Refuting the Trinity Doctrine!

[outhouse]

Before Constantine was:
Egypt trinity of Horus, Osiris, Isis.
Babylon trinity of Ishtar, Sin, Shamash
1st century Palmyra trinity of moon god, Lord of heavens, sun god.

Plato lived before Christ. Didn't Platonic philosophy influence Platonic trinity?

3 deities and the trinity are four different things.

the trinity is specific to yeshua,god,ghost

 

[Astounded]

Because you said so of course. The actions of Jesus do indeed speak for themselves, that he was the Moshiach, the Logos and Firstborn of Creation, as the Guilt Offering of Isaiah 53 which I would bet you haven't read.

Why do you think he says "I am the one you spoke of", what are these prophecies referring to exactly? The Holiest of Creation, the Firstborn of Creation incarnated. Not G-d himself. This is nowhere a concept in the Old Testament of G-d appearing as a man.

I'll let the Jewish scriptures do the talking, you should consider the same.

Telling me to "read scripture" isn't exactly like quoting verses to actually back your claim which you seem to have more than enough time to do in between posts.

So you follow a 'created being' that committed suicide?? Isn't suicide a grave sin in Judaism?

You follow a Jewish blasphemer that dares to replace Yahweh/God with himself, a mere man, in the Passover todah?

 

[outhouse]

The man Jesus committed suicide. He sinned. He is no perfect offering.

thats debatable and most scholars and historians think it was not suicide.

why do you think your opinion is special?

 

[Shermana]

So you follow a 'created being' that committed suicide?? Isn't suicide a grave sin in Judaism?

You follow a Jewish blasphemer that dares to replace Yahweh/God with himself, a mere man, in the Passover todah?

Where is suicide a sin in the Torah? Avoiding the subject of Isaiah 53 doesn't make it go away, and I'd bet you really haven't read it.

He said "Take this cup from me if you will", indicating he didn't want to do it.

How did Jesus blaspheme by calling himself son of God exactly?

 

[Astounded]

Where is suicide a sin in the Torah? Avoiding the subject of Isaiah 53 doesn't make it go away, and I'd bet you really haven't read it.

He said "Take this cup from me if you will", indicating he didn't want to do it.

How did Jesus blaspheme by calling himself son of God exactly?

Isaiah 53 can describe any type of ''being.'

I don't have a problem with the Son of God moniker. I assume that you do know that the object of worship/remembrance in the todah is God??..and Jesus states to do it in remembrance of him, a man and not for God?? What's that all about???

 

[Shermana]

Isaiah 53 can describe any type of ''being.'

I don't have a problem with the Son of God moniker. I assume that you do know that the object of worship/remembrance in the todah is God??..and Jesus states to do it in remembrance of him, a man and for God?? What's that all about???

The word "Worship" means bow down to. David was worshiped. Angels are bowed down to. (Though in Revelation, John is told not to because the "Messenger" being sent was the soul of an equal level prophet).

Bowing is not exclusive to God in the first commandment, but serving him alone is. Thus, one cannot bow to the Devil, though one can bow to the Israelite king. Saul worships the ghost of Samuel in another case.

Please quote your verse where you claim Jesus states to worship in remembrance of him.

 

[Astounded]

thats debatable and most scholars and historians think it was not suicide.

why do you think your opinion is special?

It's not.

Let's see..Jesus is able to avoid being killed by the Jews several times in the NT..He walks right through them..

But...He voluntarily goes to Jerusalem and even states that He will be killed when He goes there. Peter rightly objects and is put down for it....Jesus states no one TAKES my life, I give it voluntarily....He's a scripture genius at 12 but totally unable to defend Himslef before the Sanhedrin or Pilate.

Yep. Jesus pulls the pin, throws the grenade then jumps on it to save others....unfortunately for him, a mere man, that's suicide as it offends the rights of God.

 

[Astounded]

The word "Worship" means bow down to. David was worshiped. Angels are bowed down to. (Though in Revelation, John is told not to because the "Messenger" being sent was the soul of an equal level prophet).

Bowing is not exclusive to God in the first commandment, but serving him alone is. Thus, one cannot bow to the Devil, though one can bow to the Israelite king. Saul worships the ghost of Samuel in another case.

Please quote your verse where you claim Jesus states to worship in remembrance of him.

Do this in remembrance of Me....take your pick..Passover or plain ol' todah. He usurps the postion of God/Yahweh

 

[Shermana]

Do this in remembrance of Me....take your pick..Passover or plain ol' todah. He usurps the postion of God/Yahweh

Quote the whole verse, unless you like showing Trintiarian contextual logic. I don't think anyone actually would understand what you mean by itself like that.

I like how you think Jesus walked right through them.

If anything, this is great proof of Trinitarians thinking their claims don't need to be in the bible.

i think you also ignored the "Take this cup from me if you will" part too, but that's okay, ignoring verses is another Trinitarian specialty.

 

[Astounded]

Quote the whole verse, unless you like showing Trintiarian contextual logic. I don't think anyone actually would understand what you mean by itself like that.

I like how you think Jesus walked right through them.

If anything, this is great proof of Trinitarians thinking their claims don't need to be in the bible.

i think you also ignored the "Take this cup from me if you will" part too, but that's okay, ignoring verses is another Trinitarian specialty.

What do you think they were doing at the Last Supper?? Playing cards????

You know exactly what I mean. A man is usurping the place of God in the todah or Passover...in short, do the Passover todah in remembrance of Jesus, not God...Get it yet???

The 'cup' that Jesus wants taken away is the separation from the Father when He will feel the effects of sin. He has never been separated from the Father, but will be on the cross.

 

[Shermana]

What do you think they were doing at the Last Supper?? Playing cards????

You know exactly what I mean. A man is usurping the place of God in the todah or Passover...in short, do the Passover todah in remembrance of Jesus, not God...Get it yet???

The 'cup' that Jesus wants taken away is the separation from the Father when He will feel the effects of sin. He has never been separated from the Father, but will be on the cross.

No I actually don't know exactly what you mean, he said to break bread in remembrance of him, not the passover itself. This breaking of bread is done by Paul as well.

And the "cup" Jesus spoke of was upcoming execution, that's the general concensus. He was saying "Don't cause me to be executed me if you will". Clearly an indication of two separate minds and wills and beings.

 

[Astounded]

No I actually don't know exactly what you mean, he said to break bread in remembrance of him, not the passover itself. This breaking of bread is done by Paul as well.

And the "cup" Jesus spoke of was upcoming execution, that's the general concensus. He was saying "Don't cause me to be executed me if you will". Clearly an indication of two separate minds and wills and beings.

The cup was God's wrath..Jesus knew He was going to die as any human does when He accepted the 'mission.' The wrath is the separation from the Father that He doesn't want to experience.

Whether you believe Jesus was celebrating Passover or a plain ol' todah before Passover, the object of both is to thank God for being saved from a great danger. Jesus replaces God with himself....when he states to do it in remembrance of him

 

[Shermana]

That's how you interpret it, whether you believe it or not. The cup he is talking about is the execution itself, (which is why he asks the brothers if they are willing to drink from the same cup) and the remembrance is in the breaking of the bread itself specifically, not the Passover as a whole, do you assume the ritualistic breaking of bread that even Paul did has no significance?

 

[Mattweedhacker]

Yes, there is no "a" in Greek.

However, they did differntiate with the use of the Article, between "The God" and what we call "A god".

That's why I earlier asked if it was Anarthrous.

Thus the word "Theos" when it lacks a "Ton" becomes "a god" in English, even if there is no "a". That is why the Greeks use "The God" to distinguish. This "The" can however also be used for other gods when there is clarification such as in 2 Cor 4:4.

This might be an eye opener!

LATIN & PART GREEK TEXT: “...Suscitavit enim mihi Deus aliud semen pro Abel.” Vides, quemnam maledictis incessant, qui honestam ac moderatam incessunt seminationem, et diabolo attribuunt generationem. Non enim simpliciter Deum dixit, qui articuli præmissione, nempe ὁ Θεός dicens, significavit eum, qui est omnipotens....” - (Book III Chapter 12, The Stromata by Clement of Alexandria (153-217) Translated by William Wilson.)

CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA (circa. 153 to 217 C.E.): “...'For God has raised up for me another child in Ables place.' You see who is the target of the slanders of those who show their disgust at responsible marriage and attribute the process of birth to the devil? ( Scripture ) does not merely refer to “( a ) god”. By application of the ( definite – article ) it indicates the Almighty ruler of the universe...” - (Book III. Chapter 12:81; Page 307. Stromata in “The Fathers Of The Church” Clement of Alexandria Stromateis Books 1-3, Translated by John Ferguson 1991.)

CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA (circa. 153 to 217 C.E.): “...For God has raised up for me other seed instead of Abel." You see who is the object of the blasphemy of those who abuse sober marriage and attribute birth to the devil? The Scripture here does not speak simply of ( a ) God, but of the God, indicating the Almighty by the addition of the definite article...” - (Book III. Chapter 12:81. CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA - THE STROMATA, OR MISCELLANIES - BOOK III TThe Library of Christian Classics: Volume II, Alexandrian Christianity: Selected Translations of Clement and Origine with Introduction and Notes by John Ernest Leonard Oulton, D.D., Regius Professor of Divinity in the University of Dublin; Chancellor of St. Patrick’s and Henry Chadwick, B.D., Fellow and Dean of Queens’ College Cambridge, Westminster Press, Philadelphia, 1954. pages 40-92.)

COMPARE:

ORIGEN OF ALEXANDRIA (circa. 185 to 254 C.E.): “...We next notice John's use of the article in these sentences. He does not write without care in this respect, nor is he unfamiliar with the niceties of the Greek tongue. In some cases he uses the article, and in some he omits it. He adds the article to the Logos, but to the name of God he adds it sometimes only. He uses the article, when the name of God refers to the uncreated cause of all things, and omits it when the Logos is named God. DOES THE SAME - ( DIFFERENCE ) - WHICH - ( WE ) - OBSERVE BETWEEN God with the article and God without it prevail also between the Logos with it and without it? We must enquire into this. As the God who is over all is God with the article not without it, so "the Logos" is the source of that reason (Logos) which dwells in every reasonable creature; the reason which is in each creature is not, like the former called par excellence The Logos. Now there are many who are sincerely concerned about religion, and who fall here into great perplexity. They are afraid that they may be proclaiming two Gods, and their fear drives them into doctrines which are false and wicked. Either they deny that the Son has a distinct nature of His own besides that of the Father, and make Him whom they call the Son to be God all but the name, or they deny the divinity of the Son, giving Him a separate existence of His own, and making His sphere of essence fall outside that of the Father, so that they are separable from each other. To such persons we have to say that God on the one hand is Very God (Autotheos, God of Himself); and so the Saviour says in His prayer to the Father, "That they may know Thee the only true God; "but that all beyond the Very God -- IS ( MADE ) GOD -- by participation in His divinity, and is not to be called simply God (with the article), but rather God (without article). And thus the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with God, and to attract to Himself divinity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other gods beside Him, ( of ) whom God - is the God, as it is written, "The God of gods, the Lord, hath spoken and called the earth." It was by the offices of the first-born that they became gods, for He drew from God in generous measure that they should be made gods, and He communicated it to them according to His own bounty. The true God, then, is "The God," and those who are formed after Him are gods, images, as it were, of Him the prototype. But the archetypal image, again, of all these images is the Word of God, who was in the beginning, and who by being with God is at all times God, not possessing that of Himself, but by His being with the Father, and not continuing to be God, if we should think of this, except by remaining always in uninterrupted contemplation of the depths of the Father...” - (Commentary On John, Book. 2. Chapter 2. IN WHAT WAY THE LOGOS IS GOD. ERRORS TO BE AVOIDED ON THIS QUESTION. Roberts & Donaldson ANF.)

Compare a little further on in the same Commentary:

ORIGEN OF ALEXANDRIA (circa. 185 to 254 C.E.): “...There was God with the article [1:1b] and God without the article [1:1c], then there were gods in two orders, at the summit of the higher order of whom is God the Word, transcended Himself by the God of the universe. And again, there was the Logos with the article and the Logos without the article,corresponding to God absolutely and ( a ) god..." - (Commentary on the Gospel According to John, translated by: Mensies, Allan, D.D., Professor of Biblical Criticism, St. Andrews University. Appearing as vol. q0 in: The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Translations of the Writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325, Origens Book 2, part 2, p 324. American Reprint of the Edinburgh 2nd Edition.)

Finally a early Jewish perspective from the time of the Apostles:

PHILO JUDAEUS (circa. 20 B.C.E to 50 C.E.): “...And do not pass by what is here said, but examine it accurately, and see whether there are really two Gods. For it is said: 'I am the God who was seen by thee;' not in my place, but in the place of God, as if he meant of some other God. What then ought we to say? There is one true God only: but they who are called Gods, by an abuse of language, are numerous; on which account the holy scripture on the present occasion indicates that it is the true God that is meant by the use of the article, the expression being, 'I am the God [ho theos];' but when the word is used in-correctly, it is put without the article, the expression being, 'He who was seen by thee in the place,' not of the God [tou theou], but simply 'of God' [theou]; and what he here calls God is his most Ancient Word [Logos]...” - (On Dreams, 1.228-230. Youngs Translation)


That should get some jaws flapping.

 

[Muffled]

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."

Herein lies the problem. "Person" is never construed in modern language the way it is in the Trinity Doctrine so everyone who reads "person" is thinking it means the usual definition. The truth is that the only people who use the word "person" in reference to the Trinity are those who are eccesiastical.

I knew someone who thought that different persons meant different personalities. He had the Father as the bad guy and the son as the good guy. That is totally blasphemous and untrue but what can you expect when the word "person" suggests different personalities.

 

[Muffled]

Monotheism and polytheism aren't the only -theisms that exist, you know.

To one who has studied Hindu God-concepts, the monotheistic Trinity makes perfect sense.

The Holy Spirit is the all-pervasive and non-dual Spirit of God.
The Father is God transcendent.
The Son is God as He is in the material plane.

They are simple viewpoints with which to view God, not separate in any way.

Any Trinitarians agree that this is an accurate description?

This is what God is. It is not a definition of the Paraclete, the third member of the Trinity.

This is just another aspect of God. All three members of the Trinity could be considered transcendent.

This is not a singualar attribute. The Paraclete is also.

 

[Muffled]

Says who? Are you aware of what the Messianic requirement is in the first place? Where do you get your Theology that the Suffering Servant must be G-d Himself to satiate His own Sacrifice? That is signified nowhere in Isaiah 53.

Isa. 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

 

[Shermana]

El Gibbor = A mighty god.

The word "El" doesn't necessarily refer to The Elohim. In Genesis 14:18-22 Malchezdiek is a priest of the "Most High god", to separate from other gods as being the most high of them. Psalm 136:2 shows the concept of "god of the gods", Elohei Ha-Elohim.

In Genesis 46:3, when the Father introduces himself, the article "ha" is employed. In other cases, the word is used with a fixed adjective like "Almighty" for indication.

Interestingly in 31:29, the word "El" is used for "power" as in "It is in my power".

Avi ad = Father of the age, most translations totally ignore the possessive form of "Avi". The word "ad" is like "Aeon" and usually means "Age" rather than "Eternal". One can see why the Trinitarian translations eschew the "Avi" as if it said "Ava" at least. (The Douay Rheims at least gets this one right I think)

Regardless, it appears that's the only Messianic requirements most Christians are aware of.

 

[sojourner]

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

1) What a logical mess you've created
2) You need to understand what the doctrine is before you make a fool of yourself trying to refute it
3) You're wasting energy and bandwidth worrying about something that need not concern you

Let me put this in a way you're most likely to understand:

:sleep:, :foot:, :ignore:

 

[outhouse]

1) What a logical mess you've created
2) You need to understand what the doctrine is before you make a fool of yourself trying to refute it
3) You're wasting energy and bandwidth worrying about something that need not concern you

Let me put this in a way you're most likely to understand:

:sleep:, :foot:, :ignore:

And I have to agree


they do a great job of ignoring facts they dont have a clue about.