The trinity debate - Is it monotheism?

[cataway]

The trinity doctrine is foreign to the Sacred Scriptures. This is what is written in the Kittel Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Volume III, p 108 "Perhaps the recollection of the many triads [trinities] of the surrounding polytheistic world contributed to the formation of these threefold formulae."

Yahshua the Messiah never considered himself on equal footing with the Father. The trinity doctrine states that the trinity is one supreme being, existing in three persons, all equal in rank and in eternity, having the same substance and yet being three separate persons, but united in one G-dhead. The only scripture that seemingly supports this is 1 John 5:7-8. If you read it in the Pe****ta, it helps us understand this text: "And the Spirit testifies that very Spirit is truth, And there are three that bear witness, the Spirit and the water and blood; and these three are one". The thought that emerges from the Greek text reveals that the Spirit and the water and the blood unite in their witness to the plan of salvation revealed in Yahshua the Messiah our Redeemer.

People would understand the Bible a lot more if they used the Name of Yahweh and the title Elohim rather than G-d and L-rd. The King James translators rendered the word Elohim as G-d, singular. That is a glaring error. The word Elohim is a masculine plural word, not singular. The word Elohim is plural, similar to the English word family, and requires a singular verb just like family does.

It signifies several family members composing one family unit working under one family name.

i do appreciate what your saying. if you want to call to him as Yahweh that's ok . Jehovah is really the same name. but in English . the same with Yahshua being Jesus.
now if you are going to say that because the the two names,Yahweh &Ye·shuʹaʽ [or Yehoh·shuʹaʽ] [or even Iesousʹ, to those that prefer Greek]
,start with Y, then all the names in the bible that have J as the first letter[in English] would also have to be changed to names that the first letter would also have to be a Y.
i don't see that happening.

 

[cataway]

Just as the bus rounded the crest of the hill and began its descent on the narrow, winding road, the brakes failed. The bus went flying off the road and plummeted to the rocky ravine three hundred feet below.

the end

 

[firedragon]

The trinity doctrine is foreign to the Sacred Scriptures. This is what is written in the Kittel Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Volume III, p 108 "Perhaps the recollection of the many triads [trinities] of the surrounding polytheistic world contributed to the formation of these threefold formulae."

Yahshua the Messiah never considered himself on equal footing with the Father. The trinity doctrine states that the trinity is one supreme being, existing in three persons, all equal in rank and in eternity, having the same substance and yet being three separate persons, but united in one G-dhead. The only scripture that seemingly supports this is 1 John 5:7-8. If you read it in the Pe****ta, it helps us understand this text: "And the Spirit testifies that very Spirit is truth, And there are three that bear witness, the Spirit and the water and blood; and these three are one". The thought that emerges from the Greek text reveals that the Spirit and the water and the blood unite in their witness to the plan of salvation revealed in Yahshua the Messiah our Redeemer.

People would understand the Bible a lot more if they used the Name of Yahweh and the title Elohim rather than G-d and L-rd. The King James translators rendered the word Elohim as G-d, singular. That is a glaring error. The word Elohim is a masculine plural word, not singular. The word Elohim is plural, similar to the English word family, and requires a singular verb just like family does.

It signifies several family members composing one family unit working under one family name.

With all due respect brother, this is absolutely nonsensical. Do you really think that plurals in the hebrew language signifies plural in numbers every single time? Are you serious? I dont speak hebrew, but if you do a little honest research in academic circles (not evangelical vehicles), you would know very well that this Pluralis Majestatis and has been stated by Jewish scholars of the language over and over again.

DO you think Moses was a family of some number when he sent as an Elohim to the Pharaoh?

 

[cataway]

if you dont like Elohim then maybe Elohʹah should be used when speaking of the one single God acting as or by him self . Elohim, God using his forces( angels) to accomplish the things El or ha·ʼElʹ ,wants done .?

 

[Messianic Israelite]

i do appreciate what your saying. if you want to call to him as Yahweh that's ok . Jehovah is really the same name. but in English . the same with Yahshua being Jesus.
now if you are going to say that because the the two names,Yahweh &Ye·shuʹaʽ [or Yehoh·shuʹaʽ] [or even Iesousʹ, to those that prefer Greek]
,start with Y, then all the names in the bible that have J as the first letter[in English] would also have to be changed to names that the first letter would also have to be a Y.
i don't see that happening.

Hi Cataway. Good afternoon. Why is it that Jehovah Witnesses always claim that Yahweh is the same as Jehovah, but no-one who uses the name Yahweh will say the same? The following is a quote from the New World Bible Translation Committee of the Jehovah Witnesses "While inclining to view the pronunciation Yahweh as the more correct way, we have retained the form 'Jehovah' because of the people's familiarity with it since the 14th century. Moreover, it preserves equally with other forms the four letters of the Tetragrammaton JHVH". Jehovah Witnesses are sadly in false doctrine.

In terms of using the letter Y instead of J, the pronunciation should be the same in names where the abbreviated form Yah appears such as IsaYah, JeremeYah, ZephanYah etc but we just use the common spellings. Although many people don't realise they have been using the Sacred Name all their life in the names of these prophets.

 

[Messianic Israelite]

With all due respect brother, this is absolutely nonsensical. Do you really think that plurals in the hebrew language signifies plural in numbers every single time? Are you serious? I dont speak hebrew, but if you do a little honest research in academic circles (not evangelical vehicles), you would know very well that this Pluralis Majestatis and has been stated by Jewish scholars of the language over and over again.

DO you think Moses was a family of some number when he sent as an Elohim to the Pharaoh?

Hi firedragon. Good afternoon. It isn't nonsensical at all. Elohim holds the definition of Mighty One or Mighty Ones. You might recall Genesis 1:26 where the Almighty Heavenly Father says "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness". The plural pronouns used are not an error in the text, but reveal the plural unity of the Creator. You can read Genesis 1 and the name Yahweh doesn't appear there, but Elohim does.

 

[Messianic Israelite]

i do appreciate what your saying. if you want to call to him as Yahweh that's ok . Jehovah is really the same name. but in English . the same with Yahshua being Jesus.
now if you are going to say that because the the two names,Yahweh &Ye·shuʹaʽ [or Yehoh·shuʹaʽ] [or even Iesousʹ, to those that prefer Greek]
,start with Y, then all the names in the bible that have J as the first letter[in English] would also have to be changed to names that the first letter would also have to be a Y.
i don't see that happening.

Just to reiterate. Yahweh is not the same as Jehovah and Yahshua is not the same as Jesus. We must use the accurate transliterations as this will bring us in to a greater knowledge of the truth. EliYah is to be the forerunner of the Messiah (Malachi 4:5-6) and yet, sadly, most wouldn't recognise EliYah today despite his name meaning 'My El is Yahweh'.

 

[cataway]

Hi Cataway. Good afternoon. Why is it that Jehovah Witnesses always claim that Yahweh is the same as Jehovah, but no-one who uses the name Yahweh will say the same? The following is a quote from the New World Bible Translation Committee of the Jehovah Witnesses "While inclining to view the pronunciation Yahweh as the more correct way, we have retained the form 'Jehovah' because of the people's familiarity with it since the 14th century. Moreover, it preserves equally with other forms the four letters of the Tetragrammaton JHVH". Jehovah Witnesses are sadly in false doctrine.

In terms of using the letter Y instead of J, the pronunciation should be the same in names where the abbreviated form Yah appears such as IsaYah, JeremeYah, ZephanYah etc but we just use the common spellings. Although many people don't realise they have been using the Sacred Name all their life in the names of these prophets.

had some fun with this
https://translated.com

 

[firedragon]

if you dont like Elohim then maybe Elohʹah should be used when speaking of the one single God acting as or by him self . Elohim, God using his forces( angels) to accomplish the things El or ha·ʼElʹ ,wants done .?

Bro. Seriously, this is the worst nonsense i have heard in my life.
Cheers. Have a great day.

 

[firedragon]

Hi firedragon. Good afternoon. It isn't nonsensical at all. Elohim holds the definition of Mighty One or Mighty Ones. You might recall Genesis 1:26 where the Almighty Heavenly Father says "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness". The plural pronouns used are not an error in the text, but reveal the plural unity of the Creator. You can read Genesis 1 and the name Yahweh doesn't appear there, but Elohim does.

Nope. Wrong.

Pluralis Majestatis. It's singular.

 

[Soapy]

Rather than writing extra long exegesis, can you tell me the difference between Small Gods and Big Gods?

Like small master and big master. Adone.

Elohim usage.

’God’ is a title for a deity, or great person who excels above all others in a context or authority. It refers also to one who is a ruler, an all encompassing entity in context whether real (physical) or mindful (spiritual). The Christian, Jewish, Muslim deity is all encompassing in all contexts - both physical and spiritual.

‘small god and Big God’... that’s a stupid question. ‘Ruler’ requires no capitalision, neither does, ‘Great One’, We capitalise only for our own emphasis.

‘God’ and ‘god’, or ‘GOD’, are identical. The emphasis is only to differentiate the Jewish , Christian, and Muslim deity who is a spirit Being of our belief, from deities that are false deities of any kind which we call pagan deities.

The issue of writing or saying, ‘God’ (J/C/M) is simply because some person or persons of some society of some sort decided that for some known reason it is not appropriate to speak or write the name of our deity: ‘YHWH’ (Muslims call him, ‘Allah’ but the specific name matters not so much except on a specific debate point not discussed here!)

So, no difference between, ‘GOD’, ‘God’, and ‘God’, except to denote that we are referring to:

1. The Christian / Muslim / Jewish deity (‘GOD’ and ‘God’): ‘YJWH’
2. Non C/M/J deities (‘god’): Baal, Ashtoreth, Dagon, ...money, power, greed/avarice, sin, etc.

 

[Misty Woods]

The trinity is in the belief that the father, the son and the holy spirit are one person. God. Even if it was 10 different entities it is still the one God. Thus, does that mean it's monotheism? Lets not mix this up with idolatry as many Muslims would because this question is not from an Islamic perspective but purely from Aqal or reason where if you take the Quran, have you questioned if it actually makes the trinity polytheism?

Also if one believes that Paul was a believer in the trinity as we perceive now, he also made a distinction in his usage of idolatry. For him idolatry is another sin and depicts an image worship.

Others would argue that its not monotheism because there are several entities. Though it is one God there are actually three different entities thus it becomes polytheism.

What do you perceive?

WHY, for thousands of years, did none of God’s prophets teach his people about the Trinity? At the latest, would Jesus not use his ability as the Great Teacher to make the Trinity clear to his followers? Would God inspire hundreds of pages of Scripture and yet not use any of this instruction to teach the Trinity if it were the “central doctrine” of faith?

Are Christians to believe that centuries after Christ and after having inspired the writing of the Bible, God would back the formulation of a doctrine that was unknown to his servants for thousands of years, one that is an “inscrutable mystery” “beyond the grasp of human reason,” one that admittedly had a pagan background and was “largely a matter of church politics”?

The testimony of history is clear: The Trinity teaching is a deviation from the truth, an apostatizing from it.

‘Fourth century Trinitarianism was a deviation from early Christian teaching.’—The Encyclopedia Americana

Many centuries before the time of Christ, there were triads, or trinities, of gods in ancient Babylonia and Assyria. The French “Larousse Encyclopedia of Mythology” notes one such triad in that Mesopotamian area: “The universe was divided into three regions each of which became the domain of a god. Anu’s share was the sky. The earth was given to Enlil. Ea became the ruler of the waters. Together they constituted the triad of the Great Gods.”

The book “The Symbolism of Hindu Gods and Rituals” says regarding a Hindu trinity that existed centuries before Christ: “Siva is one of the gods of the Trinity. He is said to be the god of destruction. The other two gods are Brahma, the god of creation and Vishnu, the god of maintenance. . . . To indicate that these three processes are one and the same the three gods are combined in one form.”—Published by A. Parthasarathy, Bombay.

In the fourth century C.E., the apostasy foretold by Jesus and the apostles came into full bloom. Development of the Trinity was just one evidence of this. The apostate churches also began embracing other pagan ideas, such as hellfire, immortality of the soul, and idolatry. Spiritually speaking, Christendom had entered its foretold dark ages, dominated by a growing “man of lawlessness” clergy class…….2Thessalonians 2:3,7-12 “Let no one lead you astray in any way, because it will not come unless the apostasy comes first and the man of lawlessness gets revealed, the son of destruction……. True, the mystery of this lawlessness is already at work, but only until the one who is right now acting as a restraint is out of the way. Then, indeed, the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will do away with by the spirit of his mouth and bring to nothing by the manifestation of his presence. But the lawless one’s presence is by the operation of Satan with every powerful work and lying signs and wonders and every unrighteous deception for those who are perishing, as a retribution because they did not accept the love of the truth in order that they might be saved. That is why God lets a deluding influence mislead them so that they may come to believe the lie, in order that they all may be judged because they did not believe the truth but took pleasure in unrighteousness”.

 

[Terry Sampson]

The testimony of history is clear: The Trinity teaching is a deviation from the truth, an apostatizing from it.

Ya think so, kiddo? You seem ready, willing, and able to identify apostates. Allow me to introduce you to a couple that I have known, and let's see if doing so modifies your "apostate" detector somewhat.

• I am a Sampson by adoption. Mayfield was my bio-mother's husband's surname. My name, during my first 3 months, was John Sterling Mayfield. From 3 months of age until just before my 12th birthday, my name was Terry Lee Montgomery; Since the age of 12, I have been Terry Montgomery Sampson.
• Of the nine most important people in my life, i.e. the people who loved me most, eight are dead; my wife remains with me. Of the eight, all believed in the Trinity and trusted in Jesus' promises, and none of the nine were/are biologically related to me.
• My biological parents were married, ... but not to each other. Unable to satisfy my infant needs, my bio-mom took me to my bio-father's house when I was 3 months old, and said: "I can't take care of him; you take him"; and walked out. That was the first time my stepmother and I met, ... the day that she discovered that my bio-father had been unfaithful. She was a 61-year old, Deaf woman and had been Deaf since birth or infancy, and had probably the equivalent of a 3rd or 4th grade Deaf School education. She rescued me and changed the course that my life would have taken in a profound way. In fact, if it weren't for her, and a handful of others like her, I literally wouldn't be Terry Sampson, married, blessed, and living in Los Angeles today. I'd be John Sterling Mayfield, most likely miserable, alcoholic, dead and buried in Oklahoma. How did that happen? The Jesus she read about in the Scripture was sufficient for her. She took me in and raised me until just before my 12th birthday. [My parents and step-parents were Deaf. My first language was American Sign Language.]
• Around my 11th birthday, Oklahoma State Department of Social Services took an interest in me and concerns were raised over the fitness of an elderly deaf woman to be a young, hearing boy's guardian. As time went on, the State authorities decided that for my good, I should be removed from the home and placed with a foster family consisting of hearing people who could support my development in spoken English. My stepmother, fearing that I would be placed in a non-Christian home, went to her pastor and told him that she wanted him to take me.
• The Lutheran pastor and his wife took me in, with my consent. The Sampsons had five biological kids (three sons and two daughters), ranging from 5 to 12. I'm the only one they adopted.
• All of the people important to me are important because they did things and made sacrifices for me personally that I did not ask for but which saved me from a worse fate. In summary, I have been the beneficiary from the age of 3 months of people who were not perfect but who did extraordinary things because they believed what they believed: and all believed in the Trinity. Of those people, only the preacher and one other person had a college-level education.

 

[cataway]

Bro. Seriously, this is the worst nonsense i have heard in my life.
Cheers. Have a great day.

well gee .if you don't like it it must be right

 

[Soapy]

Just as the bus rounded the crest of the hill and began its descent on the narrow, winding road, the brakes failed. The bus went flying off the road and plummeted to the rocky ravine three hundred feet below.

That’s funny... I know what you mean.... ha ha ha...!

 

[Soapy]

You're going to have to find a playmate some where else, I ain't playing your game with you. You don't have any toy that I'm interested in or need.

• Jews and Muslims share the same "God-concept" but do not worship the same God.
• Jews' God has a name and many titles. The name of the muslims' God is "Allah", which is arabic for "God".
  
• Yhwh is not shy about calling Jews His children. Show me where Allah calls any human, or angel, for that matter, "son".
• Jews and Christians worship the same God, but do not share the same "God-concept". Jews and Christians know Him to be their Father.
• Christians and Muslims do not worship the same God nor do they share the same "God-concept".

You hang your hat on the premise that "God" simply means "RULER", but you wrote your own dictionary. "God" doesn't mean "Ruler" in my dictionary, ... or in Wikipedia, neither.
God (word) - Wikipedia

• The English word god continues the Old English god (guþ, gudis in Gothic, guð in Old Norse, god in Frisian and Dutch, and Gott in modern German), which is derived from Proto-Germanic *ǥuđán.
• The Proto-Germanic meaning of *ǥuđán and its etymology is uncertain. It is generally agreed that it derives from a Proto-Indo-European neuter passive perfect participle *ǵʰu-tó-m. This is similar to Persian word for God, Khudan. This form within (late) Proto-Indo-European itself was possibly ambiguous, and thought to derive from a root *ǵʰeu̯- "to pour, libate" (the idea survives in the Dutch word, 'Giet', meaning, to pour) (Sanskrit huta, see hotṛ), or from a root *ǵʰau̯- (*ǵʰeu̯h2-) "to call, to invoke" (Sanskrit hūta). Sanskrit hutá = "having been sacrificed", from the verb root hu = "sacrifice", but a slight shift in translation gives the meaning "one to whom sacrifices are made."
  
  Depending on which possibility is preferred, the pre-Christian meaning of the Germanic term may either have been (in the "pouring" case) "libation" or "that which is libated upon, idol" — or, as Watkins[1] opines in the light of Greek χυτη γαια "poured earth" meaning "tumulus", "the Germanic form may have referred in the first instance to the spirit immanent in a burial mound" — or (in the "invoke" case) "invocation, prayer" (compare the meanings of Sanskrit brahman) or "that which is invoked".
• The word God was used to represent Greek Theos and Latin Deus in Bible translations, first in the Gothic translation of the New Testament by Ulfilas. For the etymology of deus, see *dyēus.
  
  Greek "θεός " (theos) means god in English. It is often connected with Greek "θέω" (theō), "run", and "θεωρέω" (theoreō), "to look at, to see, to observe",[7][8] Latin feriae "holidays", fanum "temple", and also Armenian di-k` "gods". Alternative suggestions (e.g. by De Saussure) connect *dhu̯es- "smoke, spirit", attested in Baltic and Germanic words for "spook" and ultimately cognate with Latin fumus "smoke." The earliest attested form of the word is the Mycenaean Greek te-o[9] (plural te-o-i[10]), written in Linear B syllabic script.

"We" who?

Sez you. On what authority? If you're your own authority, why should I take your word for what you say?

We do not need ‘Dictionary definition’ to state what we believe. Dictionaries are not required to understand the scriptures per se because it is what we believe as an ideology that counts.

What is ‘Word’, then... Jesus was ‘word’ of God. What does that mean then.

The belief of ‘word’ is that Jesus Christ was a human being born in supernatural circumstances and was pure, holy, and sinless, and taught, not by human teachers, but by the spirit Father we call “YHWH”. What Jesus was taught to do and say by said Father, he did exactly as was taught. Jesus therefore is justified to be called ‘word of the Father’ and also ‘Son of the Father’... both meanings are exactly alike.

An emissary in one place, taught by a king, sent to another place, or to other people, speaks and does exactly what the king directed him to do and say, is the very word of the king... the emissary is not the king but the “son of the king”. He is “Prince”... but note that this “Son” and this “prince” is NOT an procreated offspring of the king but “One Chosen By The King”. That emissary has been chosen, he is set aside, anointed, from among many because he pisses the qualities desired by the king to do as the king desires:

• “Behold my Servant, my beloved, whom I have chosen. I will put my spirit on him (anoint him), and he will perform all that I desire and bring justice to the nations”. (Isaiah 42:1)

It’s weird that people all over the world cannot see the parallel in the prophesies yet claim decades of scholarship learning... oh well, scriptures has to be true of which is written:

• “God will send them a spirit of confusion such that they will believe the lie” (2 Thess 2:11)

And good things are done by people of every denomination of religious belief... even pagans do good to each other. It is wonderful that doing good does not come simply from a belief system. It comes from the basic aspect of humanity in that Adam was image of God and compassion, love, respect, wisdom, mercy, kindness and righteousness are ingrained in all of us - even those who claim heretical views of him who they are image of in limited ways!

A cartoon figure in a computer system - how does it view its creator... what name does it give the one who gave it animation life in the computer system?

It’s free algorithm allows it to sense its 2-dimensional environment and a virtual 3-dimension... but it’s creator could show it a 4th dimension and blows its coded mind. It calls its creator: ‘Avatar’.

 

[firedragon]

’God’ is a title for a deity, or great person who excels above all others in a context or authority. It refers also to one who is a ruler, an all encompassing entity in context whether real (physical) or mindful (spiritual). The Christian, Jewish, Muslim deity is all encompassing in all contexts - both physical and spiritual.

‘small god and Big God’... that’s a stupid question. ‘Ruler’ requires no capitalision, neither does, ‘Great One’, We capitalise only for our own emphasis.

‘God’ and ‘god’, or ‘GOD’, are identical. The emphasis is only to differentiate the Jewish , Christian, and Muslim deity who is a spirit Being of our belief, from deities that are false deities of any kind which we call pagan deities.

The issue of writing or saying, ‘God’ (J/C/M) is simply because some person or persons of some society of some sort decided that for some known reason it is not appropriate to speak or write the name of our deity: ‘YHWH’ (Muslims call him, ‘Allah’ but the specific name matters not so much except on a specific debate point not discussed here!)

So, no difference between, ‘GOD’, ‘God’, and ‘God’, except to denote that we are referring to:

1. The Christian / Muslim / Jewish deity (‘GOD’ and ‘God’): ‘YJWH’
2. Non C/M/J deities (‘god’): Baal, Ashtoreth, Dagon, ...money, power, greed/avarice, sin, etc.

You dont know the Bible. You are absolutely wrong, nonsensical, and just egoistic. Nothing more, nothing less.

There are enough big gods and small gods, big masters and small masters. All of them does not mean God. You should understand rather than be so egoistic. It clouds your brain prowess. Ego.

Just because you have no education in a matter someone asks about dont say "It stupid question".

I will give you an example.

What does "Christian" mean? I mean the word, not some theological exegesis. Simple one sentence answer.

 

[firedragon]

WHY, for thousands of years, did none of God’s prophets teach his people about the Trinity? At the latest, would Jesus not use his ability as the Great Teacher to make the Trinity clear to his followers? Would God inspire hundreds of pages of Scripture and yet not use any of this instruction to teach the Trinity if it were the “central doctrine” of faith?

Are Christians to believe that centuries after Christ and after having inspired the writing of the Bible, God would back the formulation of a doctrine that was unknown to his servants for thousands of years, one that is an “inscrutable mystery” “beyond the grasp of human reason,” one that admittedly had a pagan background and was “largely a matter of church politics”?

The testimony of history is clear: The Trinity teaching is a deviation from the truth, an apostatizing from it.

‘Fourth century Trinitarianism was a deviation from early Christian teaching.’—The Encyclopedia Americana

Many centuries before the time of Christ, there were triads, or trinities, of gods in ancient Babylonia and Assyria. The French “Larousse Encyclopedia of Mythology” notes one such triad in that Mesopotamian area: “The universe was divided into three regions each of which became the domain of a god. Anu’s share was the sky. The earth was given to Enlil. Ea became the ruler of the waters. Together they constituted the triad of the Great Gods.”

The book “The Symbolism of Hindu Gods and Rituals” says regarding a Hindu trinity that existed centuries before Christ: “Siva is one of the gods of the Trinity. He is said to be the god of destruction. The other two gods are Brahma, the god of creation and Vishnu, the god of maintenance. . . . To indicate that these three processes are one and the same the three gods are combined in one form.”—Published by A. Parthasarathy, Bombay.

In the fourth century C.E., the apostasy foretold by Jesus and the apostles came into full bloom. Development of the Trinity was just one evidence of this. The apostate churches also began embracing other pagan ideas, such as hellfire, immortality of the soul, and idolatry. Spiritually speaking, Christendom had entered its foretold dark ages, dominated by a growing “man of lawlessness” clergy class…….2Thessalonians 2:3,7-12 “Let no one lead you astray in any way, because it will not come unless the apostasy comes first and the man of lawlessness gets revealed, the son of destruction……. True, the mystery of this lawlessness is already at work, but only until the one who is right now acting as a restraint is out of the way. Then, indeed, the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will do away with by the spirit of his mouth and bring to nothing by the manifestation of his presence. But the lawless one’s presence is by the operation of Satan with every powerful work and lying signs and wonders and every unrighteous deception for those who are perishing, as a retribution because they did not accept the love of the truth in order that they might be saved. That is why God lets a deluding influence mislead them so that they may come to believe the lie, in order that they all may be judged because they did not believe the truth but took pleasure in unrighteousness”.

The OP is asking a specific question. Thanks, you make sense but its not relevant to the OP. Yet, this thread like any other has been derailed by some people who have no capacity to understand relevance. So i suppose its all good.

But if you think that the concept of the trinity was developed in the 4th century you and whoever taught you this historically non-factual.

 

[firedragon]

well gee .if you don't like it it must be right

Not really. Its plain wrong and seem like your personal ideas you are trying to superimpose on books.

 

[dfnj]

You dont know the Bible. You are absolutely wrong, nonsensical, and just egoistic. Nothing more, nothing less.

There are enough big gods and small gods, big masters and small masters. All of them does not mean God. You should understand rather than be so egoistic. It clouds your brain prowess. Ego.

Just because you have no education in a matter someone asks about dont say "It stupid question".

I will give you an example.

What does "Christian" mean? I mean the word, not some theological exegesis. Simple one sentence answer.

You don't have to deal with the money changers at the temple in order to achieve salvation.