• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Clear Challenges to the Trinity Doctrine

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
If you’d really read the Bible enough to know what’s in it, you’d know that homosexuality isn’t mentioned — sin or otherwise.
1 Corinthians 6: "or do you not know that unjust men will not inherit God’s Reign? Make no mistake: neither libertines nor idolaters nor adulterers nor any who practice sodomy or submit to it 10 nor thieves nor overreaching or drunken or abusive or grasping people will inherit the Reign of God."
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
This one first sentence trashes your whole argument that follows. Why so? Simply: Who determines the standard and criteria for what the texts should say? Who has the authority to set that standard? What makes you such an authority to make that determination with your (obviously biased) “presentation?” Your imaginative speculations do not in any way refute the doctrine, either biblically or logically.
Clearly you object. Do you believe in the trinity? I haven't read all of your posts, so hoping you can say in reply if you believe in the trinity. Thank you
 

KerimF

Active Member
Let's examine, one by one, what should be found in scripture (if the trinity were true):

(A) Please carefully and thoroughly search to find a vision, dream, or clear description in scripture wherein God is shown as more than one person.

Here is what I have found when searching the scriptures for visions of God:

Even though God has caused a representation of himself to be "seen" in dreams and visions, we still don’t know exactly what he "physically" looks like. Still, we should get some idea of the essential knowledge he wants us to know about himself from these inspired visions. We know that he always represents himself as a single person seated on a throne.

For example, at Ezekiel 1:5, 6, 26-28 we see God as he showed himself to Ezekiel in a vision.

"and in the fire was what looked like four living creatures. In appearance their form was that of a man, but each of them had four faces..." - Ezek. 1:5-6, NIV.

Now if this had actually been the description of God, "multiple-oneness God" fans would have had the best proof ever for their passion: we would finally have some real evidence for a multiple-oneness God: a four-in-one God (a "Quadrinity")! But these four persons, each with four faces, represent God’s attendants (cherubim), not God. Each one represents 4 different aspects by its 4 faces. Can you imagine what would be said by trinitarians if God were similarly described as three persons each with three faces?!

The point is that God could (and did) show a clear representation of "multiple-oneness" in vision to his inspired prophet, but he never represented himself in such a manner!

Notice that each of these living creatures was in appearance like a man. And every aspect that differed from that of "a man" was carefully described.

Now notice the rest of the vision:

"Above the expanse over their heads was what looked like a [single] throne of sapphire, and high above on the throne was a [single] figure like that of a [single] man. I saw that from what appeared to be his waist [singular] up he looked like glowing metal, as if full of fire, and that from there down he looked like fire; and brilliant light surrounded him. Like the appearance of a rainbow in the clouds on a rainy day, so was the radiance around him. This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of [Jehovah]." - Ezek. 1:26-28, NIV.

Remember, we just had a description of spirit persons each of whom looked like a man (except for having four faces). Now we have a description of another person who looks like a man. The differences from the appearance of a man are also noted but do not include anything that would make us think he was, in any way, anything more than a single person! Not three persons, not three heads, not three faces, etc. (In fact, nowhere in the entire Bible is the word "three" associated with a description of God! This simply would not be if God were truly three persons!)

God is a single person, the Father alone, Jehovah.

Now let’s see Daniel’s vision of God:

"the Ancient of Days took his seat. His clothing was as white as snow; the hair of his head [singular] was white like wool. His throne [singular] was flaming with fire, and its wheels were all ablaze." - Dan. 7:9, NIV.

Notice that, again, he looks like a single person.

And then,

"one, like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days [seated on the throne] and was led into his presence." - Dan. 7:13, NIV.

So we see a single person seated on God’s throne and another person (the Messiah) being led into God’s presence.

Now let’s see the Apostle John’s vision which parallels Daniel’s vision:

"At once I was in the Spirit, and there before me was a throne in heaven with someone sitting on it. And the one who sat there had the appearance of jasper.... In the center, around the throne, were four living creatures.... Day and night they never stop saying: ‘Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty...’ [and] ‘You are worthy, our Lord and God, ... for you created all things, and by your will they were created....’ Then I saw in the right hand of Him who sat on the throne a scroll with writing on both sides.... Then I saw a Lamb, looking as if it had been slain.... He came and took the scroll from the right hand of Him who sat on the throne." - Rev. 4:2, 3, 6, 8, 11; 5:1, 6, 7, NIV.

Again we see a single person on the throne who is God Almighty (Jehovah). And, again, we see the Christ approach God on his throne. And we see this one on the throne again at Rev. 19:4.

"The twenty-four elders and the four living creatures fell down and worshiped God, who was seated on the throne. And they cried: ‘Amen, Hallelujah! ["praise Jehovah "]’" - NIV.

Another important vision of God is that of Stephen.

"But Stephen, full of Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. ‘Look,’ he said, ‘I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.’" - Acts 7:55, 56, NIV.

Again we see God (not "God the Father," or "the Father," but God) as a single person and Jesus as another person (not God, however). And never (in any vision, dream, etc.) do we see the "person" of the Holy Spirit! God is the Father alone - a single person - Jehovah.

God simply has not revealed himself in clear, undisputed scripture as anything but a single person, the Father. The Jews never understood him in any other way. Jesus did not reveal him in any other way. The NT writers did not reveal him in any other way (other than through generalizations, "mystery" solving, and allegorical interpretations which allow a reader to find whatever he is looking for). And the very first Christians (up into the second century at least) did not understand God in any other way.

If God were three persons, it would have been revealed clearly and repeatedly from the beginning. This is essential knowledge of God, and all worshipers of the true God have needed such knowledge from the beginning. God would not have withheld it from his chosen people throughout the thousands of years of his Prophets and inspired scripture writers.
……………………………..

The second point :

(B) Please show where in scripture God is ever described using the word "three."

Using Concordances for the KJV (Strong's and Young's Concordances) and the NASB (New American Standard Concordance of the Bible, Lockman Foundation 1981) I have found absolutely no scriptures which use the word "three" in describing God. But notice how important the use of the word 'three' is in the very definition of the trinity concept (see definition of 'trinity' at the beginning of this study.).

Isn't the word "three" at least as important as the word "one' (which is used for God in scripture) for the knowledge of the God whom we must worship in truth (Jn 4:24) - -that is, if the trinity doctrine were actually true?

Not only is the word "three" never used in conjunction with God anywhere in the Holy Scriptures (which simply could not be if God were really a "trinity"!), but it isn’t even as scripturally important as many other numbers ("one," "seven," "twelve," for example)!

There are "very few traces of ‘three’ in the cultus and the religious conceptions of the Israelites .... This relative rarity of a connexion between ‘three’ and religious notions, which prevails in the OT, should not be [supplied] from other sources. The thunder call, ‘Hear, O Israel, Jahweh (the?) one’ (Dt 6:4, cf. Is 41:4 44:6 48:12 ), drowns the voice of those who refer us to the triads of gods that were adored by the Babylonians, Assyrians, (Anu, Bel, and Ea, etc. ...), and other nations of antiquity. .... But the original meaning of the OT text must not be modified to suit either heathen parallels or later stages in its own development." - pp. 565, 566, Vol. 3, A Dictionary of the Bible, Hastings (trinitarian), ed., Hendrickson Publ. (trinitarian), 1988 printing.

"Although three has widely been thought a sacred number [by trinitarians, of course], specifically religious uses of it in the Bible seem to be relatively few." - p. 687, Vol. 2, The New International Dictionary of the New Testament (trinitarian), Zondervan Publ. (trinitarian), 1986.

If there were even hints of a trinity to be found in Scripture, the one word we would regularly see with religious significance would be "three." The fact that it is relatively insignificant throughout Scripture is enough in itself to refute any idea of a trinity!

(to be continued)
………………………………

Fortunately Jesus didn't say that God is just a One-Being Supernatural King/Judge; otherwise he would be, to me in the least, just another man (or character/myth) made famous and on whom another religion could be created based on a certain God's Law (of that King/Judge), as it is the case of Judaism, Islam, formal Christianity and Pagans.
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
If you say sex a biological function occurs inside the heavens. Humans are inside earths heavens having sex.

Our life image virgin first has sex.

Multi brothers life recorded doing owning same act.

Recorded.

First image in heavens.

A science teaching.

Multi men scientist first own possessed now by science cause. Heaven feedback virgin humans having sex by Multi men recorded naturally.

Earth dusts reacted first was about flooded water mass by mountain peak UFO. A thesis how to convert earth mass by radiation mass from sun.

Water evaporation radiation recorded the vision.

No man.
No sex.
No woman.
No life.

Just reaction second sacrifice of the heavenly spirit. Gases water set alight again.

Owned only by one God body.

Man theist however is telling the story.

Builds machine. First science. By first human man theist. Machine using gods crystalline jewel mass was potent. Memory said crystal once glowed light by its mass.

Said pyramid science crystal power tip of pyramid. Transmitters. Atlantis changed into sAtanlit. Burnt out God mass.

Attacked life encoded by machine nature animate inanimate images into heavens. Now image recorded as man did it.

Sacrifice of life by first God scientist.

How he burnt out spatial zero pressure support cold mass killing us all.

So now science says a empty tunnel opened a heavenly space channel to Satan about God as he caused the empty open channel himself.

Why cloud mass entered the emptied out gas channel and increased cloud mass with its man designer imaged in the clouds. Adam then Moses then Jesus.

An encoded story what he caused.

He knows.
He remembers.
He knew he opened a space channel

Now he is burning that memory trying to enlarge it further so earth heating will lose heat in hell and snap freeze will occur.

I know as AI said I need hell to support life continuance on earth.

His thesis space opening large mass channel to equal coldest thesis by atmospheric experiments first.

As his machine is already built and designed to react only by design. Inside machine body only.

He does not own first origin the bodies of his thesis

Science answer was never natural. It's answer to give back its first summation the moment of destruction he perused first without owning it.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
-------- Explain how Jesus (and his disciples for many years after his death) were allowed to teach in the Temple and synagogues. If any Jews truly thought Jesus and his followers claimed that he was God, they would have been ejected (probably killed) at these times.
Are you serious?

"Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”

We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.

~Jn. 10.31-33​


Clearly, these Jews interpreted what Jesus was saying as him claiming to be God. Regardless of any apologetics of what you think "I and my Father are One" means, these Jews that sought to kill Jesus thought that he was claiming to be God. It explicitly says that.

For right or for wrong, that is what they believed Jesus meant. So there's your first challenge shot down in one fell swoop.

Let's add John 1:1 here too, since that came up elsewhere. If Jn. 1:1 should be translated "the Logos was a god", as you claim, do you honestly think John would be writing to a Jewish and Greek audience, and tell the Jews in the very first verse that he believed "Jesus was a god", and expect any Jew alive to not see that as pagan and immediately quit reading it? Context matters.
 
Last edited:

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
1 Corinthians 6: "or do you not know that unjust men will not inherit God’s Reign? Make no mistake: neither libertines nor idolaters nor adulterers nor any who practice sodomy or submit to it 10 nor thieves nor overreaching or drunken or abusive or grasping people will inherit the Reign of God."
Where is homosexuality mentioned here? Sodomy and homosexuality are not the same thing. In fact, the original Greek doesn’t even mention the word “sodomy.”
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Clearly you object. Do you believe in the trinity? I haven't read all of your posts, so hoping you can say in reply if you believe in the trinity. Thank you
What I believe is immaterial. The OP sets a false standard and then argues from that standard.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
The fourth request for clear undisputed evidence of a trinity (or Jesus being 'equally God') asked for in part #1 above:

"Since the Father is clearly, directly, and indisputably called "God, the Father," many, many times, and the Son and Holy Spirit are said by trinitarians to be equally the one God (in ‘three distinct persons’):

"(D) Please give equally clear, undisputed scriptures where Jesus is called "God the Son," (equal to those declaring "God, the Father" – Ro. 15:6; 1 Cor. 1:3; 1 Cor. 8:6; 2 Cor. 11:31; Gal. 1:1; Eph. 4:6; 1 Thess. 1:1; 2 Thess. 1:2; etc.)"

You could add "God, the Christ," "God, the Messiah," "God, the Firstborn," or any other term used exclusively for Jesus. But, surely, if the trinity were true, we would find the term "God, the Son" used equally with "God, the Father"!

Using a Bible concordance (Strong's, Young's, or an on-line concordance will do) and looking under "Son," you will find exactly zero uses of "God the Son."

Jesus is never called "God, the Son"!

……………………………………………..
God the Father, is never called God the Father as a designated title as such in the Bible either. Saying, "God, the father of Jesus" is not a title as "God the Father" is. That title isn't in the Bible.

In fact, the word Bible is not in the Bible either. So according to your reasoning, we should not believe the Bible is the Bible, because the Bible never calls itself the Bible?

Just because theologians come up with terminology after the fact, does not mean what they are looking at doesn't come from scripture! Clearly, the non-biblical term "bible" isn't in there, yet most Christians don't claim scripture doesn't exist. :)
 

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Hi @sojourner and @YoursTrue

YoursTrue said : “… sins like adultery, homosexuality, stealing, murder and so forth..."

Sojourner replied : “
If you’d really read the Bible enough to know what’s in it, you’d know that homosexuality isn’t mentioned — sin or otherwise.” (post #38)

YourTrue gave the example : “1 Corinthians 6: "or do you not know that unjust men will not inherit God’s Reign? Make no mistake: neither libertines nor idolaters nor adulterers nor any who practice sodomy or submit to it ..." (post #41)


Sojourner asked : “Where is homosexuality mentioned here? “

"homosexuality" is mentioned in vs 9 as YoursTrue suggests.

The word used in 1 Cor 6:9 in @YoursTrues example is "Αρσενοκοιται" and it is the term used for homosexuality (Αρσεν= man κοιται = bed - It is where we get the word "coitus" from).
The implication is that a man takes a man "to bed" and it is a euphamism for sex.
Thus, @YoursTrue is correct that homosexuality is mentioned in vs 9.



Clear
φυτζσιω
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
There is not nor ever has been the claim by the Church that the trinitarian 'formula', as later understood, was to be found anywhere in Christian Scripture, other than Mt's 'to baptize in the name of
the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit',
What you are referring to is the added the filioque clause.
“When He comes, however, being the Spirit of Truth, He will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on His own but will speak only what He hears, and will announce to you the things to come. In doing this He will give glory to me, because He will have received from me what He will announce to you. All that the Father has belongs to me. That is why I said that what He will announce to you He will have from me” (John 16:13-15). Given this basis in Scripture, the Church teaches that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son.

We also hear or read about ' in the name of the law ' and No one claims the law is a person.
I read at Psalms 104:30 God sends forth His spirit.
No where that God sends forth Himself.
Where does Jesus say he sends forth his 'Jesus' spirit'________
Plus, in the older translations God's spirit is a neuter "IT" according to Numbers 11:17; Numbers 11:25; Romans 8:16; Romans 8:26, so taking the liberty by changing a neuter word "IT" to he or him does Not make a neuter "IT" a person.
Even in English we speak of a car or a ship as a ' she ' and we know they are and remain neuter "its".
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
Fortunately Jesus didn't say that God is just a One-Being Supernatural King/Judge; otherwise he would be, to me in the least, just another man (or character/myth) made famous and on whom another religion could be created based on a certain God's Law (of that King/Judge), as it is the case of Judaism, Islam, formal Christianity and Pagans.
Any thoughts about Jesus' prayer found at John 17:126______________________
If God is Not a separate One-Being then why does God have His own throne as per Revelation 3:21 __________
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
God the Father, is never called God the Father as a designated title as such in the Bible either. Saying, "God, the father of Jesus" is not a title as "God the Father" is. That title isn't in the Bible..................
I find there are two (2) LORD/Lord's mentioned in KJV Psalms 110
The LORD in all Upper-Case letters stands for LORD God ( Tetragrammaton YHWH)
The Lord, in some lower-case letters stands for Lord Jesus and the Tetragrammaton does Not apply to Lord Jesus.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Hi @sojourner and @YoursTrue

YoursTrue said : “… sins like adultery, homosexuality, stealing, murder and so forth..."

Sojourner replied : “
If you’d really read the Bible enough to know what’s in it, you’d know that homosexuality isn’t mentioned — sin or otherwise.” (post #38)

YourTrue gave the example : “1 Corinthians 6: "or do you not know that unjust men will not inherit God’s Reign? Make no mistake: neither libertines nor idolaters nor adulterers nor any who practice sodomy or submit to it ..." (post #41)


Sojourner asked : “Where is homosexuality mentioned here? “

"homosexuality" is mentioned in vs 9 as YoursTrue suggests.

The word used in 1 Cor 6:9 in @YoursTrues example is "Αρσενοκοιται" and it is the term used for homosexuality (Αρσεν= man κοιται = bed - It is where we get the word "coitus" from).
The implication is that a man takes a man "to bed" and it is a euphamism for sex.
Thus, @YoursTrue is correct that homosexuality is mentioned in vs 9.



Clear
φυτζσιω
Homosexuality is the term for one kind of sexual orientation. It isn’t a term for an an act. Two men can indeed have sex with each other, but that act doesn’t have to be an act born of a sexual orientation, nor does participation in the act make one homosexual. The act could be one of rape (we don’t know that’s not indicated here). The word is typically associated with male prostitution, specifically temple prostitutes. In fact, the ancients who wrote the texts had no concept of sexual orientation, and the word “homosexual” does not appear until centuries after the text was written. Therefore, homosexuality, by definition, cannot be mentioned in the text, nor is it implied in the text.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I find there are two (2) LORD/Lord's mentioned in KJV Psalms 110
The LORD in all Upper-Case letters stands for LORD God ( Tetragrammaton YHWH)
The Lord, in some lower-case letters stands for Lord Jesus and the Tetragrammaton does Not apply to Lord Jesus.
That does not say "God the Father" as a title anywhere in that Psalm.

The point was, the poster said "God the Son" isn't in the Bible, so it's not scriptural. Neither is "God the Father". So that doesn't mean anything. The word Bible isn't in the Bible either, yet people refer to what is in the Bible by that name. In other words, this is not an argument. It doesn't matter if it says "God the Son" in scripture, if scripture teaches that the Son is Divine.
 

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Hi @sojourner (and @YoursTrue)


REGARDING THE CLAIM THAT THE ANCIENT CHRISTIANS "HAD NO CONCEPT" OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Sojourner claimed : "...the ancients who wrote the texts had no concept of sexual orientation..."
The claim that the Christians in this biblical era "had no concept of sexual orientation" is a very unusual claim.
What makes you think that such ancients had "no concept of sexual orientation"?


REGARDING THE CLAIM THAT THE GREEK WORDS MEANING "HOMOSEXUAL" DID NOT APPEAR IN EARLY CENTURIES
Sojourner claimed : "and the word “homosexual” does not appear until centuries after the text was written. "
Can you offer a bit of data for this claim as well?"


This is very interesting.
I have not heard these specific theories before and am interested in your data upon which you base these claims.
Thanks in advance for any information you can provide Sojourner.

Clear
φυτωνεω
 
Last edited:

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
The best way to understand the trinity is with an analogy. Picture a man named Joe. Joe is good father to his children, a good husband to his wife and a good son to his parents. Joe is one person with three separate hats, depending on who he interacts with. Joe is intimate with his wife, he is respectful to his parents, and fair and positive with his children.

The trinity is about three paths emanating from God to the same one God. In the case of Joes all three hats come from him and the feedback gives him joy. You can believe in the Old Testament, the New Testament and Jesus, or believe in the Holy Spirit which came after the New Testament. These are the three hats of Joe. They all stem from the same person, but are different, since the audiences are different and each has need for different types of assistance.

You can reach God by following the law and the commandments. You can reach God by faith and love or you can reach God by allowing the spirit to guide you. Not all three paths are for all people. Most will pick one of the three. But these three paths allow more people to approach. A living religion will group new branches.

Most people have a problem with faith since it requires hope for things not seen. Law is easier, since law makes things are more tangible for a score card. The Holy spirit is even more abstract, since it may lead one in directions you may not expect. it is not for everyone but it si there for those so inclined.
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
That does not say "God the Father" as a title anywhere in that Psalm.
The point was, the poster said "God the Son" isn't in the Bible, so it's not scriptural. Neither is "God the Father". So that doesn't mean anything. The word Bible isn't in the Bible either, yet people refer to what is in the Bible by that name. In other words, this is not an argument. It doesn't matter if it says "God the Son" in scripture, if scripture teaches that the Son is Divine.

Right, Psalms 110 does Not say God the Father, but that LORD God is God and Lord Jesus is His Son.
Of course the word Bible is Not in the Holy Scriptures because the English word Bible comes from the Latin from the Greek word ' bi-bli'a. Biblia means: ' little books '
This is derived from bi-blos a word that describes the inner part of the papyrus plant out of which a form of paper was made and used.
The Phoenician city of Gebal, famous for its papyrus, was called by the Greeks as Byblos.
So, with the passing of time the word biblia came to describe various scrolls, books and a collection of little books.
Because the Bible is a collection of '66' little books Jerome called this collection Bibliotheca Divina, or Divine Library.
So, if a person does Not want to refer to the Bible as being proper, they can always use Holy Scriptures.
I think one Jewish person told me they prefer using Holy Scriptures over Holy Bible.

Sure Jesus is Divine because pre-human heavenly Jesus came from the divine heavens before his God sent divine Jesus to Earth for us.
Being a divine creation does Not prove Jesus is God or that any divine heavenly angel is God.
Remember Colossians 1:15 informs us pre-human Jesus is the 'first born of ALL creation'.- Revelation 3:14 B
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
.............The trinity is about three paths emanating from God to the same one God. In the case of Joes all three hats come from him and the feedback gives him joy. You can believe in the Old Testament, the New Testament and Jesus, or believe in the Holy Spirit which came after the New Testament.........................

I don't understand why a person can say the 'Holy Spirit' (Psalms 104:30) which came after the New Testament.
God's spirit was already poured out in the Old Testament - Numbers 11:17; Numbers 11:25; Isaiah 32:15; Isaiah 44:3
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
That all depends upon which translation you refer to.
1 Corinthians 6:9 - Bible Gateway
I’m not referring to a translation. I’m referring to the Greek text. Translations are inaccurate in many cases. This is one of them. the Greek word cannot mean “homosexuality” since the concept did not exist when the texts were written. The Greek word only refers to an act which may — or may not — be homosexual in nature.
 
Top