Lord God Almighty...you have taken your great power."
here's the "Diversity" of God's revelation. notice in Revelation 11:17 you have "Lord Almighty", listen to the (kjv).
Revelation 11:17 "Saying, We give thee thanks, O Lord God Almighty, which art, and wast, and art to come; because thou hast taken to thee thy great power, and hast reigned".
here the definite article is used, "O Lord" God almighty. now this,
Genesis 17:1 "And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect". HOLD IT, the "LORD" all caps is the Almighty? yes, and is not JESUS the Son who is "Lord" the "ALMIGHTY?", yes. so the Lord, and the LORD is the ALMIGHTY, the same ONE PERSON diversified with two titles..

knowing this, is there two "ALMIGHTY?", NO, of course not. GOOD, because the WORD, who is Jesus in John 1:1-3 is the Son, Right. well according to John 1:3 he, the Word, the Son, the Lord who is Jesus. because, John 13:13 states, "Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am".
so without a doubt, Jesus the Son, the Word is Lord who according to John 1:3 "MADE ALL THINGS". ok, now lets go to,
Isaiah 44:24 "Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself".

now knowing this, that it was the "LORD" all caps who, "MADE ALL THING". either this is the same person who in John 1:3 or you have two CREATORS, and MAKERS. but Isaiah said the "LORD" was A. "ALONE". and B."BY HIMSELF" when he made ALLTHINGS.

this is bared out in Genesis 1:26, and 27 at to one Person. who made "ALL THINGS".

now on must re-think what they read in the book of Genesis, aswell as the book of Revelation, especially starting at verse #1. it's one person in verse 1.

the paradigm of our thinking must be shifed to a new way of approaching the bible. in "diversity" it is the Holy Spirit, who is the FIRST and ONLY "PERSON" in the Godhead. or may I say, he is the only "First" and the "Last" person in the Godhead. that's a much better description.

PICJAG.
 
Last edited:

TJ1

Member
Not so, listen to what was said,
Revelation 11:17 "Saying, We give thee thanks, O Lord God Almighty, which art, and wast, and art to come; because thou hast taken to thee thy great power, and hast reigned".

Taken to thee, not from someone else.
Thank you for your response, 101G. I respectfully disagree with some of your conclusions above, for many of the same reasons I've already posted.

All my best to you!
 

101G

Well-Known Member
Thank you for your response, 101G. I respectfully disagree with some of your conclusions above, for many of the same reasons I've already posted.

All my best to you!
GINOLJC, TO ALL
the same here

PICJAG

P.S. if you ever have any question in the future, just ask.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
I said that the Trinity doctrine, which is purported to be the central doctrine of Christianity, is not taught plainly in scripture
Once again, much doctrine is not explicitly taught in the scriptures. That’s really not a criterion for the validity of any doctrine.

Can you show me anywhere in scripture where we are taught that God is three Persons in one Being?
I pointed some out to you, which you roundly dismissed. If you can’t understand what the Bible is saying, why do you pretend to interpret it?

If you feel I've misrepresented the original meaning or intent of these verses, by all means please explain to me how I did that
Parts of the Bible make clear that God is in control of the world. This statement contradicts that. Was Jesus wrong? Were the Hebrew authors wrong? Or is there some logical explanation for the discrepancy, such as what the Gospel writer meant when he wrote that. What did Jesus mean? When you read the text at face value, you may miss important theological nuances. Do some exegesis with a scholarly commentary and possibly the TDNT. You may discover something you missed.
 

Iymus

Active Member
(This is for people who consider themselves some kind of Christian but who reject the trinity)

Many find it mind-boggling and consider it a mystery, and leave it as that

Others are quick to dismiss it as non-sensical rubbish

Some have a major problem with "The Son" part of it

Why is this so hard for some people to understand?

And why are some people so quick to reject it?

It makes perfect sense to me, I have no problem accepting it

Each element of God (each part of the trinity) is a dimension of God which is distinct from any other dimension/element, although all these (Father, Son, Spirit) are consubstantial with the central emergent property - "God"

I understand God as being triangle shaped, as having three equal sides, neither of which make sense alone

So, non-Trinitarians - what's wrong with all this? (pic related)

What are your problems with it?

Why are you non-Trinitarian?

Please tell :)

View attachment 35880


1. The Trinitarian Creed is a Creed of Man and not of The Commandments of God. "Deu 6:4 "
2. The Trinitarian Creed is not of The Will or Works of The Father.

Mat 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

Joh 7:17 If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
What you provided did not say anything like "God is three in one". Can you point me to an explicit teaching of the Trinity doctrine in the Bible?
there doesn’t need to be one, unless you subscribe to the heresy of sola scriptura.

How do you explain this supposed contradiction?
I’d have to take a look at each and exegete what’s being said in order to arrive at a conclusion.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
1. The Trinitarian Creed is a Creed of Man and not of The Commandments of God
There is no “Trinitarian Creed.” There’s an Apostles’ Creed, a Nicene Creed, an Athanasian Creed... so you’re arguing something that’s non-existent.
All doctrine, creeds and commandments are “of men.”

2. The Trinitarian Creed is not of The Will or Works of The Father
See above.
I’d have to add, though, that the doctrine of the Trinity was formulated by apostolic authority, which validates it.
 

Kelly of the Phoenix

Well-Known Member
Those in the Apostolic Succession have the authority to make the determination.
LOL. Says them.

John 14:6 might have something to say about that.
I don't care what John thinks. I believe the Way is the Way. Arguments from authority ("it is only the Way if it's what this person said") don't hold much for me. People lie.

hummmm did not even use one scripture to back up your thoughts
You disagree with what, exactly? That God met with Adam, Eve, Cain, Abraham, Jacob ...? It's not my fault if later authors can't keep up with already established plot points.

Except that completely ignores the fact that Jesus isn’t strictly a “middleman.” To make him so robs Xy of the essence of its theological uniqueness.
Like what? Plenty of "God manifestations" and demigods to go around the planet several times.

The scriptures show that while God is indeed all powerful, that doesn't mean he cannot exercise his power selectively. For example, we have this example recorded for us in scripture:
So He's not powerless, just arbitrary and lazy?
Matt 25:26, where Jesus is using a landowner or king or whatever as a metaphor for God: You knew that I reap where I have not sown and gather where I scattered no seed?

Here is Jesus himself characterizing God as an entitled jerk who wants none of the work but all of the credit. Might as well be a character in the Little Red Hen.

There was a purpose for this.
The purpose was to try to downplay the fact He didn't save them from superior kingdoms in both knowledge and might.

and it's why Jesus didn't call Satan a liar
Jesus claims Satan is the Father of Lies though.

Once God's purpose for allowing the world to live in rebellion has been served, then he will take back direct control via his kingdom, which will occur at an appointed time.
I just wish the biblical character of Yahweh (Whom I realized is different from any real deity outside of the books) would just admit He just doesn't care about His people, the people assigned to Him specifically by His Daddy.

The atonement required to set the human family free from bondage to sin and death required an 'eye for eye' sacrifice, i.e. the equal of Adam.
I would argue that A&E to the Flood represents one complete story, with God being angry at humans for acting like humans until He goes overkill and learns to accept us as a species, flaws and all. That characterization is then tossed out with later stories, but I sense a thematic completeness up to the Flood.
 

TJ1

Member
there doesn’t need to be one, unless you subscribe to the heresy of sola scriptura.
Again, I said that the Trinity doctrine was not plainly taught in scripture. You said that it was. Is this your concession that it is not taught plainly in scripture?

I’d have to take a look at each and exegete what’s being said in order to arrive at a conclusion.
I thought you said you had already done your due diligence here; when can I expect an answer?
 
Last edited:

TJ1

Member
Hi Kelly,

I appreciate hearing your views even where we might disagree.

So He's not powerless, just arbitrary and lazy?
The Scriptures show that God does love all people. But 'the whole world lies in the power of the wicked one', so he will not take direct action to upend the current state of things until the reserved 'Day of Jehovah'.

As in the case of God allowing King Shishak of Egypt to dominate his people Israel for a time so that they might learn the difference in their respective rulerships, God has allowed the whole world to be under Satan's influence for a set amount of time to answer the question raised in Eden, i.e. would we be happier living independent of God's rule or not? God's sovereignty, his right to rule and whether or not each of us are willing to accept it, is one of the big recurring themes throughout scripture. God does not force anyone to submit to his rule and so we are allowed to see the results of living independent of him.
 
Last edited:

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Again, I said that the Trinity doctrine was not plainly taught in scripture. You said that it was. Is this your concession that it is not taught plainly in scripture
The doctrine is not laid out word-for-word in the texts. Again, it doesn’t have to be. But the theological concepts that the doctrine clarifies are plainly taught.

I thought you said you had already done your due diligence here; when can I expect an answer?
Not with regard to those particular passages. Don’t get uppity, or I won’t play with you anymore. I’ve been in the exegesis game to long to deal with uppity wannabes.
 

TJ1

Member
The doctrine is not laid out word-for-word in the texts.
Thank you for conceding this simple fact.

I agree with the New Catholic Encyclopedia were it says: "The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century....Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective."

Not with regard to those particular passages.
I said that I was taking Jesus' words at face value when he called Satan "the ruler of this world" and that the burden was on you to prove that his words mean something different than that. You responded by saying, "I’ve already done my due diligence; now it’s your turn." My understanding now is that you are saying that you have not done your due diligence here.

Are you willing to give an answer about what you believe Jesus really meant when he called Satan "the ruler of this world"? It's been 5 days since you first objected to this.
 
Last edited:
Top