How easy is it for Trinitarians to misread the scriptures?

[Soapy]

How easy is it for Trinitarians to misread the Scriptures?

• Our Deity, who is the God that we worship and who gives his name as YHWH, says that we are to worship Him, and Him alone
• Trinity says that this their same God also BUT that He is THREE DEITIES
• However, in no scriptures in the old testament and the New Testament is there ever a verse or implied term given that claims the trinity view
• In addition, trinity claims that, though their God is ONE and INSEPARABLE because of the unity of the three - each being absolutely co-equal, and NOT A UNIT but perfectly ONE without change through from eternity to eternity (IMMUTABLE), ONE OF THE THREE somehow sets himself apart from the other two and becomes FLESHLY MORTAL MAN with a limited lifespan!
• In addition, and strangely so, this one that separates himself from an inseparable trio, REMAINS GOD the SAME as the other two - a feat beyond comprehension, sense, or reality!!!
• Not only that but, in becoming mortal fleshly man, this one somehow only knows what he is told by the other two (actually, it’s only one, the one in trio-God called the Father. This ‘Father’ they class (or RANK) as FIRST in EQUALITY!)
• By the way, the THIRD of the trio-deities doesn’t appear to have any say in anything that goes on in heaven and ultimately is a slave of the other two, being SENT here, and SENT there, as the other two Wills it. Which seem strange for a complete co-equal GOD...
• No trinitarian appears to be able to define what they mean by ‘God’, but will make all magnitudes of claims about ‘their God’ without reference to a definition... this is classy distraction technique because each trinitarian is free to suggest his own version of ‘God’ and even multiple versions in the same discussion or debate
• For instance, there are numerous versions of how ‘The Son’ is both ‘God’ and ‘Man’ but is TAUGHT BY GOD... but ‘God’ is himself, remember!!! He dies what ‘God’, who is himself, orders him to do - and RECEIVES POWER from ‘God’, who is himself...
• In fact, the strangest anomaly is that this Son’ is REWARDED for a noble deed (does God perform ‘Noble Deeds’?) by being MADE TO BE RULER OVER WHAT HE IS SAID TO HAVE CREATED? How’s that? For. God to be made to be ruler over a LIMITED physical fleshly realm when he is RULER OVER AN unlimited FREE Spirit realm ... is surely a DEMOTION!!!

Can any trinitarian counter the accusation above?

 

[sojourner]

I can look into things, read commentaries, see what others are saying and check my viewpoint

Yes, you can. And you can also take scrap metal and attempt to put a man in orbit. But you lack the tools in both instances to get the job done. Bible study involves FAR more than just reading the texts and reading a couple of commentary entries. Formulating theological constructions involves more than simply reading the Bible on a surface level and “comparing” passages. Just as simple arithmetic and the use of a tape measure won’t get a man into orbit.

You say theology is about propositions and not definitions. As I said, I may look at definition of "Most High." (I'm allowed, am I not, to look at definitions of word and do my own pursuit if I desire?)

Sure, you can look at it. But that cursory and rudimentary look won’t tell you much. It might support some confirmation bias, but that’s hardly helpful — and the particular passages at which you’re looking aren’t particularly cogent to the issue. Again, that’s like taking a basic look at the shape of a spacecraft and declaring that it will safely return to earth.

While there are kings, they are not all equal because verse 27 says of the firstborn that he will be the highest of the kings of the earth. This is also relating to the usage of "Most High" in Hebrew (elyon).

Still not cogent to the discussion of the concept of first among equals.

 

[sojourner]

Im confused... why are you debating with sojourner if this is your stance?

Are you just filling up your time or wanting to get to the truth of scriptures..?

You obviously don’t believe in trinity but are floundering in exactly what you do believe. I saw you move towards the truth previously but you appear to be trying NOT TO UPSET sojourner by offering hi excuses for his clearly unscriptural ideology which he cannot even define for our debate purposes.

And remember that is is a DEBATE thread - not a DISCUSSION thread!! You don’t feel ‘sorry’ for your antagonist in a DEBATE!

So, now you’re upset because you feel you’re losing an “ally?” Look at your last sentence: no one’s asking anyone to “feel sorry” for one’s opponent (“antagonist” is an incorrect term). But conventional rules do ask that opponents respect each other. And, BTW, you seem to assume that I’m in need of sympathy here. This is nothing more than a veiled ad hominem.

 

[sojourner]

How easy is it for Trinitarians to misread the Scriptures?

• Our Deity, who is the God that we worship and who gives his name as YHWH, says that we are to worship Him, and Him alone
• Trinity says that this their same God also BUT that He is THREE DEITIES
• However, in no scriptures in the old testament and the New Testament is there ever a verse or implied term given that claims the trinity view
• In addition, trinity claims that, though their God is ONE and INSEPARABLE because of the unity of the three - each being absolutely co-equal, and NOT A UNIT but perfectly ONE without change through from eternity to eternity (IMMUTABLE), ONE OF THE THREE somehow sets himself apart from the other two and becomes FLESHLY MORTAL MAN with a limited lifespan!
• In addition, and strangely so, this one that separates himself from an inseparable trio, REMAINS GOD the SAME as the other two - a feat beyond comprehension, sense, or reality!!!
• Not only that but, in becoming mortal fleshly man, this one somehow only knows what he is told by the other two (actually, it’s only one, the one in trio-God called the Father. This ‘Father’ they class (or RANK) as FIRST in EQUALITY!)
• By the way, the THIRD of the trio-deities doesn’t appear to have any say in anything that goes on in heaven and ultimately is a slave of the other two, being SENT here, and SENT there, as the other two Wills it. Which seem strange for a complete co-equal GOD...
• No trinitarian appears to be able to define what they mean by ‘God’, but will make all magnitudes of claims about ‘their God’ without reference to a definition... this is classy distraction technique because each trinitarian is free to suggest his own version of ‘God’ and even multiple versions in the same discussion or debate
• For instance, there are numerous versions of how ‘The Son’ is both ‘God’ and ‘Man’ but is TAUGHT BY GOD... but ‘God’ is himself, remember!!! He dies what ‘God’, who is himself, orders him to do - and RECEIVES POWER from ‘God’, who is himself...
• In fact, the strangest anomaly is that this Son’ is REWARDED for a noble deed (does God perform ‘Noble Deeds’?) by being MADE TO BE RULER OVER WHAT HE IS SAID TO HAVE CREATED? How’s that? For. God to be made to be ruler over a LIMITED physical fleshly realm when he is RULER OVER AN unlimited FREE Spirit realm ... is surely a DEMOTION!!!

Can any trinitarian counter the accusation above?

Yup. I need go no further than your second bullet point. The doctrine CLEARLY states that we’re not dealing with “three deities.” This is why you need to familiarize yourself with the doctrine before you embarrass yourself by trying to blow holes in it through stating falsehoods about it and then declaring that the falsehoods are false. It’s like getting behind the wheel of a car, stepping on the brake, noticing that the car isn’t moving forward, and then complaining that, obviously, the car doesn’t work. If you want to see whether the car runs, you have to start the engine, put the car in gear, and step on the accelerator.

 

[sojourner]

Here's what I think, and sojourner can correct me if I'm wrong. Sojourner has apparently studied with scholars who promote the trinity theory. and feels there is justification for it. Some also feel there is no justification to disagree with that theory, and that's where I'm going to leave it for now. Thanks and have a good evening.

Incorrect. I studied with theologians who taught us to think theologically. Because I have received that particular education, I know that the Trinity is a legitimate theological construction. It is one of many such valid constructions.

 

[sojourner]

I once asked a child to layout his family chart... I even spoke to him about his family (it’s ok, I know the child, and it wasn’t private - it was an exercise!). He said he couldn’t do it ... i was surprised because I thought it was an excellent way to find out about relatives he KNEW OF but hadn’t dialogued with despite their local proximity to each other. However, on further requests, it turns out his reason for not being ‘able to do it’ was that... He didn’t know ALL his relatives!!!!

He wouldn’t start laying out the chart because he thought he needed to know EVERYONE first????

Sojourner doesn’t need to know ALL DEFINITIONS of GOD in order to present a definition of GOD...

The child was AFRAID of exposing his ignorance of his family tree even though they were close cousins, etc.

A nice anecdote, but hardly cogent. If you want to “define” God, you’re welcome to try such an ultimately futile exercise. I prefer not to waste time and effort. I’d rather use my time and energy wisely by engaging with theological propositions about God. You can also try analyzing a pizza with a band-aid, but you ultimately won’t get the job done. I’d prefer to cook the pizza in a hot oven, and then enjoy eating it. I’m ignorant of a definition of God, because no adequate definition or proof exists. But I’m aces at constructive theology.

 

[Soapy]

So, now you’re upset because you feel you’re losing an “ally?” Look at your last sentence: no one’s asking anyone to “feel sorry” for one’s opponent (“antagonist” is an incorrect term). But conventional rules do ask that opponents respect each other. And, BTW, you seem to assume that I’m in need of sympathy here. This is nothing more than a veiled ad hominem.

All people who misled by the fallacy of trinity under the influence of erroneous doctrine deserve sympathy. I said that you don’t deserve to be DEFENDED because you make up stuff to respond when you realise that trinity is false. It’s one thing to believe a fallacy because if ignorance bug when you purposely make things up to cover the truth you clearly see, that is a totally different matter.

And my ‘ally’ ... he professes that Jesus was not God. Did you read the thread topic title... it’s about anti-trinitarian... so he qualifies as an anti-trinitarian... a friend!!

However, when it comes to the fine detail it appears we do differ. I’ve a feeling he is JW, which, while professing Jesus as NOT GOD, confers on Jesus pre-existence - which is a DIFFERENT ARGUMENT - and quite frankly a diabolical one seeing that no scriptures declares Jesus as pre-existent (see my previous posts to him)

Father and Son are not equals and even Jesus himself declares. ‘My Father is greater than I’.

Does Jesus declare he is equal to his Father? Does Jesus perform without his Father’s Holy Spirit? Jesus calls upon his Father before he has Authority to use the Holy Spirit of his Father... if I ask my Father to lend me his car, is it then MY CAR? Or does that misuse of it ban me from using it... and the cost of the parking ticket fine goes to my father (he may charge me but if us on his name!!) If I were equal to my Father I wouldn’t have to ask him and the ticket would come to me for my error!

 

[Soapy]

Incorrect. I studied with theologians who taught us to think theologically. Because I have received that particular education, I know that the Trinity is a legitimate theological construction. It is one of many such valid constructions.

‘Many such valid constructs’? How many are there, kind of? How can they ALL BE VALID?

I guess you are going to redefine, ‘ONE God’ to mean ‘Three Persons’ and that ‘God’ means ‘Essence’, again?

 

[sojourner]

Sojourner, it would help matters a lot if you could only express what exactly your doctrine is and what you are defending rather than just be dismissive of what I’m saying to you.

It would help matters a lot if you would only seek to understand the doctrine you argue against. I’m dismissive because you have yet to present any kind of reasonable argument against the doctrine.

All your responses are just, ‘Ain’t true’, ‘you’re lying’, ‘you twisted what I said’ (PARAPHRASED ALL)

That’s because all your posts have accomplished is falsehood about the doctrine and twisting things I’ve said. I’m just calling it what it is. Give me a real argument and I’ll spend more time refuting.

Why don’t YOU say what you mean??

I don’t “mean” anything. I’m just stating the obvious: the doctrine is legitimate, and you haven’t presented an adequate rebuttal to it. When you can do that, then we’ll have a legitimate debate.

You keep showing us that you hold to them doctrine’ but under scrutiny you claim you DON’T hold to the doctrine... which is it?

No, I keep defending the doctrine as legitimate. I don’t have to “hold to it” to appreciate it as a legitimate construct.

Show me a DOCTRINE that you believe in (or not believe in...!) so I know what you are talking about... how about that, eh?

Not germane to the topic. Doing that would only muddy the waters.

Part of the problem appears to be that you and I keep talking past each other, because I think you see beliefs about God and Biblical statements about God to be ontological proofs, while I acknowledge that doctrines aren’t about ontological proof, but are about theological propositions. You have put forth several “constructions” intended to prove other constructions wrong. But that’s not what theological constructions are for (which is where the Athanasian Creed fails). Theological constructions are for the purpose of coming to a particular understanding of God from a particular point of reference. For example, Womanist Theology doesn’t seek to “trump” Ecological Theology. The one seeks to understand God from the perspective of the plight of ethnic women, while the other seeks to understand God from the perspective of an endangered planet. Neither seeks to “define” God ontologically. The doctrine of the Trinity seeks to understand God from the perspective of the community of Father, Son, Holy Spirit. It’s not perfect, but then, no theology is. The trouble begins when we try to treat that theology as a definition, rather than a proposition.

 

[Soapy]

A nice anecdote, but hardly cogent. If you want to “define” God, you’re welcome to try such an ultimately futile exercise. I prefer not to waste time and effort. I’d rather use my time and energy wisely by engaging with theological propositions about God. You can also try analyzing a pizza with a band-aid, but you ultimately won’t get the job done. I’d prefer to cook the pizza in a hot oven, and then enjoy eating it. I’m ignorant of a definition of God, because no adequate definition or proof exists. But I’m aces at constructive theology.

Why do you consider the definition of the word, ‘God’, to be a waste of time... we have all the time we need - and why do I get the feeling you CANNOT define a word you toss around like confetti in a wind... In the interest of sustainability even confetti is made of ‘green’ material which is precisely defined by government organisation and held to by businesses that produce it. We do need to define words that we use so everyone knows exactly what we are referring to when we posts our claims.

Indeed, I feel you are still trying to think I said to define the God Almighty, YHWH. I did not ask that... I asked about the WORD ‘God’.. what does it Mean...? But you can’t even do that... how are you using the word, ‘God’ and not know what it means...

Here is a hint: ‘God’ is a TITLE... like ‘king’, ‘ruler’, ‘monarch’, ‘sir’... these are TITLES and are APPLIED to PERSONS in relevant order of authorities. But perhaps just some synonyms from you?

 

[sojourner]

All people who misled by the fallacy of trinity under the influence of erroneous doctrine deserve sympathy

The Trinity cannot be a fallacy, because it’s not a definition. It’s a construction. And that construction is based firmly in the Apostles’ teaching, which is the authority for such constructions.

I said that you don’t deserve to be DEFENDED because you make up stuff to respond when you realise that trinity is false

The Trinity cannot be “false.” It cannot be “true.” It can only be a proposition that is either valid or not. It has the stamp of Apostolic teaching, and it helps many to a greater understanding of God-as-community. Just because you don’t buy it does not invalidate it for anyone else.

‘Many such valid constructs’? How many are there, kind of? How can they ALL BE VALID

You’re still thinking ontologically. None of this is definition or proof. Theological constructions are merely propositions about God from particular frames of reference. Since there’s more than one frame of reference in the human condition, there are more than one valid construction that speak to their various contexts.

I guess you are going to redefine, ‘ONE God’ to mean ‘Three Persons’

Again: it’s not a definition. Until you can come to an understanding of that, you’re going to keep banging your head against the wall.
It’s impossible to be “misled” by something that doesn’t seek to “lead” one anywhere. If it works for you — it works! If it doesn’t — it doesn’t!

 

[sojourner]

Why do you consider the definition of the word, ‘God’, to be a waste of time... we have all the time we need - and why do I get the feeling you CANNOT define a word you toss around like confetti in a wind... In the interest of sustainability even confetti is made of ‘green’ material which is precisely defined by government organisation and held to by businesses that produce it. We do need to define words that we use so everyone knows exactly what we are referring to when we posts our claims

I think everyone here has a working definition of the word. But I don’t think you’re really interested in defining the term. I think you really want to define the object of the term, and you think that defining the term in a certain way will also define the object in a particular way. But that’s not how it works. At the end of the day, when the term “God” is used, almost everyone here will understand that the term refers to the Judeo-Christian supreme being. And that’s all that’s important.

 

[Soapy]

Why do you consider the definition of the word, ‘God’, to be a waste of time... we have all the time we need - and why do I get the feeling you CANNOT define a word you toss around like confetti in a wind... In the interest of sustainability even confetti is made of ‘green’ material which is precisely defined by government organisation and held to by businesses that produce it. We do need to define words that we use so everyone knows exactly what we are referring to when we posts our claims.

Indeed, I feel you are still trying to think I said to define the God Almighty, YHWH. I did not ask that... I asked about the WORD ‘God’.. what does it Mean...? But you can’t even do that... how are you using the word, ‘God’ and not know what it means...

Here is a hint: ‘Gods is a TITLE... like ‘king’, ‘ruler’, ‘monarch’, ‘sir’... these are TITLES and are APPLIED to PERSONS in relevant order of authorities. But perhaps just some synonyms from you?

Oh but sojourner, the ‘car’ you are talking about is not a valid car so whether it

The Trinity cannot be a fallacy, because it’s not a definition. It’s a construction. And that construction is based firmly in the Apostles’ teaching, which is the authority for such constructions.


The Trinity cannot be “false.” It cannot be “true.” It can only be a proposition that is either valid or not. It has the stamp of Apostolic teaching, and it helps many to a greater understanding of God-as-community. Just because you don’t buy it does not invalidate it for anyone else.


You’re still thinking ontologically. None of this is definition or proof. Theological constructions are merely propositions about God from particular frames of reference. Since there’s more than one frame of reference in the human condition, there are more than one valid construction that speak to their various contexts.


Again: it’s not a definition. Until you can come to an understanding of that, you’re going to keep banging your head against the wall.
It’s impossible to be “misled” by something that doesn’t seek to “lead” one anywhere. If it works for you — it works! If it doesn’t — it doesn’t!

You have been overdone by your own facade!

Yoh are trying to believe in philosophy like the Greeks.

We are believing from the Scriptures - you are trying to argue from your false teachers ideology.

I understand now why you don’t answer to questions I put to you ... you cannot!

Well, you know yourself that you cAnnot answer so you should be rethinking your ideology as to why you cannot answer...

Can I test you:
What purpose does it serve for Jesus to acquire the throne of King David which is a fleshly earthly physical limited throne of creation - yet he is said by you to be GOD OVER HEAVEN which is an unlimited Spirit realm VASTLY GREATER than anything creation has to offer? Remember that Jesus suffered humiliation, tortures, scourging, and unthinkable DEATH... to acquire it!!

 

[Soapy]

I think everyone here has a working definition of the word. But I don’t think you’re really interested in defining the term. I think you really want to define the object of the term, and you think that defining the term in a certain way will also define the object in a particular way. But that’s not how it works. At the end of the day, when the term “God” is used, almost everyone here will understand that the term refers to the Judeo-Christian supreme being. And that’s all that’s important.

You are still hedging...!

How then, using what you just said, would you explain:

1. “I am God of all Gods”
2. “He called them ‘Gods’, unto whom the word of God came!”
3. “Do not worship any other God but me!”
4. Who were the Egyptian, Philistine, and Greek Gods?

 

[sojourner]

Oh but sojourner, the ‘car’ you are talking about is not a valid car

You have yet to prove that. Your saying so doesn't make it so.

Yoh are trying to believe in philosophy like the Greeks

I think you’ll find that Christian theology is deeply invested in Greek philosophy. Paul uses it in his Biblical letters. The Gospels use it. The Apostles use it. it really is the warp of the theological fabric.

We are believing from the Scriptures - you are trying to argue from your false teachers ideology

I’d argue that you're only arguing from your limited understanding of the texts. And your statement that my teachers a re “false” is unfounded and indefensible. You’re grasping at straws.

I understand now why you don’t answer to questions I put to you ... you cannot!

I doubt, given what you’ve posted thus far, that your “understanding” extends very far. You don’t understand either the nature of the Biblical texts or theology, you don’t understand the doctrine you argue against, and you certainly don’t understand me.

Can I test you:

No. I believe you lack the capacity to do that.

What purpose does it serve for Jesus to acquire the throne of King David which is a fleshly earthly physical limited throne of creation - yet he is said by you to be GOD OVER HEAVEN which is an unlimited Spirit realm VASTLY GREATER than anything creation has to offer?

There’s this little word “metaphor.” Learn it. Know it. Live it.

 

[sojourner]

You are still hedging...!

How then, using what you just said, would you explain:

1. “I am God of all Gods”
2. “He called them ‘Gods’, unto whom the word of God came!”
3. “Do not worship any other God but me!”
4. Who were the Egyptian, Philistine, and Greek Gods?

There’s another little word you need to know: henotheism.

 

[Soapy]

Sojourner, is it possible for you to answer any questions about your belief? So far none of us know a thing about what you are supposed to be claiming as such.. all you have done so far is claim that we don’t understand ‘the doctrine’.

Tell us about this ‘doctrine’ that you speak of...

 

[Soapy]

The Trinity cannot be a fallacy, because it’s not a definition. It’s a construction. And that construction is based firmly in the Apostles’ teaching, which is the authority for such constructions.


The Trinity cannot be “false.” It cannot be “true.” It can only be a proposition that is either valid or not. It has the stamp of Apostolic teaching, and it helps many to a greater understanding of God-as-community. Just because you don’t buy it does not invalidate it for anyone else.


You’re still thinking ontologically. None of this is definition or proof. Theological constructions are merely propositions about God from particular frames of reference. Since there’s more than one frame of reference in the human condition, there are more than one valid construction that speak to their various contexts.


Again: it’s not a definition. Until you can come to an understanding of that, you’re going to keep banging your head against the wall.
It’s impossible to be “misled” by something that doesn’t seek to “lead” one anywhere. If it works for you — it works! If it doesn’t — it doesn’t!

This shows that you actually have no idea what you are talking about. All your answers are hedging answers that have no substance. It is clear you cannot answer for your belief when you realise that it doesn’t amount to anything. And that is why you refuse to express anything - you just offer negativity and disingenuousness.

I openly state my belief with scriptural backing.

You offer nothing but ‘read the doctrine’.

You cannot even define the basics of things such as what the word ‘God’ means for fear you will expose the fallacy of the trinity doctrine.

Do you remember that you defined ‘God’ as ‘ESSENCE’? And now you cannot define it.. but worse, you cannot define what ‘ESSENCE’ is...

You said that ‘Lord’ was interchangeable with ‘God’. So clearly you have some kind of definition in your mind but you refuse to state it .. that’s poor showing!

Consider what this ‘interchangeable’ would mean:

• What is ‘The Lord God’? (‘The God Lord’... what on earth or in heaven does that mean? The God Master!!?)
• ‘The Lord Jesus Christ’? (‘The God Jesus Christ’ ... of course, God is not Christ... ‘Christ’ means ‘Anointed’... who anointed God?)

I think you need to rethink your ideology and the words, titles, names, and labels that you use. I notice your posts lack substance in terms of anything concrete...

 

[sojourner]

This shows that you actually have no idea what you are talking about

You lack the tools and credibility to make that assessment.

All your answers are hedging answers that have no substance

Ever hear of the adage: “Ask a stupid question...?” Ask pointed questions of depth and you’ll get answers in kind. Keep asking insubstantial questions and you get what you pay for.

It is clear you cannot answer for your belief when you realise that it doesn’t amount to anything

I haven’t stated my belief.

You offer nothing but ‘read the doctrine

Well... if you’d do that, I wouldn’t have to keep suggesting it.

I think you need to rethink your ideology and the words, titles, names, and labels that you use

I think you need to rethink your theological conclusions.

I notice your posts lack substance in terms of anything concrete...

Ditto

 

[YoursTrue]

Im confused... why are you debating with sojourner if this is your stance?

Are you just filling up your time or wanting to get to the truth of scriptures..?

You obviously don’t believe in trinity but are floundering in exactly what you do believe. I saw you move towards the truth previously but you appear to be trying NOT TO UPSET sojourner by offering hi excuses for his clearly unscriptural ideology which he cannot even define for our debate purposes.

And remember that is is a DEBATE thread - not a DISCUSSION thread!! You don’t feel ‘sorry’ for your antagonist in a DEBATE!

You may think it's a debate, but I am asking questions and wondering what you think, some others think, and trying to understand. Have a nice evening.