The trinity is false - I have proof

[Colt]

Actually, not true. All Jews are considered "sons of God", and "son of man" is messianic, which is an opinion but not considered blasphemy. Jesus wasn't the only one to make such a claim.

16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

The trial:

63 But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest answered and said to Him, “I put You under oath by the living God: Tell us if You are the Christ, the Son of God!” 64 Jesus said to him, “It is as you said. Nevertheless, I say to you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.” 65 Then the high priest tore his clothes, saying, “He has spoken blasphemy! What further need do we have of witnesses? Look, now you have heard His blasphemy! NKJV

 

[metis]

16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

The trial:
63 But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest answered and said to Him, “I put You under oath by the living God: Tell us if The

The key word here is "the ...", which implies one and also implies Jesus actually being God, which indeed falls under "blasphemy". Some theologians have strong doubts that Jesus ever made such statements or Jews would never likely have been attracted to him in the first place.

 

[LuisDantas]

I just don't see how the Trinity could ever be a big deal either way, nor how it could possibly be beyond the means of the Ultimate Exception that is Abraham's God.

 

[Colt]

The key word here is "the ...", which implies one and also implies Jesus actually being God, which indeed falls under "blasphemy". Some theologians have strong doubts that Jesus ever made such statements or Jews would never likely have been attracted to him in the first place.

Errrrm, yea, Jesus wasn't real popular among the "theologians" of his day. He appealed more to the common man and even then he was largely rejected by his own.

Parable of the Landowner​

33 “Listen to another parable. There was a [a]landowner who planted a vineyard and put a [b]fence around it, and dug a wine press in it, and built a tower, and he leased it to [c]vine-growers and went on a journey. 34 And when the [d]harvest time approached, he sent his slaves to the vine-growers to receive his fruit. 35 And the vine-growers took his slaves and beat one, killed another, and stoned another. 36 Again, he sent other slaves, more than the first; and they did the same things to them. 37 But afterward he sent his son to them, saying, ‘They will respect my son.’ 38 But when the vine-growers saw the son, they said among themselves, ‘This is the heir; come, let’s kill him and take possession of his inheritance!’ 39 And they took him and threw him out of the vineyard, and killed him. 40 Therefore, when the [e]owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those vine-growers?” 41 They *said to Him, “He will bring those wretches to a wretched end and lease the vineyard to other vine-growers, who will pay him the fruit in the proper seasons.”

42 Jesus *said to them, “Did you never read in the Scriptures,

‘A stone which the builders rejected,
This has become the [f]chief cornerstone;
This came about from the Lord,
And it is marvelous in our eyes’?

43 Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a [g]people producing its fruit. 44 And the one who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; and on whomever it falls, it will crush him.”

45 When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard His parables, they understood that He was speaking about them. 46 And although they sought to arrest Him, they feared the crowds, since they considered Him to be a prophet.

 

[metis]

Errrrm, yea, Jesus wasn't real popular among the "theologians" of his day. He appealed more to the common man and even then he was largely rejected by his own.

Parable of the Landowner​

33 “Listen to another parable. There was a [a]landowner who planted a vineyard and put a [b]fence around it, and dug a wine press in it, and built a tower, and he leased it to [c]vine-growers and went on a journey. 34 And when the [d]harvest time approached, he sent his slaves to the vine-growers to receive his fruit. 35 And the vine-growers took his slaves and beat one, killed another, and stoned another. 36 Again, he sent other slaves, more than the first; and they did the same things to them. 37 But afterward he sent his son to them, saying, ‘They will respect my son.’ 38 But when the vine-growers saw the son, they said among themselves, ‘This is the heir; come, let’s kill him and take possession of his inheritance!’ 39 And they took him and threw him out of the vineyard, and killed him. 40 Therefore, when the [e]owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those vine-growers?” 41 They *said to Him, “He will bring those wretches to a wretched end and lease the vineyard to other vine-growers, who will pay him the fruit in the proper seasons.”

42 Jesus *said to them, “Did you never read in the Scriptures,

‘A stone which the builders rejected,
This has become the [f]chief cornerstone;
This came about from the Lord,
And it is marvelous in our eyes’?

43 Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a [g]people producing its fruit. 44 And the one who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; and on whomever it falls, it will crush him.”

45 When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard His parables, they understood that He was speaking about them. 46 And although they sought to arrest Him, they feared the crowds, since they considered Him to be a prophet.

First of all, I don't believe everything I read, and that includes scripture.

Secondly, the Gospels and epistles certainly glorify Jesus, which is quite understandable, but objectivity was and is not to be expected.

Finally, my respect and love for Jesus does not come from claims about him but from his teaching of peace and his synthesizing of the Laws of Moses to his most basic message of love.

 

[Glaurung]

The Trinitarian concept in Catholicism has it that there are not three gods but one God with Jesus and the Holy Spirit being of the "essence" of God.

This is incorrect. God is three persons with one divine essence. Jesus and the Holy Spirit are not of the essence of God. They are God. All three persons are God in their own right.

I believe the trinity is false. God is not a trinity. Proof?

1 Corinthians 14.33
For God is not the author of confusion

The trinity create confusion.

And

Exodus 20.5
You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God

According to the trinity God has three I. But according to Exodus 20.5 God has only one I

Christianity does teach that the Trinity is a mystery beyond human reason. But it is not that hard to understand that the Triune God is a single divine reality. God may be a trinity, but He is still one God.

Trinity was needed to make ambiguous the position of the holy spirit. That was needed to make unclear the clear prophecies regarding Mohammad (s). If people understood how Elyas (a) came back and the position of the holy spirit he held till Mohammad (s), then the prophecies of Jesus (a) about both become clear.

Absurd.

The position of the Holy Spirit is not ambiguous. The Holy Spirit is the third person of the Blessed Trinity. He is God. When Christian orthodoxy was being hammered out, no one was trying to cover up the claims of a religion that would not exist for centuries after the fact.

 

[metis]

This is incorrect. God is three persons with one divine essence. Jesus and the Holy Spirit are not of the essence of God. They are God. All three persons are God in their own right.

Then whom was Jesus praying to when on the cross? Why did he say he didn't know when the end times would be as only the Father would know?

IOW, if three individuals have different names, then obviously they cannot be the same-- unless one uses "essence", which the Church used at least in the 4th century at the Council of Nicaea when the Trinitarian concept was formulated.

 

[Link]

This is incorrect. God is three persons with one divine essence. Jesus and the Holy Spirit are not of the essence of God. They are God. All three persons are God in their own right.


Christianity does teach that the Trinity is a mystery beyond human reason. But it is not that hard to understand that the Triune God is a single divine reality. God may be a trinity, but He is still one God.


Absurd.

The position of the Holy Spirit is not ambiguous. The Holy Spirit is the third person of the Blessed Trinity. He is God. When Christian orthodoxy was being hammered out, no one was trying to cover up the claims of a religion that would not exist for centuries after the fact.

Salam

Gog and Magog were introduced so as to be aware of a society that misguides humanity. Many religions went astray before Christianity as well.

Gog is a oracle and sorcerer that the possessor is Satan himself. Magog are followers of Gog and have their own Satanic entities from the Jinn possessing them.

As for these people, they always first try to make ambiguous what is clear, and so the first war is against interpretation and they decontextualize words.

Then after that, if they can, they will change words literally and sabotage as much as the revelation as possible.

If it weren't for this society, none of the religions would go astray.

Yazeed was a Kahen too, and most likely a Gog himself.

 

[viole]

I believe the trinity is false. God is not a trinity. Proof?

1 Corinthians 14.33
For God is not the author of confusion

The trinity create confusion.

And

Exodus 20.5
You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God

According to the trinity God has three I. But according to Exodus 20.5 God has only one I

I could use the same argument to prove that there is no God connected to Corinthians.

Premise: God is not the author of confusion.
Observation: people believe and believed in thousands of mutually contradicting gods. Even within the same belief bubble. A theological mess.
Conclusion: either the premise is false, or there is no God Who ever said that.

at any rate, we can logically infer that if Corinthians is from God, then that God cannot exist.

ciao

- viole