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

[101G]

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.

first thanks for the reply, second, no it's the same account only in three different setting.

where to go with this? that there is no trinity. for it was the Lord Jesus himself who chose Paul, then Saul for his minister. which Ananias said was the "God of the fathers". which is correct. the Father is the Son "diversified" or shared in flesh. so there is only one person, who is ONE GOD.

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.

That's fine, read all the book you like, but the bible tells us exacitly how and why Jesus is God and why to the fact as God don't know his return date, without going into full detail, just read the scripture, his return date is unknown to him because of (matthews 6:3 and Jeremiah 31:31-34, especiallt verse 34. ... these verses hold the answer.and what these verses reveals is in the book of Revelation chapter 5. it's just that simple.


PICJAG.

 

[metis]

it's just that simple.

Only to those who've never been involved in any serious theological studies. Anyone who has well knows the certainty is the enemy of theology, and anyone who doesn't understand that all scripture is subjective in nature is not a serious student. This is why I said that there's nowhere to go forth on this.

 

[InChrist]

I'm sorry, but I read these same passages and do not see them describing the same Being as the 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.

I think of the word substance referring to the essence and nature of God’s Being. As humans have human physical nature, I believe God has God/ Spiritual Nature unique to God with characteristics, attributes, abilities and power belonging to God alone. This God Nature, I believe the scriptures indicate is the same Nature ( substance) of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit from all eternity.
It is true the Son took on flesh when He took on human form and I think the Bible clearly indicates Jesus now has an eternal, resurrected, glorified human body, in which He will literally return to this earth in for all to see. Yet, this does not diminish the reality that the Son has His Spiritual/ God Nature from eternity past and still possesses it now along with His risen , glorified human nature, making the Son/ Jesus a One of a kind, unique Being and only Savior and Mediator between God and humanity.
Just my thoughts and understanding.

 

[metis]

BTW, I'm not stating nor implying that this is correct, but it does a pretty good job of pointing out how the early fathers came up with the Trinitarian formula:
The same thing can be said about the word “Trinity.” The term was employed by the early church fathers as a “shorthand” way of referencing the idea that the Bible portrays God as both Three ( trinus) and One ( unitas). No one who has studied the Scriptures closely can easily deny this.

Let’s take a closer look at the evidence. God is spoken of in both the singular and the plural throughout the Old Testament (see, for example, Genesis 1:26, 11:7). He is specifically called Father (Matthew 6:9), Son (John 8:58; Hebrews 1:8, 9), and Holy Spirit (John 16:26; Romans 8:9) in the New. We find all three Persons present simultaneously in the Gospel writers’ description of the baptism of Christ (Matthew 3:16, 17). Furthermore, the Bible makes a clear distinction between these Persons. For instance, when Christ was on the earth He prayed to His Father, not to Himself. At His baptism the voice of God was heard from Heaven, “This is my beloved Son, hear Him.”

We should also point out that the earliest Christian confession of faith consisted of two words: Iesous Kyrios, “Jesus [is] Lord” (I Corinthians 12:3). In the ears of first-century Jewish Christians, this could only have meant one thing: “Jesus is Jehovah” (the Greek Septuagint version of the Old Testament consistently translates the Hebrew Tetragrammaton YHWH, “Jehovah,” with the Greek word kyrios, “lord”).

How are we to account for this confusing and varied array of biblical testimony concerning the nature and the Person of God? There’s only one answer: we have to resort to the doctrine of the Trinity. It’s the only way to make sense of the biblical picture of God. It’s the only way to bring together all the different threads of the tapestry in a unified whole. To put it another way, Christian teachers have not invented the doctrine of the Trinity. That doctrine has thrust itself upon them by sheer weight of evidence... -- Trinitarian Theology and the Bible - Focus on the Family

Please note that this is not a Catholic site.

 

[Katzpur]

I think of the word substance referring to the essence and nature of God’s Being. As humans have human physical nature, I believe God has God/ Spiritual Nature unique to God with characteristics, attributes, abilities and power belonging to God alone. This God Nature, I believe the scriptures indicate is the same Nature ( substance) of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit from all eternity.
It is true the Son took on flesh when He took on human form and I think the Bible clearly indicates Jesus now has an eternal, resurrected, glorified human body, in which He will literally return to this earth in for all to see. Yet, this does not diminish the reality that the Son has His Spiritual/ God Nature from eternity past and still possesses it now along with His risen , glorified human nature, making the Son/ Jesus a One of a kind, unique Being and only Savior and Mediator between God and humanity.
Just my thoughts and understanding.

Not all that different from mine actually.

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

Non essential information that very few can relate to. It is confused.

(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

It’s pretty simple.
I believe and follow the Word, not the precepts of a bunch of men over the centuries who have completely corrupted Christianity with their false ideas.
The Lord warns against such things.

 

[cataway]

exodus 33:20
20 But he added: “You cannot see my face, for no man can see me and live.”
and yet Jesus was seen by many = Jesus is not God

 

[TJ1]

Hi 101G,

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?

We agree that the Father is the Almighty, but we also have to concede that Satan is, for a time, "the ruler of this world". (John 12:31). God has allowed him to have that power.

What we're reading in Revelation 4:11 and Revelation 11:17 is the future event when God actually takes that power back from Satan and 'begins ruling as king' over the earth again. It's this transition of power, from Satan's rulership back to God's kingdom, that explains how the Almighty God can receive/take power.

 

[101G]

Hi 101G,



We agree that the Father is the Almighty, but we also have to concede that Satan is, for a time, "the ruler of this world". (John 12:31). God has allowed him to have that power.

What we're reading in Revelation 4:11 and Revelation 11:17 is the future event when God actually takes that power back from Satan and 'begins ruling as king' over the earth again. It's this transition of power, from Satan's rulership back to God's kingdom, that explains how the Almighty God can receive/take power.

who do you thing gave satan that power? listen,
Romans 13:1 "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God". (that just got the devil and his power).

Romans 13:2 "Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation". (that's what the devil is going to get).

Thanks for the post, and be blessed.

PICJAG.

 

[sojourner]

It is just spiritually dead are trying to explain spiritual matters, 'flesh and blood' construct.

That’s a cop-out.

 

[sojourner]

There is a are problems with it.
For one thing, before the Word was, there was God, and his holy spirit... alone. There was no father.

After the Word began to exist (begotten. by God - enter the father), some time later, the Word ceased to exist.

For another, the holy spirit is with the father, with the son, with the saints. and with individual faithful one.
That's a lot of apportioned holy spirit.
Holy spirit is part of him, just like love, power, wisdom, etc.

So evidently, there is never a time, when there is three. Not three (no Trinity). God is one, and always was.

Except that time as we understand it has no meaning in God’s kingdom. God is infinite.

 

[sojourner]

So these aren't 3 personalities of God. They're just the same God manifested in different ways.

Except that this is a recognized heresy.

 

[leov]

That’s a cop-out.

No. It is what happened when some non-spiritual soul nature taking over major religion , it is kind of like renaming Roman festival into Christmas.

 

[pearl]

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. There is no trinitarian formula to be found in the NT, nor the Creed. yet in both the Three together are there. That the relatedness is Mystery to be revealed in God's own time is not a problem for me.

 

[sojourner]

The simple reason why I reject the Trinity is because it is not taught anywhere in the Bible, either explicitly or implicitly

...as you understand it.

 

[sojourner]

No. It is what happened when some non-spiritual soul nature taking over major religion , it is kind of like renaming Roman festival into Christmas.

That’s a cop-out.

 

[sojourner]

If the Trinity doctrine was really the central teaching of Christianity, one would expect it to be taught plainly and often in scripture. But as The New Encyclopædia Britannica observes, “Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament

1) Seems plainly taught to me.
2) Britannica is not a theological or ecclesial authority.

 

[leov]

That’s a cop-out.

Osiris, Isis, Horus?

 

[sojourner]

we also have to concede that Satan is, for a time, "the ruler of this world

No. We don’t have to concede that, cause it just ain’t true.

What we're reading in Revelation 4:11 and Revelation 11:17 is the future event when God actually takes that power back from Satan and 'begins ruling as king' over the earth again. It's this transition of power, from Satan's rulership back to God's kingdom, that explains how the Almighty God can receive/take power

Nope. This has nothing to do with historic events happening in linear time.

 

[sojourner]

Osiris, Isis, Horus?

...or any of the Sumerian and Babylonian pantheon from whom the monotheistic “God” is derived.