Non-Trinitarians: What's wrong with the Trinity?

[MJ Bailey]

btw all prior posts of mine were directed to op

 

[Eddi]

Why such a trivial question if you are so sure of the answer?

Just wanted to see what other people think, that's all

A reality check, perhaps

 

[Terry Sampson]

When Stephen "looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God," what exactly do you think He was seeing?

Stephen getting stoned?

 

[TJ1]

Just wanted to see what other people think, that's all

A reality check, perhaps

I think that's commendable. If the Trinity doctrine is something that should be accepted by Christians, I'm curious why, in your view, the Bible itself doesn't just come right out and explain it in the language of the creeds or at least something along the lines of the picture you posted, e.g. 'The Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit is not the Father, but all three of these persons are the one God'.

 

[Katzpur]

Stephen getting stoned?

Yes. Acts 7:55-56 "But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God." Did he see two distinct beings? Obviously, he did because one of the was standing to the right of the other. If one was the Father and the other was the Son, then they are not two "manifestations" of the same being, but two distinct personages.

 

[1213]

...Why are you non-Trinitarian?
...

I want to be a disciple of Jesus. Jesus didn’t teach about Trinity and I want to be loyal to the Jesus teachings.

Jesus therefore said to those Jews who had believed him, "If you remain in my word, then you are truly my disciples. You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free."
John 8:31-32

Trinity is not Biblical teaching and I have no reason to take it.

 

[101G]

(This is for people who consider themselves some kind of Christian but who reject the trinity)

Many find it mind-boggling and consider it a mystery, and leave it as that

Others are quick to dismiss it as non-sensical rubbish

Some have a major problem with "The Son" part of it

Why is this so hard for some people to understand?

And why are some people so quick to reject it?

It makes perfect sense to me, I have no problem accepting it

Each element of God (each part of the trinity) is a dimension of God which is distinct from any other dimension/element, although all these (Father, Son, Spirit) are consubstantial with the central emergent property - "God"

I understand God as being triangle shaped, as having three equal sides, neither of which make sense alone

So, non-Trinitarians - what's wrong with all this? (pic related)

What are your problems with it?

Why are you non-Trinitarian?

Please tell

View attachment 35880

Ok, I'm none trinitarian, and none oneness as the UPC teaches, but I'm diversified oneness. I believe God is one person "shared" or diversified in flesh. here's just one example why I'm none trinitarian.

in Revelation chapter 5, there is one who sits on the throne, (also see chapter 4). but the person who sits on the throne is the Son, the Lord Jesus. and the person who is the Lamb, who is stand, that was slain is JESUS also. so this is the reason why I don't believe in a trinity, now the argument.

all the trinity believer, except a few, actually know that it is the son who sits on the throne, (which was refereshing to me), but they cannot explain it. so maybe you can, my question, "is it the Son who sits on the throne in chapter 4 & 5 ot the one whom you calls the Father, yes or no. if no, and you say it's the Father who sits on the throne, then please give book chapter and verse of the name of the person who gave the Father power? because in Revelation 4:11 it states, "Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created". so if it was the Father who sits on the throne and he is the "ALMIGHTY", and he "recieved" POWER, then please tell us who have power to give to the Father who suppose to have it all? I believe this is a worthy question to ask.

PICJAG.

 

[TJ1]

Hello 101G,

in Revelation chapter 5, there is one who sits on the throne, (also see chapter 4). but the person who sits on the throne is the Son, the Lord Jesus. and the person who is the Lamb, who is stand, that was slain is JESUS also. so this is the reason why I don't believe in a trinity, now the argument.

all the trinity believer, except a few, actually know that it is the son who sits on the throne, (which was refereshing to me), but they cannot explain it. so maybe you can, my question, "is it the Son who sits on the throne in chapter 4 & 5 ot the one whom you calls the Father, yes or no. if no, and you say it's the Father who sits on the throne, then please give book chapter and verse of the name of the person who gave the Father power? because in Revelation 4:11 it states, "Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created". so if it was the Father who sits on the throne and he is the "ALMIGHTY", and he "recieved" POWER, then please tell us who have power to give to the Father who suppose to have it all? I believe this is a worthy question to ask.

PICJAG.

Just for your information, I'm not a Trinitarian, but I believe the one sitting on the throne in Revelation chapters 4 and 5 is indeed the Father. How is it then that he is said to "receive glory and honour and power"?

The very next verse continues: "Then I saw in the right hand of him who sat on the throne a scroll with writing on both sides and sealed with seven seals." (Revelation 5:1) Over the next few chapters Jesus, "the Lamb", proceeds to open these seals, each of which brings major changes to the earth. After opening of the 7th seal (and the 7 trumpet blasts) it is said:

"...there were loud voices in heaven, which said:

"'The kingdom of the world has become
the kingdom of our Lord and of his Messiah,
and he will reign for ever and ever.'

"And the twenty-four elders, who were seated on their thrones before God, fell on their faces and worshiped God, saying:

"'We give thanks to you, Lord God Almighty,
the One who is and who was,
because you have taken your great power
and have begun to reign.'" (Revelation 11:15-17)​

So God the Father "receives" or 'takes' power in the sense that his kingdom begins its rule over the whole earth.

 

[InChrist]

Fo

I've never even implied that Constantine should be blamed for coming up with the concept of the Trinity, so there's no need for you to try to fall back on that argument. If you can show me any evidence that the Apostles understood the Father, Son and Holy Ghost to all be a part of an indivisible substance, I'd enjoy reading their words.

Forgive me, then, I thought your reference to 325 A.D. was implying Constantine initiated and required acceptance of the Trinity doctrine.
I think passages like- Romans1:20; Colossians 1:15; 1 Timothy 1:17 and Hebrews 11:27 show that the Apostles understood God is invisible Spirit, as stated throughout the NT
( John 4: 27) as well, there are several OT passages which reveal God’s invisible spiritual nature, unless He chose to take on physical attributes as when the Son became flesh. I would say they also understood that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three unique Persons, yet One with one another, as Jesus expressed His oneness with the Father.
I certainly don’t think acceptance of the Apostles’ or Nicene Creeds are necessary for salvation. I am not sure what exactly was meant by
“ indivisible substance “ . I look at it as the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit all consist of the same substance and all share the same God qualities and attributes, which they alone possess.

 

[InChrist]

Huh?!? I know this can happen, but it feels like there is a missing event here in this story.

As for the Trinitarian heresies, I think that I'm a modalist. I just can't understand the Trinity without thinking of God as three different parts, a Creator who is basically some sort of being far above our understanding, a Spirit (I always wind up with a Shinto animism thing) that is in everything that exists, and a Person who is the bridge to God and Man. I believe this because I'm not sure how Trinity works otherwise.

Ohhh, it says they're kinda in different eras.

According to the Bible God is Spirt. The scriptures also reveal three Persons ( not parts) which are God, each with unique roles, yet all sharing the same qualities, attributes, and substance which make them alone One God.

There is no missing aspect to the story and it all happened in a brief time. Went to a church one week, first time at a Bible/ Christian church - not believing in the Trinity, got saved the following week and right afterwards I just knew it was true and made sense- Jesus is God/ the triune nature of God had to be true.

 

[cataway]

Better question; whom was God addressing?, there is a dialogue within God.

that's not hard to figure out ….he was talking to a subordinate , in the case in question ,the Word . later referred to as a master worker

 

[101G]

Hello 101G,



Just for your information, I'm not a Trinitarian, but I believe the one sitting on the throne in Revelation chapters 4 and 5 is indeed the Father. How is it then that he is said to "receive glory and honour and power"?

The very next verse continues: "Then I saw in the right hand of him who sat on the throne a scroll with writing on both sides and sealed with seven seals." (Revelation 5:1) Over the next few chapters Jesus, "the Lamb", proceeds to open these seals, each of which brings major changes to the earth. After opening of the 7th seal (and the 7 trumpet blasts) it is said:

"...there were loud voices in heaven, which said:

"'The kingdom of the world has become
the kingdom of our Lord and of his Messiah,
and he will reign for ever and ever.'

"And the twenty-four elders, who were seated on their thrones before God, fell on their faces and worshiped God, saying:

"'We give thanks to you, Lord God Almighty,
the One who is and who was,
because you have taken your great power
and have begun to reign.'" (Revelation 11:15-17)​

So God the Father "receives" or 'takes' power in the sense that his kingdom begins its rule over the whole earth.

GINOLJC, to all.
First thanks for the reply, second, nor am I a Trinitarian, nor a Oneness as the UPC teaches. I'm a Diversified Oneness, big difference. not saying that you're right or wrong, but consider this, how can the one whom you calls the Father receive power when he suppose to have it all? see the point, if he's the "ALMIGHTY", and that's what "ALMIGHTY" means "ALL POWER" how can he receive what he already have? and two who has POWER to give to the almighty, see the problem now?

So God the Father "receives" or 'takes' power in the sense that his kingdom begins its rule over the whole earth.

STOP and think, when he comes again, will he not have the same power as he had before? because when he comes to "receives" the Kingdon, is he any less powerful before or after? if he's less powerful before he come, so again who gave him more power to receive? see the problem now.

and as for the Son, yes, he is the Lamb standing who took the book out of the right hand of him who sits on the throne, (who is Jesus himself), that for another discussion all by itself. but it's not the one whom you calls the Father. for he, the Lord Jesus who is High Priest has "sit" down, why? because a sitting High Priest is finish from his works. so he who sits is JESUS, not Jesus the Christ the Lamb of God, but JESUS the Lamb Glorified with "Power"...

Understand now? God is in his diversified state as the "ANOTHER", of himself or as the Greeks say he's the G243 allos of himself in glorified flesh and bones. see in his, Jesus the Christ, Natural state with blood on earth is the "Lamb of, of, of, God. (see John 1:29). but in his glorified state as the Lamb standing in heaven, has no blood, hence the title Lamb. this is where the trinity doctrine really breaks down at. for he who stands, "The Lamb", is he who sits, "The Son of Man", JESUS the same one Person.
as the topic states, THIS IS "What's wrong with the Trinity?"


PICJAG.

 

[metis]

How about explaining it like this:
Christianity is paganized Judaism. Polytheism and demigods and such were quite well accepted by pagan cultures, like the Greeks and Romans and Egyptians. As a result, the ethics of Christianity spread(slowly) as the pagan theology became accepted. But due to it's Judaic roots, Christian theologians felt a need to include monotheism.

That's what I think happened.
Tom

No, I don't buy it as the Trinitarian concept does not reflect polytheism because of the use of "essence". A closer, but not exact parallel, would be the Hindu concept of "manifestations".

 

[metis]

But as The New Encyclopædia Britannica observes, “Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament.”

That's because it's a theological concept that uses multiple verses and narratives put together and then analyzed, thus looking for the common thread(s) to connect them. It's sorta like forensic science, whereas experts try to piece together pieces of evidence to try and determine what really happened.

Now whether that concept is correct or not is another question.

 

[metis]

And that the Trinity is central not only to the Roman church but also the Orthodox, although with differences.

And also most Protestant denominations as well.

IMO, I think that there's some indication in the Gospel accounts that even the Apostles weren't too sure about Jesus' relationship with God and what that all entailed. Yes, I have no doubt that they felt that Jesus was "of" God in some way, but my guess is that this probably varied, not only between them but also within the other disciples as well. Thus, with this and also with the threat of numerous "heresies", the Church was pushed to try and determine and specify that relationship.

Either way, I don't lose any sleep over this, thus feeling much more at ease just trying to obey Jesus' two Commandments.

 

[101G]

That's because it's a theological concept that uses multiple verses and narratives put together and then analyzed, thus looking for the common thread(s) to connect them. It's sorta like forensic science, whereas experts try to piece together pieces of evidence to try and determine what really happened.

Now whether that concept is correct or not is another question.

Now that's good thinking. there's nothing wrong with having a theological concept, but as said, it must have and needs scriptural base to stand on.

with that said, may I present some scriptures that do not support a Trinitarian concept of the theological doctrine of a trinity, where many say it do.

these verses are well known. the apostle Paul, known as Saul then, his conversion on the road to Damascus. Doctor Luke gives us the account of his, Saul, conversion. we pick up the action in verse 10, Acts 9:10 "And there was a certain disciple at Damascus, named Ananias; and to him said the Lord in a vision, Ananias. And he said, Behold, I am here, Lord.

Acts 9:11 "And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the street which is called Straight, and enquire in the house of Judas for one called Saul, of Tarsus: for, behold, he prayeth,

Acts 9:12 "And hath seen in a vision a man named Ananias coming in, and putting his hand on him, that he might receive his sight.

Acts 9:13 "Then Ananias answered, Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints at Jerusalem:

Acts 9:14 "And here he hath authority from the chief priests to bind all that call on thy name.

Acts 9:15 "But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:

Acts 9:16 "For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name's sake.

Acts 9:17 "And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost.

Take note of verse 15, "for he is a chosen vessel unto me". the question come to mind who chose Paul, then Saul as his vessel? was it A. the Father, as some had said he chose Saul for his son Jesus? or B. it was Jesus himself who chose Saul as his vessel? which one. well chapter 22 of Acts here helps us out a bit as to who chose Saul as his vessel. Paul now himself tells the Jews who had converted and chose him in. Acts 22:12 "And one Ananias, a devout man according to the law, having a good report of all the Jews which dwelt there,

Acts 22:13 "Came unto me, and stood, and said unto me, Brother Saul, receive thy sight. And the same hour I looked up upon him.

Acts 22:14 "And he said, The God of our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldest know his will, and see that Just One, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth".

here Paul said that Ananias told him that "The God of our fathers hath chosen him". well that's cut and dry. the God of our Fathers, well that OT. so again, having a theological concept based on scriptures is the key to any doctrine. so from what Ananias siad it seem like this is a shut and close case for the one whom many say is the Father of the OT, who chose Saul for his son, correct? well not so fast, because there is a third account of this same incident in Acts chapter 24 where Paul gave the same account unto king Agrippa. lets pick up the action there. Acts 26:12 "Whereupon as I went to Damascus with authority and commission from the chief priests,

Acts 26:13 "At midday, O king, I saw in the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round about me and them which journeyed with me.

Acts 26:14 "And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

Acts 26:15 "And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest.

Acts 26:16 "But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee";

ok, it was Jesus who appeared to Paul, we all know this, but there is something else there. remember Ananias said that, "The God of our fathers hath chosen thee". here's the revelation, the word "Make" in acts 26:16 here above, it's the same word used in acts 22:14 for "chosen" when Ananias said, "The God of our fathers hath chosen thee". for it is the Greek word,
G4400 προχειρίζομαι procheirizomai (pro-chei-riy'-zo-mai) v.
1. to handle for oneself in advance.
2. (figuratively) to purpose.
[middle voice from G4253 and a derivative of G5495]
KJV: choose, make
Root(s): G4253, G5495

and this word is found only at these two verses of scripture, acts 22:14, and acts 26:16

so it was JESUS, who is the God of our fathers as Ananias said, and now Paul confirms.

so the theological concept of a trinity cannot be used here because it exposes the theory that the Father and the Son are two separate and distinct person, when in fact it's the same person who is Father and Son.

PICJAG.

 

[101G]

And also most Protestant denominations as well.

IMO, I think that there's some indication in the Gospel accounts that even the Apostles weren't too sure about Jesus' relationship with God and what that all entailed. Yes, I have no doubt that they felt that Jesus was "of" God in some way, but my guess is that this probably varied, not only between them but also within the other disciples as well. Thus, with this and also with the threat of numerous "heresies", the Church was pushed to try and determine and specify that relationship.

Either way, I don't lose any sleep over this, thus feeling much more at ease just trying to obey Jesus' two Commandments.

all the apostles knew who Jesus was, and even the disciples as I pointes out in post #56 above

Just read their writing they knew exactly who he is.

PICJAG.

 

[metis]

Now that's good thinking. there's nothing wrong with having a theological concept, but as said, it must have and needs scriptural base to stand on.

with that said, may I present some scriptures that do not support a Trinitarian concept of the theological doctrine of a trinity, where many say it do.

these verses are well known. the apostle Paul, known as Saul then, his conversion on the road to Damascus. Doctor Luke gives us the account of his, Saul, conversion. we pick up the action in verse 10, Acts 9:10 "And there was a certain disciple at Damascus, named Ananias; and to him said the Lord in a vision, Ananias. And he said, Behold, I am here, Lord.

Acts 9:11 "And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the street which is called Straight, and enquire in the house of Judas for one called Saul, of Tarsus: for, behold, he prayeth,

Acts 9:12 "And hath seen in a vision a man named Ananias coming in, and putting his hand on him, that he might receive his sight.

Acts 9:13 "Then Ananias answered, Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints at Jerusalem:

Acts 9:14 "And here he hath authority from the chief priests to bind all that call on thy name.

Acts 9:15 "But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:

Acts 9:16 "For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name's sake.

Acts 9:17 "And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost.

Take note of verse 15, "for he is a chosen vessel unto me". the question come to mind who chose Paul, then Saul as his vessel? was it A. the Father, as some had said he chose Saul for his son Jesus? or B. it was Jesus himself who chose Saul as his vessel? which one. well chapter 22 of Acts here helps us out a bit as to who chose Saul as his vessel. Paul now himself tells the Jews who had converted and chose him in. Acts 22:12 "And one Ananias, a devout man according to the law, having a good report of all the Jews which dwelt there,

Acts 22:13 "Came unto me, and stood, and said unto me, Brother Saul, receive thy sight. And the same hour I looked up upon him.

Acts 22:14 "And he said, The God of our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldest know his will, and see that Just One, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth".

here Paul said that Ananias told him that "The God of our fathers hath chosen him". well that's cut and dry. the God of our Fathers, well that OT. so again, having a theological concept based on scriptures is the key to any doctrine. so from what Ananias siad it seem like this is a shut and close case for the one whom many say is the Father of the OT, who chose Saul for his son, correct? well not so fast, because there is a third account of this same incident in Acts chapter 24 where Paul gave the same account unto king Agrippa. lets pick up the action there. Acts 26:12 "Whereupon as I went to Damascus with authority and commission from the chief priests,

Acts 26:13 "At midday, O king, I saw in the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round about me and them which journeyed with me.

Acts 26:14 "And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

Acts 26:15 "And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest.

Acts 26:16 "But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee";

ok, it was Jesus who appeared to Paul, we all know this, but there is something else there. remember Ananias said that, "The God of our fathers hath chosen thee". here's the revelation, the word "Make" in acts 26:16 here above, it's the same word used in acts 22:14 for "chosen" when Ananias said, "The God of our fathers hath chosen thee". for it is the Greek word,
G4400 προχειρίζομαι procheirizomai (pro-chei-riy'-zo-mai) v.
1. to handle for oneself in advance.
2. (figuratively) to purpose.
[middle voice from G4253 and a derivative of G5495]
KJV: choose, make
Root(s): G4253, G5495

and this word is found only at these two verses of scripture, acts 22:14, and acts 26:16

so it was JESUS, who is the God of our fathers as Ananias said, and now Paul confirms.

so the theological concept of a trinity cannot be used here because it exposes the theory that the Father and the Son are two separate and distinct person, when in fact it's the same person who is Father and Son.

PICJAG.

You're conflating different things, so there's no where to go with this. Nor does the above in any way negate the Trinitarian concept.

 

[metis]

all the apostles knew who Jesus was, and even the disciples as I pointes out in post #56 above

Just read their writing they knew exactly who he is.

PICJAG.

Not really as, logically, how could they possibly know the exact relationship between God and Jesus?

Jesus does not know when the end of times will occur as he states, but states that God does know. Thus Jesus cannot be God the Father, so since that's a dead end, exactly what is this relationship other than Jesus being of God in some way?

BTW, an excellent book that covers this in detail is "How Jesus Became God" by the theologian Bart Ehrman.

 

[Katzpur]

Fo

Forgive me, then, I thought your reference to 325 A.D. was implying Constantine initiated and required acceptance of the Trinity doctrine.

It definitely was Constantine who convened the council. Constantine wasn't even technically a Christian at the time. Oddly, it wasn't the Pope. He wasn't actually even in attendance. (One would think it would have mattered more to him.) At any rate, Constantine couldn't have cared less which direction the vote went as long as it stabilized the contention within his empire.

I think passages like- Romans1:20; Colossians 1:15; 1 Timothy 1:17 and Hebrews 11:27 show that the Apostles understood God is invisible Spirit, as stated throughout the NT
( John 4: 27) as well, there are several OT passages which reveal God’s invisible spiritual nature, unless He chose to take on physical attributes as when the Son became flesh.

I'm sorry, but I read these same passages and do not see them describing the same Being as the later creeds described. I was looking for something a bit less ambiguous.

I would say they also understood that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three unique Persons, yet One with one another, as Jesus expressed His oneness with the Father.

I would absolutely agree 100% with this statement.

I certainly don’t think acceptance of the Apostles’ or Nicene Creeds are necessary for salvation.

Good. Then we're on the same page where that is concerned.

I am not sure what exactly was meant by “indivisible substance “

It's from the Athanasian Creed, which dates from one century after the Nicene Creed. Apparently by that time, the Church figured the Nicene Creed didn't adequately describe God. He needed to be further complicated.

I look at it as the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit all consist of the same substance and all share the same God qualities and attributes, which they alone possess.

I've never been able to understand what is meant by "the same substance." Jesus Christ ascended into Heaven with an immortal body of flesh and bone. The scriptures teach that He will return in that same form. Unless you think He somehow shed that body once He arrived in Heaven, then I don't see how He could be said to "be of the same substance" as His Father. If you were to drop that particular phrase from your final sentence, I'd agree with the rest. The Father, Son and Holy Ghost all share the same divine qualities and attributes.