• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The trinity is false - I have proof

Paul died before the first gospel was written -- along with all the other disciples .. and it is highly unlikely he heard Jesus in the Temple as Jesus did not normally teach in the temple . can't remember any occasions but .. regardless .. If Paul did hear Jesus he does not tell us anything about it in his writings . Paul's writings tell us next to nothing about the life of Jesus nor his teachings ..

Luke 21:37-38

Easy-to-Read Version

37 During the day Jesus taught the people in the Temple area. At night he went out of the city and stayed all night on the Mount of Olives. 38 Every morning all the people got up early to go listen to Jesus at the Temple.


Paul himself admitted in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 that he “received” from others the view that Christ died for sins and rose from the dead.


Paul stated, "But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ" (Galatians 1:11-12). Later he offers evidence by pointing out that he didn't meet with anyone to learn the gospel. "But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb and called me through His grace, to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately confer with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went to Arabia, and returned again to Damascus" (Galatians 1:15-17). His only meeting with another apostle didn't occur until three years after his conversion and that meeting wasn't long enough to teach him everything he now knew. "Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord's brother. (Now concerning the things which I write to you, indeed, before God, I do not lie.) Afterward I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. And I was unknown by face to the churches of Judea which were in Christ" (Galatians 1:18-23). He didn't go to the Judea area again for another fourteen years (Galatians 2:1).

The point is that Paul stated he learned the gospel directly from Jesus Christ. He proved this by pointing out that he never was with the other apostles long enough to have been taught by them. This is a part of Paul's claim to being an apostle -- he was a direct witness to Jesus' resurrection and Jesus' teachings.

 
1. Jesus Chose Paul
From the three separate accounts of Paul’s conversion as recorded in the Book of Acts, we find that Jesus Himself chose Saul of Tarsus to be His special messenger. For example, we read the following in Acts 9:

Saul kept threatening to murder the Lord’s disciples. He went to the chief priest and asked him to write letters of authorization to the synagogue leaders in the city of Damascus. Saul wanted to arrest any man or woman who followed the way of Christ and imprison them in Jerusalem. As Saul was coming near the city of Damascus, a light from heaven suddenly flashed around him. He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, “Saul! Saul! Why are you persecuting me?” Saul asked, “Who are you, sir?” The person replied, “I’m Jesus, the one you’re persecuting. Get up! Go into the city, and you’ll be told what you should do.” Meanwhile, the men traveling with him were speechless. They heard the voice but didn’t see anyone. Saul was helped up from the ground. When he opened his eyes, he was blind. So his companions led him into Damascus. For three days he couldn’t see and didn’t eat or drink. (Acts 9:1-9 God’s Word)
From this account we find that it was Jesus Christ who miraculously chose Saul. Saul did not choose Jesus! This is the testimony of Scripture.

2. Jesus Taught Paul
Not only did Jesus specially choose Paul to be His messenger to the world, the message of Paul was personally taught by Jesus.

Paul wrote to the churches of Galatia the following explanation about the origin of his teachings:

I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the Good News I have spread is not a human message. I didn’t receive it from any person. I wasn’t taught it, but Jesus Christ revealed it to me. You heard about the way I once lived when I followed the Jewish religion. You heard how I violently persecuted God’s church and tried to destroy it. You also heard how I was far ahead of other Jews in my age group in following the Jewish religion. I had become that fanatical for the traditions of my ancestors. But God, who appointed me before I was born and who called me by his kindness, was pleased to show me his Son. He did this so that I would tell people who are not Jewish that his Son is the Good News. When this happened, I didn’t talk it over with any other person. I didn’t even go to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was. Instead, I went to Arabia and then came back to Damascus. (Galatians 1:11-17 God’s Word)
According to Paul, it was Jesus Himself who taught him. Therefore, Paul did not ever claim to have invented his teachings about Jesus but rather he claimed to have received them directly from the risen Christ Himself.

3. Peter Confirmed Paul’s Authority
There is something else which is crucial to this question. We also have the testimony of one Simon Peter, one of Jesus’ Twelve Apostles, as to the authority of Paul. In his second letter to the believers Peter wrote the following:

Also, regard the patience of our Lord as an opportunity for salvation, just as our dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you. He speaks about these things in all his letters, in which there are some matters that are hard to understand. The untaught and unstable twist them to their own destruction, as they also do with the rest of the Scriptures. (2 Peter 3:15-16 HCSB)
Peter testified to the authority of Paul. In fact, in this letter Peter puts Paul’s writings on the same level as Holy Scripture. In other words, Peter accepted Paul’s God-given authority. This is another indication that Paul was given unique authority by the Lord Jesus Himself.

4. The Book of Acts Records That Paul Is Accepted by the Believers
The acceptance of Paul as one of the leaders in the church is fully documented in the Acts of the Apostles. Not only do we have Paul’s conversion given to us on three separate occasions, we find that the believers embraced Paul as one of their own. In fact, we find the following letter written by the apostles and the elders to the believers:

“The brothers, both the apostles and the elders, to the brothers who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greetings. Since we have heard that some persons have gone out from us and troubled you with words, unsettling your minds, although we gave them no instructions, it has seemed good to us, having come to one accord, to choose men and send them to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (Acts 15:23-26 ESV)
The description of Paul shows his acceptance by the leadership of the early church. Note that he is said to have “risked his life” for the sake of the gospel.

Indeed, the entire second half of the Book of Acts records how Paul brought the gospel of Jesus Christ to Rome. His divine authority was accepted by the church.

Therefore, the idea that Paul preached and taught a different Christianity than Jesus is without any foundation whatsoever.

 
In Galatians 1:11-12 Paul states:

But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ"


Yes, Paul gives an account of how he learned his gospel several times:

2 Corinthians 12:1 1

"It is not expedient for me doubtless to glory. I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord."

1 Corinthians 11:23

For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: that the Lord Jesus, on the night He was betrayed, took bread,

Ephesians 3:3-4

How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,

Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)

Romans 16:25

Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,

 
I agree with you,
  • The word Trinity is not a word in the Bible, and neither is the words: The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit are one God.
  • Words Jesus and the Apostles never spoke, are they important?
  • Jesus did say John 17:3 and the Apostles did say 2 Cor 1:3, 1 Peter 1:3 and a lot more..
  • Do we really need proof, when it is never spoken about in the first place?
So what many words are not in the Bible, that argument does not prove or disprove anything. Walt where is your name in the Bible?
 
I came into the middle of this and did not realize the argument was about whether Paul was a disciple. It's true that he was not of the original 12 disciples, and never knew Christ personally. To me, whether he is defined as a disciple or not means little. It's true he called himself an apostle of God, so are you arguing about whether Paul was inflating his own importance? He did do a good job spreading Christianity, and I think it may be because of that he had a certain pride about that - too much pride.
See How did Paul learn the gospel? Jesus himself revealed the gospel to paul
 

walt

Jesus is King & Mighty God Isa.9:6-7; Lk.1:32-33
So what many words are not in the Bible, that argument does not prove or disprove anything. Walt where is your name in the Bible?
Don't you feel it is good idea to believe in the words in the Bible? If your words are true, Why read the Bible in the first place?
 

Sargonski

Well-Known Member
I came into the middle of this and did not realize the argument was about whether Paul was a disciple. It's true that he was not of the original 12 disciples, and never knew Christ personally. To me, whether he is defined as a disciple or not means little. It's true he called himself an apostle of God, so are you arguing about whether Paul was inflating his own importance? He did do a good job spreading Christianity, and I think it may be because of that he had a certain pride about that - too much pride.

Kind of .. but not about Paul inflating his own importance ... this is about occasions when Pauline scripture conflicts with the Teachings of Jesus in Mark-Matt .. in particular the Sermon on the Mount Matt 5-7.

Such that if I am having to choose between the teachings of Jesus .. and the teachings of Paul .. I am defaulting to the teachings of Jesus. .. for example Idol Martin would have us believe in an ideology known as "Sola Fide" = Salvation by "Faith Alone".

Support for Snake Charmer Martin's "Faith Alone" doctrine can be found in the writings of Paul .. and interestingly .. arguments against this doctrine are also found in Paul .. but, this matters not .. because the salvation formulation taught by Jesus in .. the Sermon on the Mount - the topic of which is how to get through pearly gates gives us a salvation formulation that includes works .. on the basis of which we will be Judged - similar to - essentially the same as the Ancient Egyptian concept of Maat.

and so when folks go "NO no no" and tell me about "Free pass through Judgement" and all I need do is cry out "Jesus Jesus .. I Believe in Jesus" quoting something written by Paul - or from one of the Pseudopigrappha not written by Paul but attributed to him -- in support of this doctrine .. I dismiss it on the basis of defaulting to the teaching of Jesus. representing the teaching of Jesus .. and not Paul representing the teaching of Jesus.
 

Sargonski

Well-Known Member

Luke 21:37-38​

Easy-to-Read Version​

37 During the day Jesus taught the people in the Temple area. At night he went out of the city and stayed all night on the Mount of Olives. 38 Every morning all the people got up early to go listen to Jesus at the Temple.


Paul himself admitted in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 that he “received” from others the view that Christ died for sins and rose from the dead.


Paul stated, "But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ" (Galatians 1:11-12). Later he offers evidence by pointing out that he didn't meet with anyone to learn the gospel. "But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb and called me through His grace, to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately confer with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went to Arabia, and returned again to Damascus" (Galatians 1:15-17). His only meeting with another apostle didn't occur until three years after his conversion and that meeting wasn't long enough to teach him everything he now knew. "Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord's brother. (Now concerning the things which I write to you, indeed, before God, I do not lie.) Afterward I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. And I was unknown by face to the churches of Judea which were in Christ" (Galatians 1:18-23). He didn't go to the Judea area again for another fourteen years (Galatians 2:1).

The point is that Paul stated he learned the gospel directly from Jesus Christ. He proved this by pointing out that he never was with the other apostles long enough to have been taught by them. This is a part of Paul's claim to being an apostle -- he was a direct witness to Jesus' resurrection and Jesus' teachings.


Brain pain -- what part of .. Paul never tells us anything significant about the life of Jesus .. has not been made clear .. and of course Paul tells us about sightings of Jesus "AFTER DEATH" = not the living Jesus .. and of course Paul heard these stories from other and maybe he heard teachings from Jesus .. and/or from others .. but he doesn't tell us any of these teachings

Paul was not a direct witness to Jesus Resurrection ?? The stories Paul hears about the "appearances of Jesus" after death he likens to his Vision .. the virgin Mary in the clouds and NOT - physical resurrection .. Jesus wandering around in the flesh after death..

Paul had a vision .. / heard a voice / we have 3 different versions of his meeting with a spirit who he attributed to Jesus .. .. it matters not .. as writings of Paul do not usurp the teachings of Jesus in Matt-Mark ... Paul carried the Good news to the Gentiles .. and he wrote some good scripture .. but .. definitely some of his writings are uninspired ramblings not to be misconstrued with "The Word" from Lord and Savior Jesus.
 
Last edited:

Truthseeker

Non-debating member when I can help myself
Kind of .. but not about Paul inflating his own importance ... this is about occasions when Pauline scripture conflicts with the Teachings of Jesus in Mark-Matt .. in particular the Sermon on the Mount Matt 5-7.
Well, this a internal argument between you two, and I don't want to get involved.
 

Sargonski

Well-Known Member
So what many words are not in the Bible, that argument does not prove or disprove anything. Walt where is your name in the Bible?

Yes unfortunately -- lacking words describing trinity doctrine proves absence of of Trinity doctrine. Just as if one claims "You said this" ..then go back to the transcript and show that the words are not there. .. proving the claim false.
Don't you feel it is good idea to believe in the words in the Bible? If your words are true, Why read the Bible in the first place?
The better question is "what words in the Bible to believe and follow"
See How did Paul learn the gospel? Jesus himself revealed the gospel to paul

What ever the Lord Jesus did or didn't reveal to Paul - on the road to Demascus .. the 3 accounts are different .. in one the witnesses hear nothing - Paul doesn't tell us anything about what was revealed in relation to the Gospels or Teachings ofd Jesus . Thus .. if one wishes to learn the Teachings of Jesus .. one is better to look at the scripture such as Mark and Matt where the Teachings of Jesus are given.
 

Truthseeker

Non-debating member when I can help myself
How could one possibly know the "Trinity" is false? Again, it's an abstract concept that also uses the concept of "essence".
The only way I know is that I have certitude about Baha'i, and it says the trinity as understood by most Christians is false. There is a trinity in the sense that God is in charge, the Holy Spirit radiates from God to Christ and man, and Jesus carries out what the Holy Spirit sent to Him from God tells Him to do.

5:30 I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.
(King James Bible, John)

I will get verses to say the contrary I know, like

14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? 14:10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
(King James Bible, John)

This is understood by us as reflecting the attributes perfectly, thus He is the Face of God amongst men.

There can be quotes from epistles after Christ but I don't consider them as authoritative as when Christ expounds on this. What the men in the epistles say may or may not be inspired by the Holy Spirit, we have no assurances on that score.

Since there is nothing that directly authoritatively contradicts the Baha'i version I stick with the Baha'i version of the trinity.
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
How could one possibly know the "Trinity" is false? Again, it's an abstract concept that also uses the concept of "essence".
As far as I know 'nothing comes from nothing'
So, before there is any beginning of anything there has to be something
That 'something' according to Psalm 90:2 is the un-created God
In other words, only God was ' before ' be beginning
Whereas, pre-human heavenly Jesus was "in" the beginning but Not ' before' the beginning as his God was
Plus, remember God's spirit (Psalm 104:30) is a neuter "it" and Not a person - Numbers 11:17,25
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
I don’t have the view that there’s more than One God and I don’t think the three Persons of the Godhead indicates any such idea. Take the concept of a family, for example: one family. This family may have a dad, mom, and a child- three persons/one family. I see the Godhead in this way…three eternally existent Spirit Beings/Persons. When I use the word Person in reference to God I don’t mean “human”, I mean a Spiritual Being with personality.

According to the scriptures, the Son/the Word “became flesh” (John 1), was with God and was God prior to coming to earth and being born physically through Mary. So this tells me that the Son is a spiritual Being who existed eternally before becoming a human.
I believe that is not prrof of a separate Spirit. I believe when it says the Word is God that means the same Spirit and of course the Word is an integral feature of that Spirit.
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
The term Trinity was first used by the church father Tertullian in the third century AD. The doctrine of the Trinity was hammered out in 325 AD at the council of Nicea. Philosophy had played a part in the development of the Trinity.

Beware lest any man spoil (ruin) you through philosophy and vain deceit after the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ. For in him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; and you are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power. Colossians 2:8-10
Since the Trinity is in the Bible it simply means they recognized it as a doctrine.
 

Sargonski

Well-Known Member
John 14:20 In that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you.

That does not show the Trinity - Jesus is "the Logos" .. what does the Logos mean ? .. that Jesus is "The Word" the Physical representation of "Gods Word" according to the author of John. .. so of course the Father is in Jesus .. but this does not turn Jesus into "The Father" .. No .. Nyet .. Nada :)
 
Top