The trinity debate - Is it monotheism?

[Soapy]

You’ve managed to misrepresent the doctrine. “God” isn’t a “wrapper element” for the three.

.............. [‘God’]
............... ——
............... /. | .. \
............. / .. | . .. \
. . . . . . /. ... |. . . . \
.. .. Father. Son. Holy Spirit

Do you agree that this represents your trinity:

• Three persons in one ‘God’?
• Three persons as one ‘God‘?

‘God’, therefore is a WRAPPER element for the three persons.

Moreover, trinity defines their ‘God’ as:

1. ‘Essence and Nature’
2. ‘Of which the three persons SHARE CO-EQUALLY!!
3. One OFFICE in which the three are CO-RULERS

Of course, we know that none of those three claims are even remotely true because Trinity also says:

• There is a RANK ORDER with:
  • the Father as First and CREATOR
  • the Son as SECOND and SUSTAINER
  • the Holy Spirit as LAST and Helper

How is co-equality RANKED?

How is trinity defining the Father as Creator yet claiming that in fact it was the Son who did the creating?

We know and agree that ‘Father’ means:

• He that Creates
• He that brings into being
• He that gives life to
• He that is head

How are any of these definitions ascribed to the Son, Son, which means:

• He who does what the Father directs him to do

As scriptures also says:

• All who follow the Spirit [of the Father] are Sons of the Father

And Jesus says:

• I only said I am the Son of God - If I am not doing the works of my Father then do not believe that I am he (The messiah)

Jesus defines what ‘Son’ means. He also defines ‘God’ as ‘the Father’ (His spiritual Father, because he also said some of the Jews were ‘Sons of Satan’ which clearly does not mean ‘Procreated offspring’)

 

[Muffled]

Why?

I believe there are lots of problems with it. I believe you could throw a bunch of timbers on the ground a zillion times and it would not build a house. The equivalent is the genetic makeup of living beings. All kinds of information is carried about growth, aging, reproduction, and characteristics (eye color) etc. In fact reproduction alone is a major miracle. Stones do not reproduce.

 

[Muffled]

False. The Trinity is a doctrine that specifies God as available in three Persons.


the Greek terms used in the doctrine just don't translate very well to English. That difficulty makes for muddy logic in arguments. If you're going to unpack the doctrine, best to do it in Greek.

But here's the thing about the Trinity: The doctrine is hard to make sense of, because the concept is hard to make sense of. And the concept is hard to make sense of, because God is hard to make sense of. We cannot fully understand God. It makes sense that language and concepts we use to describe God would reflect that inability.

I believe his statement and yours are both true. Your statement does not negate his.

I don't believe I have any problem but I am aware that many do because they don't see things through the eyes of God.

 

[Muffled]

true. We cannot understand God.

But the words I used for trinity is not false. It’s different. But true. It’s one person represented by and in three. Three persons but one person. So if you are arguing that it’s not monotheism well that’s your point and fine.

nevertheless, since you say the trinity can only be explained in Greek could I hear your explanation in Koine Greek?

I believe therein lies the problem in that the English language has many different definitions of the word person including the one from the Trinity which is exclusively ecclesiastical.

 

[Soapy]

I believe therein lies the problem in that the English language has many different definitions of the word person including the one from the Trinity which is exclusively ecclesiastical.

I believe that it is the desire to see things in the wrong light that causes the problem with the word, ‘person’.

We, as humans, call each other, ‘People’. It distinguishes humans from animals. We are ALL humans, those of us from mankind made in the image of our everlasting Father, the Deity we call our God.

‘People’ is used to distinguish differences in general groups. Or ‘Person’, as People as an individual.

When we visualise our almighty God, we think of him as a human in an imperious position - we cannot think of him as the ‘Spirit’ that he is because we have no concept of how to view ‘Spirit’.

Angels are Spirits.. we cannot see them nor know their form... in fact, they are formless... a form has an enclosure (one definition of ‘Form’). Spirit is FORMLESS... un-embodied intelligence and power existing in a dimension beyond our conception. To show themselves, they form BODIES and clothe themselves in spiritually white garments to signify purity and sinlessness. Also, of course, to look like humans (males species).

We do not call angels, ‘People’, because they are spirit. And we must not compare them to ourselves... they are SERVANTS of God in full unadulterated service. We could call them something similar to human creations of ‘Robots’ - highly intelligent and powerful robots with high levels of autonomy but only set to achieve the task set to them by their creator: Almighty God.

‘People’, a nation of people... humans in groups of a like-mindedness, beliefs, and outlook.

So, though God is Spirit, we believe HE is our creator... so though Spirit, we visualise HIM as we do a human IN FORM... we speak of him as having eyes, hands, white beard, being ancient-looking, feet, tongue, mouth... etc.

Why do we call him a person? We have no other description that we can give him... We cannot pray to Spirit... we need visualisations... so we call HIM, a PERSON... but not of a human kind.

And yet there are those who, despite the definitions given, call him ‘God in flesh’... weird, or what? Jesus Christ: ‘God in flesh’.

But ‘Person’... who translated the bible? Did the translator struggle with spiritual concepts such that his only option was to personify the Spirit...

A cartoon character in a two dimensional video screen cannot behold the concept of a three dimensional world. Cannot perceive its creator. But when intelligence is given it to ‘imagine’ human beings... what word will it use to call us...
—— ‘Avatar’???

 

[firedragon]

I believe there are lots of problems with it. I believe you could throw a bunch of timbers on the ground a zillion times and it would not build a house. The equivalent is the genetic makeup of living beings. All kinds of information is carried about growth, aging, reproduction, and characteristics (eye color) etc. In fact reproduction alone is a major miracle. Stones do not reproduce.

Brother. Evolution is not life emerging from stones. Evolution does not get to the beginning of life. It only studies from after the emergence of life.

I get your point and agree. But that cannot negate evolution.

 

[Soapy]

Oops... has the thread changed from discussing:

• Trinity: Monotheism vs Polytheism

to:

• Evolution vs Creation

 

[firedragon]

Oops... has the thread changed from discussing:

• Trinity: Monotheism vs Polytheism

to:

• Evolution vs Creation

You started it. Haha.

Yes yes, we derail.

 

[Soapy]

You started it. Haha.

Yes yes, we derail.

Started it... not sure where you got that from .. it’s not a topic I deal with or have any specialisation in at all.

Anyway, has a decision been made yet as to whether trinity is monotheism or polytheism?

I say, despite the claims by its supporters, Trinity is clearly Polytheism because it expresses:

• Three Rulers

which is no different to several other pagan religions.

Trinity ATTEMPTS to cover its claim of being mono by stating an incomprehensible, improbable, and idealistic, claim that all three are the same ONE GOD.

The creators of this nonsense failed to realise in they’d desperation, that such a definition is actually only expressing an ‘umbrella group’ for the three rulers: a Club, a company, an organisation, of co-equal directors...!!

A simple question dispelled this claim:
- If all three are absolutely ALMIGHTY coequal and co-powerful and co-knowledgeable and in co-authority..., WHAT NEED IS THERE FOR TWO, let alone, THREE of them.

Then, to rub salt into the gaping wound of the nonsensicality, they go and define the members as RANKED... how can RANK be part of ALMIGHTY CO-everything!!!!

And then, they CLEARLY claim that the Son in that rank, is LESS THAN the FATHER, where FATHER, clearly is:

• ‘He who creates’
• ‘He who brings into being’
• ‘He who gives life to’
• ‘He who is Head’

At no time can this definition be applied to a co-anything ‘Son’, who by its OWN DEFINITION, is an OFFSPRING (real or spiritual) of the Father... therefore the Son was BROUGHT FORTH and GIVEN LIFE at some point from the Father (see def. of Father!)

I won’t even mention any fictional THIRD person. It doesn’t even arise in the Trinity Creed until many years AFTER trinity was endorsed by a couldn’t care less Roman emperor under the adoption of a Creed overseen by the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH.., (the ‘Roman’ in that title should give an idea that it wasn’t an endorsement by Jesus nor Almighty God... oooh, JESUS AND ALMIGHTY GOD!!)

 

[firedragon]

Started it... not sure where you got that from .. it’s not a topic I deal with or have any specialisation in at all.

Anyway, has a decision been made yet as to whether trinity is monotheism or polytheism?

I say, despite the claims by its supporters, Trinity is clearly Polytheism because it expresses:

• Three Rulers

which is no different to several other pagan religions.

Trinity ATTEMPTS to cover its claim of being mono by stating an incomprehensible, improbable, and idealistic, claim that all three are the same ONE GOD.

The creators of this nonsense failed to realise in they’d desperation, that such a definition is actually only expressing an ‘umbrella group’ for the three rulers: a Club, a company, an organisation, of co-equal directors...!!

A simple question dispelled this claim:
- If all three are absolutely ALMIGHTY coequal and co-powerful and co-knowledgeable and in co-authority..., WHAT NEED IS THERE FOR TWO, let alone, THREE of them.

Then, to rub salt into the gaping wound of the nonsensicality, they go and define the members as RANKED... how can RANK be part of ALMIGHTY CO-everything!!!!

And then, they CLEARLY claim that the Son in that rank, is LESS THAN the FATHER, where FATHER, clearly is:

• ‘He who creates’
• ‘He who brings into being’
• ‘He who gives life to’
• ‘He who is Head’

At no time can this definition be applied to a co-anything ‘Son’, who by its OWN DEFINITION, is an OFFSPRING (real or spiritual) of the Father... therefore the Son was BROUGHT FORTH and GIVEN LIFE at some point from the Father (see def. of Father!)

I won’t even mention any fictional THIRD person. It doesn’t even arise in the Trinity Creed until many years AFTER trinity was endorsed by a couldn’t care less Roman emperor under the adoption of a Creed overseen by the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH.., (the ‘Roman’ in that title should give an idea that it wasn’t an endorsement by Jesus nor Almighty God... oooh, JESUS AND ALMIGHTY GOD!!)

Great thanks. Peace.

 

[firedragon]

Started it... not sure where you got that from .. it’s not a topic I deal with or have any specialisation in at all.

Anyway, has a decision been made yet as to whether trinity is monotheism or polytheism?

I say, despite the claims by its supporters, Trinity is clearly Polytheism because it expresses:

• Three Rulers

which is no different to several other pagan religions.

Trinity ATTEMPTS to cover its claim of being mono by stating an incomprehensible, improbable, and idealistic, claim that all three are the same ONE GOD.

The creators of this nonsense failed to realise in they’d desperation, that such a definition is actually only expressing an ‘umbrella group’ for the three rulers: a Club, a company, an organisation, of co-equal directors...!!

A simple question dispelled this claim:
- If all three are absolutely ALMIGHTY coequal and co-powerful and co-knowledgeable and in co-authority..., WHAT NEED IS THERE FOR TWO, let alone, THREE of them.

Then, to rub salt into the gaping wound of the nonsensicality, they go and define the members as RANKED... how can RANK be part of ALMIGHTY CO-everything!!!!

And then, they CLEARLY claim that the Son in that rank, is LESS THAN the FATHER, where FATHER, clearly is:

• ‘He who creates’
• ‘He who brings into being’
• ‘He who gives life to’
• ‘He who is Head’

At no time can this definition be applied to a co-anything ‘Son’, who by its OWN DEFINITION, is an OFFSPRING (real or spiritual) of the Father... therefore the Son was BROUGHT FORTH and GIVEN LIFE at some point from the Father (see def. of Father!)

I won’t even mention any fictional THIRD person. It doesn’t even arise in the Trinity Creed until many years AFTER trinity was endorsed by a couldn’t care less Roman emperor under the adoption of a Creed overseen by the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH.., (the ‘Roman’ in that title should give an idea that it wasn’t an endorsement by Jesus nor Almighty God... oooh, JESUS AND ALMIGHTY GOD!!)

Brother. I was kidding.

and I don’t disagree with you with what you said.

 

[Soapy]

I believe there are some i this forum who, when they see a truth being written, will deliberately and purposefully ‘start a new strand’ within the thread to distract and push worthy posts out of sight so they are less likely to be read.

I fully understand that trinity cannot be broken until Jesus returns. Only yet king can cut off the head of the serpent... but at least we can wound it (and it is already very much wounded already! SEE the book of REVELATION).

The purpose of opposing trinity is to bring to mind the truth of the one true and only Almighty God, the Father, the one who’s name He gives us as ‘YHWH’.

To bring this to mind the REVELATION that
- our only God gave to Jesus ...
- and Jesus gave to John via an angel...
- and John gave to the ‘church’...
- concerning the things that must come to pass!

Now, for some strange unknown linguistical erroring... Trinitarians say that Jesus must be God because God gave Jesus the revelation!!!

The revelation is about GOD... Jesus came to reveal THE FATHER. What imagination does it take to show that the Father is that God who gave Jesus the revelation?

Jesus himself states in prayer to the Father:

• “I have revealed you to those whom you gave me out of the world. They were yours; you gave them to me and they have obeyed your word. Now they know that everything you have given me comes from you. For I gave them the words you gave me and they accepted them. (John 17:6-8).

HOW .. HOW... HOW... how can anyone read that ‘God gave Jesus...’ and linguate it as ‘Jesus is God’????

And how is it read that Jesus is God when it is written that: ‘God made this Jesus to be both Lord and Christ’?

No ‘TRUE God’ is ever ‘GIVEN’ something that was not already his. By all manners of belief of pagan origin, ‘Gods’ are ‘Given’ powers and orders by higher ‘GODS’... This suggests HIERARCHY... hierarchy amongs supposed ‘ultimate Gods’...
How can their be hierarchy in ultimacy?

And, for sure, trinity betrays and wounds itself by claiming that, though it’s three HEADS are absolute co-equal in all aspects, they are nonetheless RANKED in order of power and authority... CO-EQUAL but NOT CO-EQUAL... in the same way they claim that their ‘God-SON’ was born but not born... created but not created... eternally created... to wit: the UNCREATED GOD!

Additionally, since trinity claims all three heads are ONE... how then is the Son SEPARATED OUT to become flesh... and to die? Can God die? Can anything that IS GOD, die?

Phewweee... how can so many not see that such a claim of a three-headed Cerberus God can only be complete nonsense!

 

[firedragon]

I believe there are some i this forum who, when they see a truth being written, will deliberately and purposefully ‘start a new strand’ within the thread to distract and push worthy posts out of sight so they are less likely to be read.

I fully understand that trinity cannot be broken until Jesus returns. Only yet king can cut off the head of the serpent... but at least we can wound it (and it is already very much wounded already! SEE the book of REVELATION).

The purpose of opposing trinity is to bring to mind the truth of the one true and only Almighty God, the Father, the one who’s name He gives us as ‘YHWH’.

To bring this to mind the REVELATION that
- our only God gave to Jesus ...
- and Jesus gave to John via an angel...
- and John gave to the ‘church’...
- concerning the things that must come to pass!

Now, for some strange unknown linguistical erroring... Trinitarians say that Jesus must be God because God gave Jesus the revelation!!!

The revelation is about GOD... Jesus came to reveal THE FATHER. What imagination does it take to show that the Father is that God who gave Jesus the revelation?

Jesus himself states in prayer to the Father:

• “I have revealed you to those whom you gave me out of the world. They were yours; you gave them to me and they have obeyed your word. Now they know that everything you have given me comes from you. For I gave them the words you gave me and they accepted them. (John 17:6-8).

HOW .. HOW... HOW... how can anyone read that ‘God gave Jesus...’ and linguate it as ‘Jesus is God’????

And how is it read that Jesus is God when it is written that: ‘God made this Jesus to be both Lord and Christ’?

No ‘TRUE God’ is ever ‘GIVEN’ something that was not already his. By all manners of belief of pagan origin, ‘Gods’ are ‘Given’ powers and orders by higher ‘GODS’... This suggests HIERARCHY... hierarchy amongs supposed ‘ultimate Gods’...
How can their be hierarchy in ultimacy?

And, for sure, trinity betrays and wounds itself by claiming that, though it’s three HEADS are absolute co-equal in all aspects, they are nonetheless RANKED in order of power and authority... CO-EQUAL but NOT CO-EQUAL... in the same way they claim that their ‘God-SON’ was born but not born... created but not created... eternally created... to wit: the UNCREATED GOD!

Additionally, since trinity claims all three heads are ONE... how then is the Son SEPARATED OUT to become flesh... and to die? Can God die? Can anything that IS GOD, die?

Phewweee... how can so many not see that such a claim of a three-headed Cerberus God can only be complete nonsense!

I've given up on expecting people to be relevant to the opening post.

Nevertheless, are you saying Jesus was a man?

 

[Soapy]

I've given up on expecting people to be relevant to the opening post.

Nevertheless, are you saying Jesus was a man?

Yes. Jesus is a human Being.

But not a SINFUL human Being.

That is what Trinitarians cannot understand.

The whole point of ‘The Saviour’, the ‘Christ’, the ‘Lamb’, is that he is:

• pure, sinless, innocent, and Holy

The blood of such a man is to be shed in sacrifice for the sin of the Father of mankind, the first man, Adam, who brought sin into the world.

Adam was born/created:

• Pure, sinless, innocent, and Holy

and followed faithfully and fully all commands of the Almighty God, his spiritual Father - this is the spiritual meaning of the term, ‘Son of the Father’.. one who faithfully and completely follows the words of his Father.... (Luke 3:38)... and :

• “For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God.” (Romans 8:14)

Adam eventually sinned. God was angry and contemplated destroying mankind but relented. He then proposed a course of rectification in that mankind should save itself by offering an EQUALLY SINLESS PURE HOLY INNOCENT one of mankind... God required a PURE BLOOD SACRIFICE of a human Being that would date his anger against Adam ((Romans 5: 12 - 20):

• “When Adam sinned, sin entered the world. Adam’s sin brought death, so death spread to everyone, for everyone sinned. .....
• But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!......
• For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!
  
• Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people.
• For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous....

1 Cor 15:21-22:

• “For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.“

These verses testify to the MAN, Jesus Christ. The birth of Jesus is well documented and shows no human Father procreation. The sin came through the MALE SEED. Jesus is a creation/birth through the SEED OF THE WOMAN!!

Hs birth was - LIKE ADAM - through the intervention of the HOLY SPIRIT BREATH OF GOD.

I should never have to express and emphasise these things to persons who claim they know the scriptures...

The BODY OF ADAM was not a LIVING BODY when it was CREATED... it was made ALIVE when the spirit of Almighty God ‘overshadowed‘ it and put the breath of life into it:

• ‘And the man BECAME A LIVING SOUL’

Likewise, the egg of Mary is INERT... lifeless... until the Spirit of almighty God ‘overshadowed’ Mary and put the breath of life into that egg to produce a LIVING EMBRYO... a living child.

AND THEREFORE the child to be BORN ...SHALL BE ... called, ‘Holy, Son of the God Most High’.

Yes, SON OF GOD, in the likeness of the FIRST MAN, Adam. Because only the blood of a pure and holy and sinless snd innocent MAN can redeem humanity for the sin of the first man. Indeed, Jesus is called, ‘The LAST ADAM’!

Why am I expressing these things to professors of Christian scriptures???!!!

 

[Soapy]

Following Jesus’ sacrifice in death, Almighty God raised him up and rewarded him with an IMMORTAL BODY.

This means he can no longer die.

But additionally, the immortal body is NOT COMPLETELY subject to the physical laws of the created world and thus Jesus can do some seemingly amazing things that a MORTAL BODY cannot do... indeed, Jesus, in his mortal body, did nothing of such kind... the miracles that Jesus performed, Jesus EXPRESSLY told persons that:

• ‘You, too, can do these things IF YOU HAD FAITH EVEN AS TINY AS A MUSTARD SEED’ (considered AT THAT TIME as the smallest seed...!)

Trinitarians try to ‘prove’ Jesus was God because he walked on water... silly people do not read that PETER also walked on water...!

They say Jesus is God because he raised the dead... silly people do not read that Elijah and ELISHA raised the dead...!

They say Jesus is God because he forgave sin... silly people do not read that Jesus said if you forgive your fellow man on earth then God will forgive your sin in Heaven...! What their main error is, is that IF YOU SIN AGAINST GOD THEN ONLY GOD CAN FORGIVE YOU... if you sin against man, then MAN can forgive you.. each in its own category.

Furthermore, given the Holy Spirit in baptism, the 400 apostles were able to perform seeming MIRACLES just as Jesus did... dies any trinitarian call them, GOD! No, absolutely... but why not?

Indeed, Jesus told his disciples: ‘These things you see me do [in the Fathers name] YOU TOO WILL DO... indeed, in time to come GREATER THINGS THAN THESE WILL YOU DO...’

So I ask Trinitarians this:

• ‘If we are to do GREATER THINFS THAN JESUS... and you say Jesus is God... are you saying that we will do GREATER THINGS THAN GOD?’

I have yet to receive an answer!!!!

 

[sojourner]

Do you agree that this represents your trinity:

• Three persons in one ‘God’?
• Three persons as one ‘God‘?

No. I disagree.

God’, therefore is a WRAPPER element for the three persons.

Nope. Your theological model is mistaken.

How is co-equality RANKED?

Ever hear of "first among equals?"

How is trinity defining the Father as Creator yet claiming that in fact it was the Son who did the creating?

You're confused. That's not what the doctrine claims.

 

[sojourner]

I believe that it is the desire to see things in the wrong light that causes the problem with the word, ‘person’.

I believe you're confused as to the word "person."

‘People’ is used to distinguish differences in general groups. Or ‘Person’, as People as an individual.

"Person" is also used in a different way theologically. You can't constrain a word to your definition when others use it differently and then claim that they're wrong. It's a straw man.

Angels are Spirits.. we cannot see them nor know their form... in fact, they are formless... a form has an enclosure

How do you know? Proof? evidence?

So, though God is Spirit, we believe HE is our creator... so though Spirit, we visualise HIM as we do a human IN FORM... we speak of him as having eyes, hands, white beard, being ancient-looking, feet, tongue, mouth... etc.

Maybe you do that. Many do not.

Why do we call him a person? We have no other description that we can give him... We cannot pray to Spirit... we need visualisations... so we call HIM, a PERSON... but not of a human kind.

The Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms defines "person" thusly: "(Gr. prosopon, Lat. persona) Boethius (c. 480-524) defined person as "an individual substance of a rational nature." Contemporary theologians emphasize the relational nature of personhood. The three "Persons" of the Trinity relate freely, equally, and in full love with each other."

And yet there are those who, despite the definitions given, call him ‘God in flesh’... weird, or what? Jesus Christ: ‘God in flesh’.

I don't see why that's a theological problem?

But ‘Person’... who translated the bible? Did the translator struggle with spiritual concepts such that his only option was to personify the Spirit...

From Wikipedia:
"The term "prosopon" is used for "the self-manifestation of an individual" that can be extended by means of other things. For example, a painter includes his brush within his own prosopon. (Grillmeier, 126)

St. Paul uses the term when speaking of his direct apprehension in the heart of the Face (prosopon) of Christ (II Cor 4:6).

Prosopon is the form in which hypostasis appears. Every hypostasis has its own proper prosopon: face or countenance. It gives expression to the reality of the hypostasis with its powers and characteristics. (Grillmeier, 431)"

 

[sojourner]

I say, despite the claims by its supporters, Trinity is clearly Polytheism because it expresses:

• Three Rulers

The doctrine doesn't do that. You're confused. The doctrine clearly states one God.

Trinity ATTEMPTS to cover its claim of being mono by stating an incomprehensible, improbable, and idealistic, claim that all three are the same ONE GOD.

Correct, with the caveat that the phrase "attempts to cover its claim" is incorrect.

The creators of this nonsense failed to realise in they’d desperation, that such a definition is actually only expressing an ‘umbrella group’ for the three rulers: a Club, a company, an organisation, of co-equal directors...!!

I suggest you familiarize yourself with the doctrine, since that's not what it makes God out to be. That, in fact, is a classic heresy.

A simple question dispelled this claim:
- If all three are absolutely ALMIGHTY coequal and co-powerful and co-knowledgeable and in co-authority..., WHAT NEED IS THERE FOR TWO, let alone, THREE of them.

The Trinity is God-as-relationship. God is love. Love is relationship. Relationship is the ground of the Faith.

under the adoption of a Creed overseen by the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH.., (the ‘Roman’ in that title should give an idea that it wasn’t an endorsement by Jesus nor Almighty God... oooh, JESUS AND ALMIGHTY GOD!!)

Oh, I see. This is really all about "I hate Catholics." So you're automatically biased -- and it shows, because you've done nothing but misrepresent the doctrine in order to tear it down.

Additionally, since trinity claims all three heads are ONE... how then is the Son SEPARATED OUT to become flesh... and to die? Can God die? Can anything that IS GOD, die?

Jesus was also FULLY human. And humans die.

Phewweee... how can so many not see that such a claim of a three-headed Cerberus God can only be complete nonsense!

Just because you're confused doesn't mean that the doctrine is invalid.

 

[sojourner]

Yes. Jesus is a human Being.

But not a SINFUL human Being.

That is what Trinitarians cannot understand.

Oh, but we do understand that.

The whole point of ‘The Saviour’, the ‘Christ’, the ‘Lamb’, is that he is:

• pure, sinless, innocent, and Holy

The blood of such a man is to be shed in sacrifice for the sin of the Father of mankind, the first man, Adam, who brought sin into the world.

Adam was born/created:

• Pure, sinless, innocent, and Holy

and followed faithfully and fully all commands of the Almighty God, his spiritual Father - this is the spiritual meaning of the term, ‘Son of the Father’.. one who faithfully and completely follows the words of his Father.... (Luke 3:38)... and :

• “For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God.” (Romans 8:14)

Adam eventually sinned. God was angry and contemplated destroying mankind but relented. He then proposed a course of rectification in that mankind should save itself by offering an EQUALLY SINLESS PURE HOLY INNOCENT one of mankind... God required a PURE BLOOD SACRIFICE of a human Being that would date his anger against Adam ((Romans 5: 12 - 20):

• “When Adam sinned, sin entered the world. Adam’s sin brought death, so death spread to everyone, for everyone sinned. .....
• But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!......
• For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!
  
• Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people.
• For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous....

1 Cor 15:21-22:

• “For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.“

These verses testify to the MAN, Jesus Christ. The birth of Jesus is well documented and shows no human Father procreation. The sin came through the MALE SEED. Jesus is a creation/birth through the SEED OF THE WOMAN!!

Hs birth was - LIKE ADAM - through the intervention of the HOLY SPIRIT BREATH OF GOD.

I should never have to express and emphasise these things to persons who claim they know the scriptures...

The BODY OF ADAM was not a LIVING BODY when it was CREATED... it was made ALIVE when the spirit of Almighty God ‘overshadowed‘ it and put the breath of life into it:

• ‘And the man BECAME A LIVING SOUL’

Likewise, the egg of Mary is INERT... lifeless... until the Spirit of almighty God ‘overshadowed’ Mary and put the breath of life into that egg to produce a LIVING EMBRYO... a living child.

AND THEREFORE the child to be BORN ...SHALL BE ... called, ‘Holy, Son of the God Most High’.

Yes, SON OF GOD, in the likeness of the FIRST MAN, Adam. Because only the blood of a pure and holy and sinless snd innocent MAN can redeem humanity for the sin of the first man. Indeed, Jesus is called, ‘The LAST ADAM’!

Why am I expressing these things to professors of Christian scriptures???!!!

This is the worst mish-mash of glommed-together texts I've witnessed in a while. You even manage to contradict yourself in places.

 

[sojourner]

Trinitarians try to ‘prove’ Jesus was God because he walked on water... silly people do not read that PETER also walked on water...!

They say Jesus is God because he raised the dead... silly people do not read that Elijah and ELISHA raised the dead...!

They say Jesus is God because he forgave sin... silly people do not read that Jesus said if you forgive your fellow man on earth then God will forgive your sin in Heaven...!

None of this is in the doctrine. You're creating a straw man.

So I ask Trinitarians this:

• ‘If we are to do GREATER THINFS THAN JESUS... and you say Jesus is God... are you saying that we will do GREATER THINGS THAN GOD?’

Jesus was FULLY human -- as the doctrine asserts. You're conveniently forgetting that part.