Trinity claims that the Jews believed that a Son is equal to his Father

[David Davidovich]

No, the wording is not correct. There is no such thing as "Torath Mosheh Judaism." One can't connect the statement that way. Again, for Jews wording is key. The use of "unadulterated, genuine form of Judaism" and "versions of Judaism" are also part of the problem, English. Consider in the following way.

1. When the Torah was given by Hashem at Mount Sinai the foundation of building an Torah based Israeli society in the land of Israel was given/established.
   • This included the governmental system.
   • The legal system.
   • The social system.
   • The educational system.
   • The ideological/intellectual system.
2. All of the above is Torath Mosheh because both the written and oral details were given by Hashem to Mosheh ben-Amram and he taught/transmitted to all of the Israelis of that generation from all of the tribes.
3. The term (יהדות) Yahaduth "Judaism" did not exist then thus the term being inserted into a time it didn't fit historically or theologically.
4. Thus, anything that does not match the governmental system, legal system, social system, educational system, and ideological/intellectual system that was given at Mount Sinai by Hashem is not Torath Mosheh.
5. In order for something to be proven to be Torath Mosheh it would have to be proven to be ancient, authentic, and authorative. I.e. you should be able to trace the concept, practice, etc. throughout the generations and find it common in the most ancient Jewish communities.
   • If something does not match the above it is not Torath Mosheh and thus Torath Mosheh reject it.

Now, getting to the term "Judaism" in English this term has only a modern usage and often is used to describe things that are not Torath Mosheh and are not ancient, authentic, nor autoratitive. A good example is the term Judeo-Christian. For Torath Mosheh Jews, this term "Judeo-Christian" really means Christianity and not Torath Mosheh and not Yahaduth.

In all ancient sources where the term (יהדות) "Yahaduth" is found it does not mean what the English term Judaism is used in the western world to mean. Thus, now a days you have Christian Jews who claim to follow "Messianic Judaism" BUT if you go back prior to the 1960's no Christian Jew ever used the term (יהדות) to describe what they were doing. They originally called themselves "Hebrew Christians." At no point in their history did they describe what they were doing as Torath Mosheh.

Well, from now on with you, I will only use the term Torath Mosheh Jews. Also, there sure would be a lot of people who would disagree with/would not like you saying that their version of being Jewish isn't really valid and that only Torath Mosheh Jews are.

As an experiment do the following. Take anything that has the term "Judaism" attached to it in English and see if that thing was in practice or accepted among Yemenite Jews, Mizrahi Jews, Maghrebi Jews, Asian Jews, etc. Further, look at the origin of said thing and if you find it only started in particular modern year and had no predecesor in earlier mentioned ancient Jewish communities you will know that said thing is not Torath Mosheh.

That sure is quite an undertaking. However, it would be helpful to me if you could provide a list of these Judaic groups. Or I could look at the information in the Wikipedia article that you seemed to have dismissed.

At that point, you state, "This is not a matter of it being unadulterated, genuine Torath Mosheh. Said thing is not Torath Mosheh without arguement and those who hold by said thing, on thier own, never claimed it to be Torath Mosheh."

Well, please don't be offended by this, but what you're explaining reminds me of fundamentalist Christians groups such Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists and others who claim that other forms of Christianity are cult-like groups and that only they are the true Christian faiths that can be traced back to what the Bible actually says and back to apostolic times.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Well, you should use common sense and see that the verse has been corrupted. In fact, it DOES NOT SAY that Christ Jesus created all things. It says ‘He’….

The verse is deliberately vague so that unwary readers are seduced by the dark side into believing that the person of Christ should be substituted for the ‘He’ in that context.

What do you mean with "corrupted"? It's clear that the whole chapter is a list of things about Christ:

15The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16For in/by Him all things were created, things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities. All things were created through Him and for Him.
17He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. 18And He is the head of the body, the church; He is the beginning and firstborn from among the dead, so that in all things He may have preeminence. 19For God was pleased to have all His fullness dwell in Him, 20and through Him to reconcile to Himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through the blood of His cross.

Get the pattern? It's all about Christ.

Yes, the text distinguishes between God (Father) and Son (Christ) but it also says "God was pleased to have all His fullness dwell in Him [in Christ]."

If in Christ dwells all fullness of God (things listed about him) then he is somehow equal to God and above/before all creation.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

But all it said was:

All the Apocrypha and most of the Pseudepigrapha are Jewish works (some contain Christianizing additions). They provide essential evidence of Jewish literature and thought during the period between the end of biblical writing (ca. 400 BCE) and the beginning of substantial rabbinic literature in the latter part of the first century CE. They have aroused much scholarly interest, since they provide information about Judaism at the turn of the era between the Bible and the Mishna (Biblical Law and Oral Law), and help explain how Rabbinic Judaism and Christianity came into being.​

Therefore, it's hard for me to see that that would say something too much different if it were written in Hebrew.

Think of this way. I have been living in Israel since 2007. There are articles that I read before I moved here that said one thing. Yet, when I moved here and looked at a similar article in Hebrew and saw the archeology for myself first hand the information in Hebrew was way more expansive and the archeology was more clear when I could actually see it and read it for myself. I.e. many English articles are very short summeries of a really long issue and the assumption sometimes is that if you are able to read it in Hebrew you are also willing to invest more time into the topic thus there is more detail provided.

There are also some articles I saw in English before I moved here that I found were wrong when I researched the Jewish communities that the article in English didn't cover. Some of these communities had/have documents that have never been translated in English.

So then, that settles it. Because essentially, what I was trying to say (at least) was that some ancient religion that was associated with or which originated from the Jewish faith, believed in some sort of second power in heaven. Therefore, for me, the OP has been answered in that regards.

For you that might be okay and a closed deal - as you are someone who doesn't read the languages, doesn't live in the region, live in the culture that the OP was referencing. The English summeries you have read are enough for you and that is fine, for you.

Yet, I read the languages in question, live in the region, and live in the culture. Thus, I have a more insider view of what the OP was questioning.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Well, from now on with you, I will only use the term Torath Mosheh Jews. Also, there sure would be a lot of people who would disagree with/would not like you saying that their version of being Jewish isn't really valid and that only Torath Mosheh Jews are.

Good to hear. In terms of a person disagreeing or not liking. I don't have a problem with that. If what they are saying is "historically accurate" they can easily bring the "historical information" that prooves the ancient, authentic, and authorative nature of what they call as their "version" and we can go from there.

I can tell you from past experience, most people who have a "version" of something know when what they are talking is not ancient and they express this themselves in their own information. So, that is not a problem at all.

Again, it is not a matter of "Torath Mosheh Jews" being valid, it is that "Torath Mosheh" is valid, it is ancient, authentic, and authoratative for Jews and that all modern "versions" of something were started by Jews who were originally Torath Mosheh and those individuals made a conscious decision to move away from it and start a "movement" to represent their seperation.

That sure is quite an undertaking. However, it would be helpful to me if you could provide a list of these Judaic groups. Or I could look at the information in the Wikipedia article that you seemed to have dismissed.

If Wiki is your preference, see the following.

Yemenite Jews - Wikipedia

History of the Jews in Iraq - Wikipedia

History of Jews in Syria - Wikipedia

History of the Jews in Africa - Wikipedia

Sephardi Jews - Wikipedia

History of the Jews in Afghanistan - Wikipedia

Yet, I will warn you there is a guy you be familiar with that worked on a number of them. Here he is below.

Well, please don't be offended by this, but what you're explaining reminds me of fundamentalist Christians groups such Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists and others who claim that other forms of Christianity are cult-like groups and that only they are the true Christian faiths that can be traced back to what the Bible actually says and back to apostolic times.

No offense taken. When you check the sources of each group, look into when their movement started and in how many Jewish communities it is found.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

I don't remember. I would have to look it up. Although, that's besides the point because the real question would be whether or not there was any validity in what the Wikipedia article said about various forms of the Jewish faith.

Not really. As someone who has written for Wikipedia one of the problems that comes up with Wiki articles is that anyone can write them irregardless of whether or not they have really researched what it is they are writing. I.e. a person can pick up a that summerizes a Jewish view from, let's say Poland, and write an article as if that one view is inclusive for Jews from Algeria.

What also complicates the issue is if a person asks the very simple question of - for this "form" a "Jewish faith" is it really a "faith" and how far back do I find this concept in a Jewish community that is older and existed non-stop.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Well, from now on with you, I will only use the term Torath Mosheh Jews. Also, there sure would be a lot of people who would disagree with/would not like you saying that their version of being Jewish isn't really valid and that only Torath Mosheh Jews are.

 

[Soapy]

What do you mean with "corrupted"? It's clear that the whole chapter is a list of things about Christ:

15The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16For in/by Him all things were created, things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities. All things were created through Him and for Him.
17He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. 18And He is the head of the body, the church; He is the beginning and firstborn from among the dead, so that in all things He may have preeminence. 19For God was pleased to have all His fullness dwell in Him, 20and through Him to reconcile to Himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through the blood of His cross.

Get the pattern? It's all about Christ.

Yes, the text distinguishes between God (Father) and Son (Christ) but it also says "God was pleased to have all His fullness dwell in Him [in Christ]."

If in Christ dwells all fullness of God (things listed about him) then he is somehow equal to God and above/before all creation.

How are you reading that ‘In him’ everything was created?

How are you reading ‘By him’ everything was created?

That is not not what the Greek word for ‘In’ means. The translators are torturing the translation to make it say ‘By him’. That’s the corruption! And, ‘In him’ makes no sense!!

Then further down it says all things were created ‘Through him’… and ‘For him’…

Total inconsistency. Through him, implies an external agency acting Through him.

For him, implies an external agency carrying out the act as a gift For him.

15The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16For in/by Him all things were created, things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities. All things were created through Him and for Him.

“The Son is the IMAGE of the invisible God”….

Is it beyond logic to understand that:

1. not only must an object first exist before there can be an image of it
2. God is not visible because He is Spirit but the Son is flesh (ipso facto, the Son cannot be God)
3. An image cannot be the thing it images. It is only a [passive] REFLECTION of the source object… hence Jesus says:
   1. ‘I can ONLY DO what I see my Father doing’
   2. ‘For I did not speak on my own, but the Father who sent me commanded me to say all that I have spoken.“

God would not ever have to led by another nor have someone commanding him in anything. So you argument there is broken!

I have already shown you that ‘Firstborn over all creation’ means ‘Most beloved of all that was created’. Your argument is dead on the start line since God is not ‘born’ and God is the Creator of creation so it is incredible to call God ‘firstborn’ over what he created…! Implies he created himself!!

17He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.

‘He is before all things’! Do you remember that I showed you that the word ‘BEFORE’ means ‘GREATER THAN’…, try it here!!

• ‘He is GREATER THAN all things and in him all things hold together’

The verse is speaking of the the ‘Raised up to Heaven’ Jesus:

• “…That power is the same as the mighty strength [God] exerted when [God] raised Christ from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms, far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every name that is invoked, not only in the present age but also in the one to come.“ (Ephesians 1:19-21)

You will see that the verses above reflect and show exactly what I’m saying to you. God raised up Jesus from the dead and placed him ABOVE ALL rule and authority… Therefore this is how Jesus CAME TO BE ‘BEFORE/GREATER THAN’ all things in creation… even the ‘stations’ of the angels (which is what ‘Principalities and Rule’ means) - Jesus is now greater than all the powerful and holy angels of God….

18And He is the head of the body, the church;

The ‘CHURCH’ (congregation of believers in God’ BELONGS TO GOD.
Jesus is the HEAD of the body of the church. Jesus is LEADER of the church of God… the believers are the BODY….

That’s the same analogy as ‘Jesus is the vine and the believers are the branches’. The VINE plant is the property of the Vine OWNER. Jesus is the vine from which branches (believers) grow.
This is the same as Jesus as the shepherd. The shepherd IS NOT THE OWNER of the sheep!!! The Shepherd’s role is to gather, care for, feed, and lead the sheep (church/congregation/ believers) to (or back to) the sheepfold … The OWNER of the sheep is the Master of the house (God), the shepherd is EMPLOYED by the master.

He is

the beginning and firstborn from among the dead, so that in all things He may have preeminence.

Jesus is the beginning of those raised from the dead… the most beloved so that he is given the power to raise others AT THE JUDGEMENT SEAT:

• “For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself.” (John 5:26)
• “And he has given him authority to judge because he (Jesus) is the Son of Man.” (John 5:27)
• “Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his (Jesus’) voice and come out—those who have done what is good will rise to live, and those who have done what is evil will rise to be condemned.“ (John 5: 28-29)

19For God was pleased to have all His fullness dwell in Him, 20and through Him to reconcile to Himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through the blood of His cross.

1. Who is the ‘His’ in ‘his fullness’?
2. Who is the ‘Him’ in ‘dwell in him’?
3. Who is the ‘Him’ in ‘through him’?
4. Who is the he whom all things are to be reconciled to?
5. Whose blood and whose cross is peace to be made through?

God?

Please consider all things above and understand that there are two persons being spoken of: God and Jesus … sort out the order of presentation and apply the correct personal pronoun!

Check that Jesus is being empowered in greatness - and that God is ‘is, was, and always will be’ permanently above all things since it is He, God, who created all things … and appoints Jesus to be the ruler over what He, God, created…. Because GOD CREATED IT FOR THE SON!!

 

[PearlSeeker]

Total inconsistency. Through him, implies an external agency acting Through him.

No inconsistency. God (Father) created through him (Christ/Son). By/in him everything was created means Christ was doing the work. He is the intermediary between God and world. He did the work under God's order. That's how I understand the texts.

• Who is the ‘His’ in ‘his fullness’?

• Who is the ‘Him’ in ‘dwell in him’?

His fullness = God's fullness
dwell in him = dwell in Christ

 

[Soapy]

No inconsistency. God (Father) created through him (Christ/Son). By/in him everything was created means Christ was doing the work. He is the intermediary between God and world. He did the work under God's order. That's how I understand the texts.

His fullness = God's fullness
dwell in him = dwell in Christ

So you agree that it was GOD who created…

And that God is the Father…

And that ‘Father’ means ‘Creator’…

But then you think that God, the Father and Creator of all things, ‘Created THROUGH’ the Son… meaning (to you) that it was, in fact, the SON who created??

And you see nothing wrong with that ill-logic?

And, I see you are selective in your answers to the simple questions I asked you. You only picked the ones you thought you might be able to avoid avoid the truth that trinity is false.

Well, it stands to reason that deceit is never far from the mouth or hand of one who believes a false ideology. All you have done is confirm the truth of that statement.

“God’s fullness” was in him…. The Holy Spirit of God came down on his shoulders and infused him. By this Jesus became empowered to do the job God gave him to do: Acts 10:37-38.

Having the power of God in you does not make you God, no more than Joseph was Pharoah because Pharoah empowered Joseph with the power of his signet ring.

But even more ridiculous is your idea that Jesus was ALREADY GOD before GOD empowered Jesus with his Spirit!!

And more: That Jesus inherited the creation that he is supposed to have created!!

And how is Jesus God if he is Heir to God: Is the most beloved of a king also a king?

 

[PearlSeeker]

So you agree that it was GOD who created…

And that God is the Father…

And that ‘Father’ means ‘Creator’…

But then you think that God, the Father and Creator of all things, ‘Created THROUGH’ the Son… meaning (to you) that it was, in fact, the SON who created??

And you see nothing wrong with that ill-logic?

And, I see you are selective in your answers to the simple questions I asked you. You only picked the ones you thought you might be able to avoid avoid the truth that trinity is false.

Well, it stands to reason that deceit is never far from the mouth or hand of one who believes a false ideology. All you have done is confirm the truth of that statement.

“God’s fullness” was in him…. The Holy Spirit of God came down on his shoulders and infused him. By this Jesus became empowered to do the job God gave him to do: Acts 10:37-38.

Having the power of God in you does not make you God, no more than Joseph was Pharoah because Pharoah empowered Joseph with the power of his signet ring.

But even more ridiculous is your idea that Jesus was ALREADY GOD before GOD empowered Jesus with his Spirit!!

And more: That Jesus inherited the creation that he is supposed to have created!!

And how is Jesus God if he is Heir to God: Is the most beloved of a king also a king?

1. It's not that I think that God, the Father and Creator of all things, created through Christ. It's written so in the Bible. Are you saying this was not originally in the Bible?

Nothing illogical here. In a creative process there can be a chief creator and many cocreators.

The important biblical basis for trinity is this:
If Christ was somehow involved in creation of all things then necessary he existed before all creation.

2. I don't avoid the truth that trinity theology is false because I also think it's false. I don't know why I have to repeat again and again that I also don't believe it.

3. To all things I haven't addressed I just say: ok. I agree some parts reflect adoptionist Christology. And on the other hand some parts express high Christology. That's why I think the Bible is inconsistent in Christology.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

1. It's not that I think that God, the Father and Creator of all things, created through Christ. It's written so in the Bible. Are you saying this was not originally in the Bible?

That is correct. The New Testament was added by Christians to the Bible in the fourth century. Why they would try to combine two groups of writing that were obviously in conflict with each other is beyond me.

 

[PearlSeeker]

That is correct. The New Testament was added by Christians to the Bible in the fourth century. Why they would try to combine two groups of writing that were obviously in conflict with each other is beyond me.

I meant originally in the specific book of the Bible.

 

[Soapy]

1. It's not that I think that God, the Father and Creator of all things, created through Christ. It's written so in the Bible. Are you saying this was not originally in the Bible?

Nothing illogical here. In a creative process there can be a chief creator and many cocreators.

The important biblical basis for trinity is this:
If Christ was somehow involved in creation of all things then necessary he existed before all creation.

2. I don't avoid the truth that trinity theology is false because I also think it's false. I don't know why I have to repeat again and again that I also don't believe it.

3. To all things I haven't addressed I just say: ok. I agree some parts reflect adoptionist Christology. And on the other hand some parts express high Christology. That's why I think the Bible is inconsistent in Christology.

Well, thank you for your explanation of why you won’t answer questions when they prove against trinity. But you do need to actually say, ‘I agree with [this or that]…’ when it’s presented to you, not just ignore it.

High and low Christology….more labels and boxes for Christianity???

Co-Creators? The only possible ‘Co-Creators’ would likely be the holy angels of God. But the term ‘co-creator’ cannot be applied since ‘Creation’ is the thought as well as the act and the angels are not the thinkers of creation. Angels, therefore are no more than ‘tools’ and ‘contractors’ in the creation event.

God first created the angels who then carried out the tasks that God set them to do. Such aspects do not constitute ‘co-creation’:

• “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;” (Isaiah 44:24)
• “The LORD [YAHWEH] has made everything for its purpose” (Prov 16:4)
• “In the beginning GOD CREATED the heavens and the earth” (Gen 1:1)

 

[Soapy]

That is correct. The New Testament was added by Christians to the Bible in the fourth century. Why they would try to combine two groups of writing that were obviously in conflict with each other is beyond me.

The ‘Christian’ were made to profess trinitarianism by the decree of empower Constantine (a Roman who just wanted to stop the different factions of Christian’s fighting - looks bad for his governorship over the Middle East that he has insurrection and uproar going on)
Trinitarianism insists that Jesus is somehow also God despite the very clear logic that it makes no sense at all. Therefore ‘adjustments’ were made to what was written to make it seem like trinitarianism was the belief. The verse that claim that the world was created IN HIM (we are supposed to believe that this is a pre-existent Jesus!!!) does not make any sense since it then goes on to say it was made ‘FOR HIM’.

The reality is that GOD created all things ‘By himself’ (in his own power) FOR the [Human] Son of his love (‘Firstborn’). Read the verse over and see that what it really is saying is that God created all things FOR [Jesus Christ]. The verse is not taken from a prophesy from the Old Testament from where a qualification could have been achieved. When I read it used words added to make it TRY to seem that Christ was the creator.

This is what PearlSeeker sees as inconsistencies but prefers to believe the satanically modified version over the truth ….

Doesn’t scriptures warn about those who will add or remove words from the scriptures… why are there those who suppose that such additions and subtractions do not exist - and where they exist?

A ‘Father’ (Creator; life giver; bringer into being) created FOR his eternal heir!!!

God is Spirit and rules over the Spirit world.
God creates a physical world and puts in rulership over a physical being.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Well, thank you for your explanation of why you won’t answer questions when they prove against trinity. But you do need to actually say, ‘I agree with [this or that]…’ when it’s presented to you, not just ignore it.

High and low Christology….more labels and boxes for Christianity???

Co-Creators? The only possible ‘Co-Creators’ would likely be the holy angels of God. But the term ‘co-creator’ cannot be applied since ‘Creation’ is the thought as well as the act and the angels are not the thinkers of creation. Angels, therefore are no more than ‘tools’ and ‘contractors’ in the creation event.

God first created the angels who then carried out the tasks that God set them to do. Such aspects do not constitute ‘co-creation’:

• “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;” (Isaiah 44:24)
• “The LORD [YAHWEH] has made everything for its purpose” (Prov 16:4)
• “In the beginning GOD CREATED the heavens and the earth” (Gen 1:1)

Ok. Sorry.

Yes, there are different Christologies (theologies about Christ) expressed in the Bible. Different books of NT have a different view on nature of Christ. Johannine and pauline writtings hold a similar belief that's why this view is labeled high Christology.

Yes, creating involves thought/idea. How do you know no one is able to cocreate?

NT was written in Greek. Early Christianity was greatly influenced by Hellenistic Judaism... John 1 used the word Logos (Word) that was a familiar term in the philosophy of the time and at the same time christianized with distinctive meaning. Campare Philo's Logos with later Logos in Gospel of John:

Philo's view of God - Wikipedia

Philo already called the Logos the first-begotten Son of God, the man of God, the image of God, and second to God. (britannica.com)

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The ‘Christian’ were made to profess trinitarianism by the decree of empower Constantine

Whoa there bud. Constantine was not an official in the church -- indeed he was not even baptized a Christian until close to his death. He was merely a Roman Empower and had no power to determine theology.

It was the bishops of the church meeting in ecumenical counsel that encoded Trinitarianism.

Constantine himself was partial to Arianism, so things didn't go his way.

 

[Soapy]

Whoa there bud. Constantine was not an official in the church -- indeed he was not even baptized a Christian until close to his death. He was merely a Roman Empower and had no power to determine theology.

It was the bishops of the church meeting in ecumenical counsel that encoded Trinitarianism.

Constantine himself was partial to Arianism, so things didn't go his way.

I’m saying that Constantine endorsed trinitarianism since it stopped the war between Christian factions. He was only interested in doing that since his religious belief had nothing to do with the Christian war.

Yes, Arianism won out at first ….

Actually, I’m not going to further this aspect since it’s just a sideline issue to me: Neither Arianism nor Trinitarianism is true Christianity.

Arius was not correct about his ideology and theology so it really doesn’t matter … and true Christian’s would not have engaged in an actual physical war since that would be against everything that Christ Jesus stood for.

For me, the simple things is encoded in these two verses:

• “… what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?” (John 10:36)
• “You know what has happened throughout the province of Judea, beginning in Galilee after the baptism that John preached how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and how he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil, because God was with him.“ (Acts 10:37-38)

Both these verses express the truth and tell things as they were and are.

Not a hint of Arianism nor Trinitarianism in sight.

Concerning the true Christianity… In the famous words of well known movie:

• ‘There is another!’

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I’m saying that Constantine endorsed trinitarianism

I would word it a little bit differently. Constantine actually favored Arianism. When at the end of his life he finally became a Christian, he was baptized by an Arian bishop. But at the time of the council his primary conern was simply that a unified church was better for stabilizing the empire. Thus he was really a "whatever the bishops decide" kind of guy.

The main point is that Constantine had no influence on the council. Had that been the case, Arianism would have become orthodoxy.

 

[Soapy]

I would word it a little bit differently. Constantine actually favored Arianism. When at the end of his life he finally became a Christian, he was baptized by an Arian bishop. But at the time of the council his primary conern was simply that a unified church was better for stabilizing the empire. Thus he was really a "whatever the bishops decide" kind of guy.

The main point is that Constantine had no influence on the council. Had that been the case, Arianism would have become orthodoxy.

Good point. Maybe I’ve been reading too many other ‘trinitarian versions’ of this event. Thanks for setting the record straight for me.

However, like every said, it’s just a distraction from my point of view, exactly like:

• Express two counter false premises and then claim one is correct while the other is false.
• Make one the ‘winner’

Now, and forever, in that respect, the ‘winning false premise’ is declared as ‘True’.

But anyone who understands proper logic - and even common sense - will know that this is a common trick used by magicians and illusionists: the real premise has not been touched on and the audience is left to accept one of two false premises… Trinitarians use it all the time:

• ‘Jesus is God because he said that only God is good’
  • Is Jesus good?
  • Is God good?
  • Is Jesus bad?
• No one is going to say that jesus is bad therefore you are forced to declare jesus is God because you agree that Jesus is good (and not bad!)

That is a fantastic distraction technique that truly catches out unwary people … That there are only two premises - two options which link to the word ‘good’.

Is sugar good? Ask a cake maker … Ask someone who has diabetes?
Is Salt good? Ask a cook… Ask someone with high blood pressure?

What does Arianism teach? Is it true by scriptures?
What does trinity teach? Is it true by scriptures?

All these premises miss the THIRD premise!! The responder is forced to choose one of the only two offered premises by being never offered the third!

The third option with the Arian/trinity Jesus is/isn’t God is the truth that Jesus spoke from his own mouth:

• ‘[I’m] a man consecrated by God…’ (paraphrased…)

and confirmed by the apostles:

• ‘Do you not hear how in GOD anointed Jesus with the Holy Spirit and power … and the same Jesus went around doing good because God was with him’ (paraphrased…)

This ‘third’ premise is neither Arianism nor trinitarianism… just the truth:

• “As it is, you are looking for a way to kill me [Jesus Christ], a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God.” (John 8:40)

Of course, Trinitarians will say that if Jesus heard the truth from God then that means Jesus must also be God because man cannot hear God!
And I have no idea what an Arian would say as I really don’t know any Arian posters.

There are many false ways which the world is forced to choose - but those who have ears to hear and eyes to see and the wisdom to choose rightly know that

• ‘There is a third way’!

 

[Soapy]

Whoa there bud. Constantine was not an official in the church -- indeed he was not even baptized a Christian until close to his death. He was merely a Roman Empower and had no power to determine theology.

It was the bishops of the church meeting in ecumenical counsel that encoded Trinitarianism.

Constantine himself was partial to Arianism, so things didn't go his way.

Is this what I think you mean by ‘not trinitarian’ (below). Sounds like someone has been teaching you Arianism!:

• “Arianism taught that the Logos was a divine being begotten by God the Father before the creation of the world, made him a medium through whom everything else was created, and that the Son of God is subordinate to God the Father. A verse from Proverbs was also used: "The Lord created me at the beginning of his work."[Proverbs 8:22–25] Therefore, the Son was rather the very first and the most perfect of God's creatures, and he was made "God" only by the Father's permission and power.
  Arians do not believe in the traditional doctrine of the Trinity.” (Wikipedia: Arianism belief)

So you are saying that God and Jesus SHARE the glory of creation… which contradicts the scriptures in which God says he will not share his glory with another!

• “I am the YAHWEH; that is my name! I will not yield my glory to another or my praise to idols.” (Isaiah 42:8)
• “I am the YAHWEH, the Maker of all things, who stretches out the heavens, who spreads out the earth by myself…” (Isaiah 44:24)
• “It is I [YAHWEH] who made the earth and created mankind on it. My own hands stretched out the heavens; I marshaled their starry hosts.” (Isaiah 45:12)

I do not understand how you claim a ‘co-creator’ when God (who carries out the creation) tells you He did it by himself!

Who is teaching you about a ‘co-creator’ who God does not mention nor applies a co-op towards?

Angels are the agents used by God in the creation - but this does not make them ‘co-creators’! A hammer is an instrument used in nailing a nail into a piece of wood - but it’s not a co-maker of whatever is being made by the act.

• A Father creates a toy FOR HIS SON…
• The world was created FOR THE SON …
• Jesus INHERITED the kingdom of the world - made by the Father - for being the perfect IMAGE OF THE FATHER!
• ‘Father’ means ‘Creator’… A true ‘Son’ inherits what the Father has created!