Arius was correct about Jesus

[Subduction Zone]

Have fun finding a Christian who agrees with your ridiculous interpretation of theology.

There are quite a few. Probably most. Most Christians do not believe the myths of Genesis. Beliefs in wild fantasies such as the Noah's Ark myth are held mostly by those that are rather undereducated.

It appears that you only want to believe. You do not want to know. Are you afraid to learn how we know that those stories are mythical?

 

[rational experiences]

God and Jesus are one and the same.

Humans think thesis.

Storytellers by word use.

O planet earth is our O one God.
It's earths heavens from volcanic release ejection into empty space vacuum voiding womb.

Immaculate gas spirit mystery. Space womb sucked out what it never was the immaculate.

If you claim I am advised then science is the status only. Creation thesis.

O earth is stone never owned any immaculate gas.

Pretty basic common sense basic science.

Theists. Humans. Brain oxygenated by trees.

Thinks.

I want to convert God the stones mass into the gases my consciousness living is aware of.

Oh brother does an oxygenated tree life bio support own gods stone mass above you?

No.

Is stone clear gas in space that you can fall through?

No. You cannot fall through earth mass.

Did you claim carpenter a man built tectonic plate opening by pretending earths gas heavens was owned as gods stone mass .....
What you converted and tried to obtain in science machine alchemies?

Yes.

I was proven wrong. Why I write the document that no man is God.

As I lied personally as man human preaching scientist. False preaching human sciences only applied by humans as humans to humans about egotism human.

 

[muhammad_isa]

One who denies the Triune God is a heretic..

That contradicts the first commandment .. a triune God.
Yes, I know that you will claim that God is one essence,
and if you left it at that, you would be on track.
..but mankind just has to corrupt true faith

Everybody has their own agenda.
If God willed, people would not be fooled.
There is no compulsion to believe ANY particular creed.
We are free to decide for ourselves.
That is the whole point .. we have been given free-will.

It is not an easy thing to do, to leave our tribe/comfort zone,
but we will be asked about misleading others, so we should think about that when we make claims about God, Hallowed be His name.

 

[Trailblazer]

The only way that the Genesis myths could be true is if God is a liar since all of the objective evidence out there proves them to be wrong. God would have had to have planted endless false evidence, which is a form of lying, for those myths to be true.

There are other possibilities. One possibility is that God never intended for humans to believe that the Genesis creation story was literally true (scientific fact), but rather intended for it to be interpreted as metaphorical. Another possibility is that God knew that people thousands of years ago could not understand the scientific truth as we know it today, so Genesis was written to an audience that had limited understanding of the world we live in and no way to know what we now know from science.

The salient problem is that some people still believe what is contradicted by science -- because it is in the Bible!

 

[muhammad_isa]

They were not rebels, or haters of Jesus. They simply had different beliefs. They did not buy the self contradicting trinity story that appears to have been largely invented to cover up some of the self contradictions in the Bible. And you really have no idea how well supported the beliefs of others were because most of those competing works were destroyed.

Spot on !
The trinity doctrine evolved through a series of ecumenical councils, and we are expected to believe in their infallability.
Most of it was more about politics than anything else.
i.e. to provide dogma to silence any opposition to the orthodox state religion.

 

[InChrist]

That is only your belief, but it is not supported by history. There was quite a range in belief. The fact that we are discussing one of the individuals that had different beliefs demonstrates that. They were not rebels, or haters of Jesus. They simply had different beliefs. They did not buy the self contradicting trinity story that appears to have been largely invented to cover up some of the self contradictions in the Bible. And you really have no idea how well supported the beliefs of others were because most of those competing works were destroyed.

There definitely was a range of heretical beliefs which were often addressed by Paul and the other Apostles in the early churches. The letters which were circulated, which are now books of the NT, demonstrate this. I’m sure not going to trust the views of an atheist concerning biblical history. I do trust that God was capable of and did indeed orchestrate the accurate writings to be included in the Bible and preserved through history. As well, that God is One, yet three Persons in light of the scriptures is the only perspective that makes sense in order to have unity and diversity, which describe the Creator God of biblical Christianity.


“The Bible presents a God who did not need to create any beings to experience love, communion and fellowship. This God is complete in Himself, being three Persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit, separate and distinct, yet at the same time eternally one God. They loved and communed and fellowshiped with each other and took counsel together before the universe, angels or man were brought into existence. Isaiah "heard the voice of the Lord [in eternity past] saying, "Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?" (Isa:6:8). Moses revealed the same counseling together of the Godhead: "And God said, Let us make man in ourimage, after our likeness"; and again, "Let us go down, and there confound their language" (Gen:1:26
;11:7). Who is this "us" if God is a single entity? Why does God say, "The man is become as one of us" (Gen:3:22)?“


The Trinity

 

[Lain]

the self contradicting trinity story

Do you mean that the doctrine of the Trinity is self-contradicting or that some story about it is self-contradicting?

 

[Subduction Zone]

There definitely was a range of heretical beliefs which were often addressed by Paul and the other Apostles in the early churches. The letters which were circulated, which are now books of the NT, demonstrate this. I’m sure not going to trust the views of an atheist concerning biblical history. I do trust that God was capable of and did indeed orchestrate the accurate writings to be included in the Bible and preserved through history. As well, that God is One, yet three Persons in light of the scriptures is the only perspective that makes sense in order to have unity and diversity, which describe the Creator God of biblical Christianity.


“The Bible presents a God who did not need to create any beings to experience love, communion and fellowship. This God is complete in Himself, being three Persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit, separate and distinct, yet at the same time eternally one God. They loved and communed and fellowshiped with each other and took counsel together before the universe, angels or man were brought into existence. Isaiah "heard the voice of the Lord [in eternity past] saying, "Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?" (Isa:6:8). Moses revealed the same counseling together of the Godhead: "And God said, Let us make man in ourimage, after our likeness"; and again, "Let us go down, and there confound their language" (Gen:1:26
;11:7). Who is this "us" if God is a single entity? Why does God say, "The man is become as one of us" (Gen:3:22)?“


The Trinity

Ii would drop the prejudicial word "heresy". All that heresy means is that it ran counter to the Catholic church's dogma. If you are a protestant some of your beliefs are "heretical" by the standard that you are using. And why not trust an atheist? Do you know why most Christians that became atheists did do? It was usually due to a better understanding of the Bible. I have no agenda either way here. I am more reliable than the biased sources that you are apt to use for their circular arguments.

And you keep forgetting that the Bible as you know it did not exist until the Council of Nicea. They chose the books that we call the Bible based upon their agenda.

How do you know that they chose the right books? How do you know that they did not let their own biases rule them rather than the truth?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do you mean that the doctrine of the Trinity is self-contradicting or that some story about it is self-contradicting?

The Bible is self contradicting if one says that it supports it. One can find verses on both sides. But then the Bible is loaded with self contradictions anyway and Christians do not seem to mind it that much.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There are other possibilities. One possibility is that God never intended for humans to believe that the Genesis creation story was literally true (scientific fact), but rather intended for it to be interpreted as metaphorical. Another possibility is that God knew that people thousands of years ago could not understand the scientific truth as we know it today, so Genesis was written to an audience that had limited understanding of the world we live in and no way to know what we now know from science.

The salient problem is that some people still believe what is contradicted by science -- because it is in the Bible!

That could be. Quite often Christian quote 2 Timothy 3 16-17 as "proof" that the Bible is one hundred percent true when that verse does not say that or even imply that. If it was useful as morality tales, even though completely false, it would still satisfy that verse.

 

[Lain]

The Bible is self contradicting if one says that it supports it.

How so? I would assume you mean that there are verses which contradict the Trinity and verses which affirm the Trinity. If that's what you mean, are you willing to show it? Or if you mean something else, are you willing to show that? And in both cases, actually do?

 

[InChrist]

That contradicts the first commandment .. a triune God.
Yes, I know that you will claim that God is one essence,
and if you left it at that, you would be on track.
..but mankind just has to corrupt true faith

Everybody has their own agenda.
If God willed, people would not be fooled.
There is no compulsion to believe ANY particular creed.
We are free to decide for ourselves.
That is the whole point .. we have been given free-will.

It is not an easy thing to do, to leave our tribe/comfort zone,
but we will be asked about misleading others, so we should think about that when we make claims about God, Hallowed be His name.

There is one human race, yet many persons, correct. These humans are united and one in their humanity, human nature and human qualities, yet diverse and unique.
I believe in One God, (as the scriptures reveal ),yet three Persons (as the scriptures reveal) that are each unique in their Person and role, yet share in the the same Nature, Substance, and Attributes that God Alone possesses.
That is what the biblical scriptures teach from my perspective.


“Although the word "trinity" does not occur in the Bible, the concept is clearly there, providing the unity and diversity which makes possible the love, fellowship and communion within the Godhead. Truly the trinitarian God is love—and He alone.”


The Trinity

 

[Subduction Zone]

How so? I would assume you mean that there are verses which contradict the Trinity and verses which affirm the Trinity. If that's what you mean, are you willing to show it? Or if you mean something else, are you willing to show that? And in both cases, actually do?

I am a bit lazy right now. A Jehovah's witness would have a huge list for you. I do not agree with them either, at least not on all points. I could pull some up for you. Are you admitting that you are ignorant of them? If you have studied the Bible at all you have to know that there are some serious self contradictions in it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is one human race, yet many persons, correct. These humans are united and one in their humanity, human nature and human qualities, yet diverse and unique.
I believe in One God, (as the scriptures reveal ),yet three Persons (as the scriptures reveal) that are each unique in their Person and role, yet share in the the same Nature, Substance, and Attributes that God Alone possesses.
That is what the biblical scriptures teach from my perspective.


“Although the word "trinity" does not occur in the Bible, the concept is clearly there, providing the unity and diversity which makes possible the love, fellowship and communion within the Godhead. Truly the trinitarian God is love—and He alone.”


The Trinity

I do not mind people stating that they believe in the trinity concept. That is not a problem with me. It is when they claim that other beliefs are heretical that I have a problem. It indicates that they do not know the history of their own holy book.

 

[Lain]

I am a bit lazy right now. A Jehovah's witness would have a huge list for you. I do not agree with them either, at least not on all points. I could pull some up for you. Are you admitting that you are ignorant of them? If you have studied the Bible at all you have to know that there are some serious self contradictions in it.

I do not think that there is a single verse in the entire Scripture (and fortunate am I, for to me there are 73/72 at least and not 66, extra ammo for the willing) that contradicts the doctrine of the Trinity. So because of that I am ignorant of any that do, just like how I do not think I can prove to myself that I do not exist, so I am ignorant of any means to do so. But in both cases I am willing to be enlightened.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I do not think that there is a single verse in the entire Scripture (and fortunate am I, for to me there are 73/72 at least and not 66, extra ammo for the willing) that contradicts the doctrine of the Trinity. So because of that I am ignorant of any that do, just like how I do not think I can prove to myself that I do not exist, so I am ignorant of any means to do so. But in both cases I am willing to be enlightened.

Okay, but no apologetics allowed. This article is not a JW article. It list a few:

Contradictions to the Trinity in the Bible

Here is another non JW source that makes a stronger claim:


Seven Scriptures That Debunk the Trinity as a Single Being

1.Hebrews 1:5 tells us that Jesus was begotten by His Father. Did He beget Himself?

2. In Matthew 22:44, the Father said Jesus would sit at His right hand until His enemies were made His footstool. Was Jesus to sit at His own right hand?

3. In Matthew 24:36, when Jesus told His disciples that no one knows the day or hour of His return but the Father only, did He really know but made up an excuse to not tell them?

4. In John 14:28, Jesus said His Father was greater than He was. Does this mean He was greater than Himself?

5. In John 17:1, Jesus prayed to His Father. Was He praying to Himself?

6. In Matthew 27:46, Jesus cried out, "My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me?" Had He forsaken Himself?

7. In John 20:17, Jesus said He would ascend to the Father after His resurrection. Did He ascend to Himself?

I know. you will spin and twist them. But that only goes to show that with a vaguely worded text one can support almost anything.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I believe in One God, (as the scriptures reveal ),yet three Persons (as the scriptures reveal) that are each unique in their Person and role, yet share in the the same Nature, Substance, and Attributes that God Alone possesses.
That is what the biblical scriptures teach from my perspective.

I don't believe that you would have come to that complicated philosophical doctrine just by reading the Bible. You have been taught that. It evolved through a series of councils.

It defies rational explanation.
Jesus teaches the Lord's prayer..

Our Father, whom art in heaven,
Hallowed be thy name..

..and Jesus clearly prayed to the Father[God] every day.
..so they said that Jesus was "unique", but God/divine all the same.


I could go on, and then you will tell me about the Chalcedonian ruling.

We all teach harmoniously [that he is] the same perfect in godhead, the same perfect in manhood, truly God and truly man, the same of a reasonable soul and body; homoousios with the Father in godhead, and the same homoousios with us in manhood ... acknowledged in two natures without confusion, without change, without division, without separation.

I'm sorry .. but when mankind invent something about God, people will find fault with it.
Having committed themselves, they then need to get deeper into the mire, and end up inventing something purely fictious about the nature of God.

How sad.

 

[Lain]

Okay, but no apologetics allowed. This article is not a JW article. It list a few:

Contradictions to the Trinity in the Bible

Here is another non JW source that makes a stronger claim:


Seven Scriptures That Debunk the Trinity as a Single Being

1.Hebrews 1:5 tells us that Jesus was begotten by His Father. Did He beget Himself?

2. In Matthew 22:44, the Father said Jesus would sit at His right hand until His enemies were made His footstool. Was Jesus to sit at His own right hand?

3. In Matthew 24:36, when Jesus told His disciples that no one knows the day or hour of His return but the Father only, did He really know but made up an excuse to not tell them?

4. In John 14:28, Jesus said His Father was greater than He was. Does this mean He was greater than Himself?

5. In John 17:1, Jesus prayed to His Father. Was He praying to Himself?

6. In Matthew 27:46, Jesus cried out, "My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me?" Had He forsaken Himself?

7. In John 20:17, Jesus said He would ascend to the Father after His resurrection. Did He ascend to Himself?

I know. you will spin and twist them. But that only goes to show that with a vaguely worded text one can support almost anything.

Why do you say I'll spin and twist them? These aren't vaguely worded at all either, in my opinion. Concerning the texts that made it into the forum post directly, the Trinitarian answer is very simple:

1) He did not beget Himself, another begot Him.
2) He did not sit at His own right hand, He sat at the right hand of another.
3) He did not know, the Father knew only.
4) He is not greater than Himself (that is absurd), the Father is greater than Him, just like the verse said.
5) He did not pray to Himself, He prayed to another.
6) He did not forsake Himself, He was forsaken by another.
7) He did not ascend to Himself, He ascended to another.

I think you would agree with my answers actually and agree I didn't twist anything. I think the Scriptures in some places may be obscure but I don't think "Father help me" can be read as "Me, help me" or "the Father is greater than I" as "I am greater than Myself." That would be a laughable interpretation.

So far the position was not contradicted, as I fully expected. Sometimes one has a theory and it fails and sometimes it succeeds. Happy days either way.

 

[Trailblazer]

That could be. Quite often Christian quote 2 Timothy 3 16-17 as "proof" that the Bible is one hundred percent true when that verse does not say that or even imply that. If it was useful as morality tales, even though completely false, it would still satisfy that verse.

That is a good point The Bible is useful for the spiritual guidance contained in the morality tales even though it is not historically accurate, and that is kind of the Baha'i viewpoint.

Conclusion

The Bahá'í viewpoint proposed by this essay has been established as follows: The Bible is a reliable source of Divine guidance and salvation, and rightly regarded as a sacred and holy book. However, as a collection of the writings of independent and human authors, it is not necessarily historically accurate. Nor can the words of its writers, although inspired, be strictly defined as 'The Word of God' in the way the original words of Moses and Jesus could have been. Instead there is an area of continuing interest for Bahá'í scholars, possibly involving the creation of new categories for defining authoritative religious literature.

A Baháí View of the Bible

 

[InChrist]

Ii would drop the prejudicial word "heresy". All that heresy means is that it ran counter to the Catholic church's dogma. If you are a protestant some of your beliefs are "heretical" by the standard that you are using. And why not trust an atheist? Do you know why most Christians that became atheists did do? It was usually due to a better understanding of the Bible. I have no agenda either way here. I am more reliable than the biased sources that you are apt to use for their circular arguments.

And you keep forgetting that the Bible as you know it did not exist until the Council of Nicea. They chose the books that we call the Bible based upon their agenda.

How do you know that they chose the right books? How do you know that they did not let their own biases rule them rather than the truth?

Of course the Bible existed BEFORE the Council of Nicea! The Apostles and first Christian believers already has the OT writings of the prophets, as well the circulating letters written by Paul and the other Apostles.
The apostles wrote their letters and the congregations received them. They read them, spread them and copied them for other believers in Jesus Christ. They recognized the authority of God’s Word in the Christian's life. So the Scriptures were produced by believers inspired by God. The early believers in Jesus were not wondering where God’s Word was or waiting around for a future council to give them a Bible.