Clear Challenges to the Trinity Doctrine

[URAVIP2ME]

Thank you for pointing out the word worshipers in the following Jesus' saying:
"But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth."
I know, to a good extent, how good faithful Pagans, Jews, Muslims and formal Christians are supposed to worship 'their' God. And the common point in their various rituals of worshiping (observed privately or in public) is to express, in certain ways, their total submission to 'their' God. I even know for sure that they all feel, during their worship, the same extra joy no matter what the image/name of God, they worship, is. This natural extra joy that each believer got in himself as a result of being submitted freely and fully to another will, lets him believe that his God has to be true and real. In other words, the conventional acts of worshiping let all believers be happy with their God; each with his God (since there are many images of God that are offered on the world's table).
A side note: This extra joy of submission (if accepted freely) could be also felt during a sexual adventure even before the dominant side does any serious act
Now, let us examine the above Jesus' saying:
"the true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth".
First, Jesus means by the 'Father' 'The Father and me (Jesus)'; unless Jesus was kidding when He says: "I and my Father are one".

But whoever believes in (perceives) the existence of the Divine Spirit of Love, the Holy Spirit, which has the power to join the Wills of two independent beings and let them have just One Will (as if they were One Entity, not two), knows that referring to 'The Father' is exactly as referring to 'Jesus' and vice versa.

Second, what could 'worshiping in spirit and in truth' mean, speaking practically?

Jesus didn't need adding 'in spirit and in truth' if he means the conventional worship by submission while praising. Jesus is actually referring to His greatest advice (known in English as the 1st commandment) about trusting fully God's Will; in whatever could be seen in life (True Love is synonymy of having trust to no limit). Therefore, as Jesus mentioned already, a few humans only are able to worship God (the One Will of the Father and Jesus, unified by the Holy Spirit) in spirit and in truth. Are you able to?
Sorry, the image of a one-being God (James 1:27) doesn't suit the nature of which I am created. To me in the least, 'True Love' cannot exist in a 'one of his kind' being (God or else).
"A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye
also love one another.
By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another."
First, this advice is addressed to the Apostles and First Disciples who were together not as a formal group (like any today's formal Christian Church/Denomination is) but as real free independent individuals. In fact, 'True Love' is strictly based on a personal free-will decision towards others.
Second, Jesus' 2nd advice is addressed to any spiritual person (not necessarily a disciple of Jesus) because one's neighbor could be an enemy And no one can deny that not resisting enemies, if not refusing to destroy them, is a serious crime of treason if someone belongs, by his own will, to any well-known formal group (civil, religious or political).
By the way, the words 'your neighbor' are in Arabic something like 'whoever by you'; as in the parable of {Luke 10:30}.

Yes, who really is my neighbor (Luke 10:29-33) is who that priest, Levite and Samaritan came across

Yes, Jesus and his Father are one according to John 10:30.
Jesus prays his followers also be ' one ' just as Jesus and his Father are one at John 17:21-23.
Jesus was Not praying his followers be God.
Rather, they could be one in unity, faith, belief, trust, purpose, goal, teaching, agreement, etc.
Between John chapter 10 and John chapter 17 we find John 14:28.
There Jesus (isn't kidding ) that His Father is greater than Jesus.
Greater than all (meaning everyone) - John 10:29.
Continuing to John 20:17 Jesus says he was ascending to his Father, and to his God.
In heaven Jesus did Not appear in front of himself according to Hebrews 9:24.
The ascended Jesus still thinks he has a God over him according to John at Revelation 3:12

 

[Clear]

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."

Hi @YoursTrue

While I agree with the translator of your bible that αρσενοκοιτη in 1 Cor 6, refers to sex with a male and by association, was used as a term for homosexual sex, (e.g. sodomy), to the early Christians who spoke koine, I am curious why this issue was important in this thread.

Can you explain?

Clear
ειτωσισιω

 

[KerimF]

Yes, who really is my neighbor (Luke 10:29-33) is who that priest, Levite and Samaritan came across

Yes, Jesus and his Father are one according to John 10:30.
Jesus prays his followers also be ' one ' just as Jesus and his Father are one at John 17:21-23.
Jesus was Not praying his followers be God.
Rather, they could be one in unity, faith, belief, trust, purpose, goal, teaching, agreement, etc.
Between John chapter 10 and John chapter 17 we find John 14:28.
There Jesus (isn't kidding ) that His Father is greater than Jesus.
Greater than all (meaning everyone) - John 10:29.
Continuing to John 20:17 Jesus says he was ascending to his Father, and to his God.
In heaven Jesus did Not appear in front of himself according to Hebrews 9:24.
The ascended Jesus still thinks he has a God over him according to John at Revelation 3:12

Thank you for pointing out {John 10:29}
"Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God."

Even in the material world, if it happens that a husband loves his wife very much, he may also call her "My God". But this doesn't mean, in this case, that his wife is greater than him

Thank you, again, for pointing out {John 14:28}.

No one can deny that {John 14:28, ...for my Father is greater than I} does contradict {John 10:30, I and my Father are one} very clearly. And it would be non-sense accepting both as being true.

I have the impression you prefer {John 14:28} as many others do.

On my side, I chose {John 10:30} and left {John 14:28} to those who worship every word and every letter (of man made language) in their holy books; as the ancient worshipers do with every part in their holy man-made idols/statues.

And the reason for which I chose {John 10:30} is that, in my life, I never saw myself greater than anyone else and I never saw any human greater than me

 

[Trailblazer]

In a few words, you are very sure that your Creator needs servants while I am also very sure that the end purpose for which I am created is not to serve my Creator, period

Please note that I, unlike you (and billions of humans), can't imagine, even if I want to, that my Creator could be like a needy king looking for servants

I guess you missed what I said. I said that God has no needs so God that means that God does not need any servants for Himself. The only reason God wants us to be servants is for our own benefit because it benefits us and other people to serve other people.

“The one true God, exalted be His glory, hath wished nothing for Himself. The allegiance of mankind profiteth Him not, neither doth its perversity harm Him. The Bird of the Realm of Utterance voiceth continually this call: “All things have I willed for thee, and thee, too, for thine own sake.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh,pp. 260

 

[YoursTrue]

Drinking isn’t sexuality. Sexuality is a big part of one’s identity and psychological makeup/personality. People don’t need to “recover” from who they are.


See above. Self-medication is a recognized, medical disorder. Human sexuality is not.


Why would one avoid one’s sexuality? That, in itself, would constitute unhealthy behavior.

It’s rather immaterial to this topic, but yes. It is.


Our own laws allow for that. It’s called “innocent by reason of insanity.” I believe God is far more forbearing than our laws.


That’s not a translation. It’s a transliteration. That’s what those words literally mean in Koine Greek.

That’s not how Koine Greek works.

It doesn’t matter what I believe. It only matters what the Bible actually says.

It has eschatological overtones. It’s part of what’s known as the “fifth discourse,” and bookends the first discourse, which is the sermon on the mount. Bathos these point toward the third discourse, which gives us the central theme of Matthew’s Gospel: the parable of the sheep and goats, wheat and weeds. But none of this — absolutely none of this — is germane to the issue of homosexuality, which Jesus mentions not one single time in any Gospel.

You’re just throwing stuff up against the wall to see what sticks; none of it sticks.

OK, you're interesting because, if I remember correctly, wasn't it you who said the OT God is one vengeful sort, but the NT is different, and it speaks of love while OT didn't? Anyway, I bring the following to your attention. See how you think about this little statement Jesus made...
"Then he will say to those on his left: ‘Go away from me, you who have been cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the Devil and his angels. For I became hungry, but you gave me nothing to eat; and I was thirsty, but you gave me nothing to drink. 43 I was a stranger, but you did not receive me hospitably; naked, but you did not clothe me; sick and in prison, but you did not look after me.’ Then they too will answer with the words: ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison and did not minister to you?’ 45 Then he will answer them, saying: ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of these least ones, you did not do it to me.’ These will depart into everlasting cutting-off, but the righteous ones into everlasting life.”
ooo ooo ooo!

 

[sojourner]

if I remember correctly, wasn't it you who said the OT God is one vengeful sort, but the NT is different, and it speaks of love while OT didn't

No.

"Then he will say to those on his left: ‘Go away from me, you who have been cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the Devil and his angels. For I became hungry, but you gave me nothing to eat; and I was thirsty, but you gave me nothing to drink. 43 I was a stranger, but you did not receive me hospitably; naked, but you did not clothe me; sick and in prison, but you did not look after me.’ Then they too will answer with the words: ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison and did not minister to you?’ 45 Then he will answer them, saying: ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of these least ones, you did not do it to me.’ These will depart into everlasting cutting-off, but the righteous ones into everlasting life.”

It was a parable.

 

[YoursTrue]

Drinking isn’t sexuality. Sexuality is a big part of one’s identity and psychological makeup/personality. People don’t need to “recover” from who they are.


See above. Self-medication is a recognized, medical disorder. Human sexuality is not.


Why would one avoid one’s sexuality? That, in itself, would constitute unhealthy behavior.

It’s rather immaterial to this topic, but yes. It is.


Our own laws allow for that. It’s called “innocent by reason of insanity.” I believe God is far more forbearing than our laws.


That’s not a translation. It’s a transliteration. That’s what those words literally mean in Koine Greek.

That’s not how Koine Greek works.

It doesn’t matter what I believe. It only matters what the Bible actually says.

It has eschatological overtones. It’s part of what’s known as the “fifth discourse,” and bookends the first discourse, which is the sermon on the mount. Bathos these point toward the third discourse, which gives us the central theme of Matthew’s Gospel: the parable of the sheep and goats, wheat and weeds. But none of this — absolutely none of this — is germane to the issue of homosexuality, which Jesus mentions not one single time in any Gospel.

You’re just throwing stuff up against the wall to see what sticks; none of it sticks.

Manbed -- ? It's obviously a colloquial expression, because beds, as far as I know, are not male or female, are they? SO IT MUST MEAN SOMETHING other than for a bed to be a man OR a woman, hmmm? Yes, the Bible condemns homosexual behavior. Also adultery. And bearing false witness. But thanks for your opinion about this, it doesn't make much scholarly sense to me. Or religious sense.

 

[YoursTrue]

No.

It was a parable.

lolol ... now you're making me laugh. Jesus wasn't letting them go down the primrose path, as if he was patting those he was condemning on the back....

 

[YoursTrue]

Drinking isn’t sexuality. Sexuality is a big part of one’s identity and psychological makeup/personality. People don’t need to “recover” from who they are.


See above. Self-medication is a recognized, medical disorder. Human sexuality is not.


Why would one avoid one’s sexuality? That, in itself, would constitute unhealthy behavior.

It’s rather immaterial to this topic, but yes. It is.


Our own laws allow for that. It’s called “innocent by reason of insanity.” I believe God is far more forbearing than our laws.


That’s not a translation. It’s a transliteration. That’s what those words literally mean in Koine Greek.

That’s not how Koine Greek works.

It doesn’t matter what I believe. It only matters what the Bible actually says.

It has eschatological overtones. It’s part of what’s known as the “fifth discourse,” and bookends the first discourse, which is the sermon on the mount. Bathos these point toward the third discourse, which gives us the central theme of Matthew’s Gospel: the parable of the sheep and goats, wheat and weeds. But none of this — absolutely none of this — is germane to the issue of homosexuality, which Jesus mentions not one single time in any Gospel.

You’re just throwing stuff up against the wall to see what sticks; none of it sticks.

You might as well say the same about being attracted to children sexually. The Bible says that manbeds are no good? WHAT'S a MANBED?????
Also pornography, I guess that's OK in your opinion also.

 

[YoursTrue]

It literally translates to “male-“bed.” It patently does not mean “homosexual.” It says nothing about an orientation. It only refers to an act, which may or may not have anything to do with same-sex orientation. Other uses in ancient literature of the term usually refer to prostitution. One need not be homosexual in order to have sex with other men. The term more likely refers to male prostitution, and not to one’s orientation. You’re making an assumption not supported by the facts.

Yes, it patently means homosexual. It doesn't mean a propensity to homosexuality. It means HOMOSEXUAL ACTS. Period. And that's the way it must be and is interpreted.

 

[sojourner]

Manbed -- ? It's obviously a colloquial expression, because beds, as far as I know, are not male or female, are they? SO IT MUST MEAN SOMETHING other than for a bed to be a man OR a woman, hmmm? Yes, the Bible condemns homosexual behavior. Also adultery. And bearing false witness. But thanks for your opinion about this, it doesn't make much scholarly sense to me. Or religious sense.

Again: that’s how Koine Greek works. It seems stilted to those of us who speak modern English. As I’ve said before several times (you’ve managed to ignore it all along) the term most commonly refers to male prostitution. Yes, the Bible condemns some forms of homosexual behavior. Those behaviors all have to do with acts that are not equitable and equal. But let’s be clear: the term homosexuality never appears in the Bible. And further, know that the scholar in charge of the RSV in the ‘40s, where the term “homosexual” was first seen in the bible, admits that the use of that word was mistaken.

 

[sojourner]

Yes, it patently means homosexual. It doesn't mean a propensity to homosexuality. It means HOMOSEXUAL ACTS. Period. And that's the way it must be and is interpreted.

You just contradicted yourself. “Homosexual act” is not the same thing as “homosexuality.” The term is most commonly used for male prostitution. That act does not have to be a product of being homosexual, nor does it necessarily indicate homosexuality.

 

[sojourner]

lolol ... now you're making me laugh. Jesus wasn't letting them go down the primrose path, as if he was patting those he was condemning on the back....

I can’t help it if you don’t get it. It was a parable utilizing hyperbole.

 

[YoursTrue]

Except that 1) There is no such term as “homosexual” in either ancient Hebrew or Greek. That’s a pretty good indication that the concept wasn’t extant. If it were, there would have been a term for it. 2) we know that the term “homosexual” was coined in 1869. 3) None of the examples you cite speak of orientation — only of observable acts, which they consider to be “unnatural.” Why? Because they don’t have an advanced knowledge of human sexuality. Remember: these are the same people who think the earth is flat. These are the same people who believe we think with our hearts. There is very limited science in the ancient world.

There's no such term as manbed, or malebed, or femalebed in English either. So? Anyway, I'm done with this now.

 

[sojourner]

You might as well say the same about being attracted to children sexually. The Bible says that manbeds are no good? WHAT'S a MANBED?????
Also pornography, I guess that's OK in your opinion also.

Except that pedophilia is recognized as an illness. Homosexuality is not.
For the umpteenth time: the term arsenokoitai most commonly refers to male prostitution — not to homosexual orientation. There is no indication that it means something different in this case.

 

[YoursTrue]

You just contradicted yourself. “Homosexual act” is not the same thing as “homosexuality.” The term is most commonly used for male prostitution. That act does not have to be a product of being homosexual, nor does it necessarily indicate homosexuality.

You can view it your way. I see it in the same reference as preponderance to take drugs, to abuse children (be honest -- it's considered incurable, yet -- those who want to change can do it with effort). That includes alcoholism. They like to take drugs, they're drawn to it and it's hard to break away. There are those that drink and it's ok, they don't become alcoholics. Then there are those that do and with great effort sometimes for the rest of their lives, they abstain. And then again, there are people who declare open sex with whomever and whenever is also ok. The Bible does not condone that, or say it's ok.

 

[sojourner]

There's no such term as manbed, or malebed, or femalebed in English either. So? Anyway, I'm done with this now.

True. We use the term “male prostitution.” The scholar in charge of the RSV where the term “homosexual” first appears in the Bible, admitted that the translation of that word was wrong.

 

[YoursTrue]

Except that pedophilia is recognized as an illness. Homosexuality is not.
For the umpteenth time: the term arsenokoitai most commonly refers to male prostitution — not to homosexual orientation. There is no indication that it means something different in this case.

There are other phrases in the Bible that declare homosexuality, male with male sexually, or female with female sexually as being not approved by God at all. Some people think prostitution is ok also. Right? Why not tell me that prostitution is ok? OK? If it's not, why not?

 

[sojourner]

You can view it your way. I see it in the same reference as preponderance to take drugs, to abuse children (be honest -- it's considered incurable, yet -- those who want to change can do it with effort). That includes alcoholism. They like to take drugs, they're drawn to it and it's hard to break away. There are those that drink and it's ok, they don't become alcoholics. Then there are those that do and with great effort sometimes for the rest of their lives, they abstain. And then again, there are people who declare open sex with whomever and whenever is also ok. The Bible does not condone that, or say it's ok.

Homosexual sex isn’t necessarily open and done indiscriminately. Sure, Paul friend on promiscuity, but homosexual acts are not, by definition, promiscuous. They can be committed, loving, consensual, and equitable, just as any other form of sex within marriage.

 

[sojourner]

There are other phrases in the Bible that declare homosexuality, male with male sexually, or female with female sexually as being not approved by God at all

No. There are no verses dealing with homosexual orientation.

Some people think prostitution is ok also. Right? Why not tell me that prostitution is ok? OK? If it's not, why not?

Because prostitution is neither committed, loving, nor equitable.