The trinity debate - Is it monotheism?

[cataway]

I asked for the meaning of the word, not how it came about or what it represents.

oh gee go ahead open your box

 

[Terry Sampson]

I asked for the meaning of the word, not how it came about or what it represents.

LOL! check out HOYLE’S LAW -A story
and tell me what you think. I think Hoyle's law explains a lot of what's happened in this thread.

 

[sojourner]

others have said its three in one . i do wish you guy's could get your story straight on what that trinity thing is

If you’d take the time to read the doctrine for yourself, then you’d know.

 

[sojourner]

Why are these definitions not sufficient to bring this none ending debate to a close?

Because the definitions provided don’t accurately represent the doctrine.

 

[Soapy]

I asked for the meaning of the word, not how it came about or what it represents.

I don’t care for the ‘meaning’ of a made up word... it has no relevance what the name of a group of believers is made up from. It is completely nonsense as to its believers.

Imagine a religious meaning of ‘Jehovah’s Witnesses’... it has no relevance to any truth as to that it’s members are actual ‘witness of Jehovah’. It’s just something a person or committee made decided sounded worthy. Almighty God did not call them the form a group and call it so.

And do also, Christian’, if is the same... it’s just a name that suggests that these people follow the teachings of Christ... and Christ just means ‘Anointed One’.

For me, it sounds like you are thrashing around. You cannot believe the truth that you are hearing from me and must try some devilish con trick: If you can’t argue against the truth, try dropping in some foolishness.

Cataway just said it’s a Roman made up name for followers of Jesus Christ... two of us saying the same thing to you. I really don’t see why you cannot accept the meaning... I included TWO THINGS IN ONE because you said I had to use JUST ONE SENTENCE! It was quite a feat to do so as you asked but I’m proud that I did.

And now that you have received the answer to both the origin and the scriptural meanings, what was your purpose in asking this question other than just to draw the thread away from the fact that you had nothing to say against what I wrote?

 

[Soapy]

If you’d take the time to read the doctrine for yourself, then you’d know.

What is going on is that questions are being asked as to a made up belief that has no justification. It’s like demanding answers to whether there are female dwarves in Middle Earth in ‘Lord of the Rings’.... it’s made up...!!! Tolkien, the author, just forgot to mention female dwarves in the prior book, ‘The Hobbit’.

The overall reason that trinity is so controversial is that because it is made up ideology everyone can insinuate what this of that may mean and how things came about. Since there’s nothing to substantiate the truth any answer can claim to be true according to the mindset of the reader.

For instance, where did the Son come from.... it is clear that ‘Son’ is not on the same level as Father YET trinity claims he is... that cannot be true - and so all manner of so-called justifications are invented ... none of them fits a truth or us in any way realistic. The trinitarian thus resorts to claiming that anyone who doesn’t understand the nonsense must be lacking understanding... tish...tish!!! And so, the churches that support the nonsense express that:

• ‘God is a mystery’
• ‘God is incomprehensible’

Wow... and if you don’t believe the nonsense then your life is forfeit.. you will be killed or you are excommunicated. And, in societies where the church is the central part of society, not believing the nonsense of trinity is a dangerous state so the mass majority of people believe because of the threat to their life!!!

And yet Jesus Christ stated that he had come and given ‘them the word you gave to me to give to them and that they had received it (accepted it).’ Thus, God is known to us... it is more the case that if we do not believe that God is the Father and that Jesus is the Lord then you are not CHRISTIAN (follower of Jesus Christ).

Now, mention the group, ‘Christian’... I say again, it matters not what the name of the group is... it is irrelevant but only because we need a human name. After all, Almighty God did not have a name until the Israelites demands a name to differentiate him from other gods of the pagans that they lived among. To wit: if you only have one God, what is the need for a name... just say ‘God’... and to say to others, say, ‘our God’, but that’s cumbersome, so give him a name instead, ‘YHWH’!!

In the UK, it is a rare thing to say, ‘Elizabeth’, for the name of the queen. We just say The Queen. And if we are speaking of Monarchs of Europe, we say, ‘our queen’. There is ABSOLUTELY NO NEED to say that we have ‘One Queen’, we simply say, ‘our queen’.

But here is a revelation: For me, the true belieber is Jesus Christ as Lord and The Father as God, Alone, HAS NO NAME. You will see that Jesus says that:

• ‘In time to come, and the time is now, you will worship the Father neither on the mountain nor in Jerusalem but in Spirit and in truth’

What do you read? We do not need a ‘group name’ nor a ‘group place’ to worship THE Father.
True believers are not known by a group name... so ‘Christian’, whether claimed god-given or roman made up, is irrelevant as to whether a person believes in the True and Only God, the Father, and in the only Lord, Jesus Christ.

 

[Soapy]

Because the definitions provided don’t accurately represent the doctrine.

Yes, that is true... and true because the trinity cannot be defined as it is a shifting sands belief. Yes, thank you!

Truth is one thing... a ‘truth’ that keeps being redefined cannot be Truth.

 

[Soapy]

If you’d take the time to read the doctrine for yourself, then you’d know.

What is being asked is to believe in the made up doctrine.

What is being asked to believe is in the doctrine of trinity... as NOT found in the common scriptures. Trinity is not found in the common scriptures but the question says:

‘For those who believe it is found there, you must believe that it is there’.

So, you are asking non-believers in trinity to believe in trinity... no sir, you cannot do do.

What I say is that no trinity is found in the common scriptures and so any discussion claiming that it is found there is pointless - except to debate the claim... hence you see I do not ‘discuss’ the trinity but always, debate it.

 

[sojourner]

What is going on is that questions are being asked as to a made up belief that has no justification. It’s like demanding answers to whether there are female dwarves in Middle Earth in ‘Lord of the Rings’.... it’s made up...!!! Tolkien, the author, just forgot to mention female dwarves in the prior book, ‘The Hobbit’.

The overall reason that trinity is so controversial is that because it is made up ideology everyone can insinuate what this of that may mean and how things came about. Since there’s nothing to substantiate the truth any answer can claim to be true according to the mindset of the reader.

For instance, where did the Son come from.... it is clear that ‘Son’ is not on the same level as Father YET trinity claims he is... that cannot be true - and so all manner of so-called justifications are invented ... none of them fits a truth or us in any way realistic. The trinitarian thus resorts to claiming that anyone who doesn’t understand the nonsense must be lacking understanding... tish...tish!!! And so, the churches that support the nonsense express that:

• ‘God is a mystery’
• ‘God is incomprehensible’

Wow... and if you don’t believe the nonsense then your life is forfeit.. you will be killed or you are excommunicated. And, in societies where the church is the central part of society, not believing the nonsense of trinity is a dangerous state so the mass majority of people believe because of the threat to their life!!!

And yet Jesus Christ stated that he had come and given ‘them the word you gave to me to give to them and that they had received it (accepted it).’ Thus, God is known to us... it is more the case that if we do not believe that God is the Father and that Jesus is the Lord then you are not CHRISTIAN (follower of Jesus Christ).

Now, mention the group, ‘Christian’... I say again, it matters not what the name of the group is... it is irrelevant but only because we need a human name. After all, Almighty God did not have a name until the Israelites demands a name to differentiate him from other gods of the pagans that they lived among. To wit: if you only have one God, what is the need for a name... just say ‘God’... and to say to others, say, ‘our God’, but that’s cumbersome, so give him a name instead, ‘YHWH’!!

In the UK, it is a rare thing to say, ‘Elizabeth’, for the name of the queen. We just say The Queen. And if we are speaking of Monarchs of Europe, we say, ‘our queen’. There is ABSOLUTELY NO NEED to say that we have ‘One Queen’, we simply say, ‘our queen’.

But here is a revelation: For me, the true belieber is Jesus Christ as Lord and The Father as God, Alone, HAS NO NAME. You will see that Jesus says that:

• ‘In time to come, and the time is now, you will worship the Father neither on the mountain nor in Jerusalem but in Spirit and in truth’

What do you read? We do not need a ‘group name’ nor a ‘group place’ to worship THE Father.
True believers are not known by a group name... so ‘Christian’, whether claimed god-given or roman made up, is irrelevant as to whether a person believes in the True and Only God, the Father, and in the only Lord, Jesus Christ.

None of this addresses my post. Your diatribe is all over the place. Church name, place of worship, God’s name — none of it has the slightest thing to do with the doctrine of the Trinity. In fact, if you’re from the UK, there’s a perfectly good church (C of E) that I know for a fact doesn’t excommunicate members for not espousing the doctrine. Sounds to me as if you’re just on about the RCC and anything remotely to do with it.

 

[sojourner]

Yes, that is true... and true because the trinity cannot be defined as it is a shifting sands belief. Yes, thank you!

Truth is one thing... a ‘truth’ that keeps being redefined cannot be Truth.

No, it isn’t! There’s a bona fide doctrine — written out and everything. The doctrine, itself, is the definition. If you’d read it, you’d know what it really says, instead of coming up with all these straw man arguments. I don’t care what you believe— Trinity, no Trinity — whatever. My problem is with you misrepresenting the doctrine and then knocking it. At least do us the favor of presenting a real argument for your beliefs, instead of falsifying something else.

 

[sojourner]

What is being asked is to believe in the made up doctrine

ALL doctrine is “made up” — that is, contrived, based on BOTH scripture and Tradition (apostolic teaching). I don’t ask that you believe it, I just ask that you not misrepresent it.

What I say is that no trinity is found in the common scriptures

The elements are found in both scripture and apostolic teaching. The Bible tells us flat out to continue in the apostles’ teaching. The doctrine is apostolic teaching.

 

[cataway]

ALL doctrine is “made up” — that is, contrived, based on BOTH scripture and Tradition (apostolic teaching). I don’t ask that you believe it, I just ask that you not misrepresent it.


The elements are found in both scripture and apostolic teaching. The Bible tells us flat out to continue in the apostles’ teachinof g. The doctrine is apostolic teaching.

''all doctrine is made up'' is fine example of what you are spewing at us . you can not prove there is a trinity .all you have are words that you have taken out of context . that perhaps can take the un-aware and lead them into the pit . we, are ,on ,to ,you .

 

[firedragon]

I don’t care for the ‘meaning’ of a made up word... it has no relevance what the name of a group of believers is made up from. It is completely nonsense as to its believers.

Imagine a religious meaning of ‘Jehovah’s Witnesses’... it has no relevance to any truth as to that it’s members are actual ‘witness of Jehovah’. It’s just something a person or committee made decided sounded worthy. Almighty God did not call them the form a group and call it so.

And do also, Christian’, if is the same... it’s just a name that suggests that these people follow the teachings of Christ... and Christ just means ‘Anointed One’.

For me, it sounds like you are thrashing around. You cannot believe the truth that you are hearing from me and must try some devilish con trick: If you can’t argue against the truth, try dropping in some foolishness.

Cataway just said it’s a Roman made up name for followers of Jesus Christ... two of us saying the same thing to you. I really don’t see why you cannot accept the meaning... I included TWO THINGS IN ONE because you said I had to use JUST ONE SENTENCE! It was quite a feat to do so as you asked but I’m proud that I did.

And now that you have received the answer to both the origin and the scriptural meanings, what was your purpose in asking this question other than just to draw the thread away from the fact that you had nothing to say against what I wrote?

You couldnt get it in 3 attempts, and now you dont care.

Sour grapes.

 

[Soapy]

What verse in which book are you referring to?

John 10:33-36.

Note also that Jesus says that he was consecrated by God... be assured that God does not consecrate himself... and consecrated means:

• Set Aside
• Anoint
• Choose as King, and/or Priesthood

This is a fulfilment of Isaiah 42:1:

• “Here is my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen one in whom I delight; I will put my Spirit on him, and he will bring justice to the nations.”

And “This is my Son in whom I am well pleased”

 

[Soapy]

''all doctrine is made up'' is fine example of what you are spewing at us . you can not prove there is a trinity .all you have are words that you have taken out of context . that perhaps can take the un-aware and lead them into the pit . we, are ,on ,to ,you .

Ha ha ha... you are funny... I am not trying to prove a trinity....!!!

I think you are just a joker in this pack of posters on this forum.

You are here to act as a Satan and stir up activity did the forum site. Perhaps paid per post!

You make no attempt to understand what is being said and even accuse [me] of saying things that it’s clear I did not say.

 

[Soapy]

You couldnt get it in 3 attempts, and now you dont care.

Sour grapes.

What is going on... Coronavirus has invaded the forum and the weak and vulnerable have contracted it.

What do you mean ‘Sour Grapes’? What have I said that is ‘Sour Grapes’?

You ask me to say what ‘Christian’ is and I have you my definition... you reject it.

I add further to it and draw on Cataway’s input to support what I said... and you reject that also!

Yet, up till now you don’t offer anything of what you think the answer to your own question is so we can compare!! That’s unfair!

 

[Soapy]

I asked for the meaning of the word, not how it came about or what it represents.

What is the meaning of the word, ‘Christian’?

 

[Soapy]

I believe a proceeding suggests a process. There is no process. It is bang, you have the Holy Spirit.

I believe God is one so when you receive the Holy Spirit, you have the Father and Son as well. So the Holy Spirit does not come from God but He is God.

‘Proceeding’ and ‘Sent’ are not the same.

A Proceeding is self motivated
A Sending is Process generated

The Holy Spirit proceeds by its own initiative from God, from the Father.

The Holy Spirit is SENT by God, by the Father, UPON Jesus:

• “Here is my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen one in whom I delight; I will put my Spirit on him, and he will bring justice to the nations. (Isaiah 42:1)

But the Father SENDS his Holy Spirit TO the Apostles...:

• “I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high." (Luke 24:49)
• “On one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this command: "Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about.” (Acts1:4)

Much has been spoken and conversed concerning Jesus ‘Sending’ the Holy Spirit. Note from Jesus’ own words that he, HIMSELF, did not SEND the Holy Spirit but that it was a GIFT FROM THE FATHER. Jesus also said that the Holy Spirit (the comforter, the Advocator) ‘Cannot Come’ unless he first went to Heaven. But notice also these great things:

• Who is never SENT? The Father
• Who Sends? The Father
• Who is never seen? The Father
• Who is always almighty, never inferior? The Father

Oh! You are shocked by the last statement...? Consider this though:

• Jesus was made, ‘a little lower than the angels (for a little while)’
• Jesus descended into the pit (he died)
• Jesus was MADE to be ‘Lord and Christ’ BY the Father
• The Holy Spirit is SENT (No superior is SENT anywhere!!)
• The Holy Spirit “takes from what is Jesus’ and gives it to the Apostles” (If the Holy Spirit is Almighty God, how is it lacking such that it takes from another - of which you say it is a co-equal whole!! That’s an impossibility!)

Now, trinitarian believers, how is an ALMIGHTY GOD (your trinity Holy Spirit) given as a GIFT to humanity... sent, like a servant, a slave, to the creation of the almighty God? This is a very strange GOD that you build for yourself!!

 

[Soapy]

No, it isn’t! There’s a bona fide doctrine — written out and everything. The doctrine, itself, is the definition. If you’d read it, you’d know what it really says, instead of coming up with all these straw man arguments. I don’t care what you believe— Trinity, no Trinity — whatever. My problem is with you misrepresenting the doctrine and then knocking it. At least do us the favor of presenting a real argument for your beliefs, instead of falsifying something else.

The trinity doctrine misrepresents itself. No need for external input on that.

 

[firedragon]

What is the meaning of the word, ‘Christian’?

Finally, you got the humility to just ask. It means little christ.