The trinity is false - I have proof

[learner Daniel]

Could I give you a example of how I form my beliefs about Jesus and his Father?

sure

 

[learner Daniel]

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.

The Sermon on the Mount and the teachings of the Apostle Paul share many similarities, including:
Messages
Both Paul and Jesus taught about the humanity and deity of Christ, his death and resurrection, and that faith alone brings salvation.

Law
Paul taught that Christians did not need to follow the Law of Moses, which was controversial at the time.

Final judgment
Some say that Jesus and Paul's teachings about the final judgment are similar, even though Jesus used more fire metaphors

Similarities of Jesus and Paul:

• Both Jesus and Paul were born and raised Jewish, and neither one of them saw himself as departing from the truth of Judaism and the Jewish God. They both understood that they were proclaiming the “true” form of Judaism. Neither of them thought they were staring a “new religion.”
• Both Jesus and Paul proclaimed an apocalyptic message rooted in the categories of Jewish apocalypticism, which understood that the current age was ruled by the forces of evil, but a new age was coming in which God would destroy the forces of evil and bring in a utopian kingdom here on earth.
• Both Jesus and Paul thought that this climactic moment of all human history was soon to come, it was right around the corner, it would be here within their own generation.
• Both Jesus and Paul dismissed what they saw as the Pharisaic concern for the scrupulous observance of the Jewish Law as a way to obtain a right standing before God.
• Both Jesus and Paul taught the ultimate need of faith and saw the love one’s neighbor as the summing up and fulfilling of the law, as the most important thing the followers of God could do.
• The Messages of Jesus and Paul: Basically the Same or Fundamentally Different? | The Bart Ehrman Blog

Harmonizing Teachings of Jesus and Paul

Apparent conflicts between the teachings of Jesus and Paul are not real and can be harmonized by looking at context, terms, and themes.

christinscripture.com

- Mt. 5:17 = Gal. 5:14. Christ fulfilled the Law by His supreme love of His neighbour (us) as Himself.

- There are times when Paul's inspired commentary opens up some of the Lord's more difficult sayings. "Be you therefore perfect" has always been hard to understand (Mt. 5:48). Paul's comment is: "Be perfected" (2 Cor. 13:11). This is quite different to how many may take it- 'Let God perfect you' is the message.

- Mt. 6:2,3 = 1 Tim. 4:8. The implication is that we aren't to take Mt. 6:2,3 (" they have their reward" ) as implying that we have no reward in this life. We do (cp. Mt. 19:29).

- Mt. 6:14 = Eph. 4:32. Jesus said: " If you forgive, you'll be forgiven" . Paul subtly changes the tenses: " You've been forgiven already, so forgive" . It's as if Paul is saying: 'Think carefully about Mt. 6:14. Don't think it means 'If you do this, I'll do that for you'. No. God has forgiven you. But that forgiveness is conditional on the fact that in the future you will forgive people. If you don't, then that forgiveness you've already been given is cancelled. This is what Jesus really had in mind'. This would suggest a very very close analysis of those simple words of Jesus, using all the logic and knowledge of Biblical principles which Paul had.

- Mt. 6:24 = Tit. 1:9. Holding to God as your master rather than mammon is achieved through holding on to His word.

- Mt. 6:25 = Phil. 4:6. How do we obey that command to " take no thought for your life" ? By praying consciously for every little thing that you need in daily life, e.g. daily bread.

- Mt. 7:21 = Rom. 2:13. Paul saw the " Lord, Lord" people of the parable as the Jews of the first century who initially responded enthusiastically to the Gospel.

- Mt. 7:22 = 1 Cor. 13:2. To say " Lord, Lord" without really knowing Christ is living without love. Thus Paul saw an association between a lack of true love and an external show of appreciation of Christ's Lordship. Not doing what Christ says is a lack of love, in Paul's mind. If we appreciate this, we will see that those who are ignorant of Christ's words cannot show true love. Biblically ignorant Christians need to think through the implications of this

- Mt. 7:23 = 2 Tim. 2:19. Depart from sin now, or you'll depart from Christ at the judgment. This is Paul's classic way of making plays on words; again an indication of how his writings are partly a product of his own meditation upon and familiarity with the Gospels.

Pauls Use Of The Sermon On THe Mount

 

[learner Daniel]

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.

The texts says that paul got information directly from Jesus himself by revelations. wow

 

[learner Daniel]

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.

The better question is "what words in the Bible to believe and follow"


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.

The information is spread out in his letters.

 

[learner Daniel]

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

Don't limit God, he is able and did make matter from nothing.

 

[learner Daniel]

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

Pauls Use Of The Sermon On THe Mount

 

[Sargonski]

The Sermon on the Mount and the teachings of the Apostle Paul share many similarities, including:
Messages
Both Paul and Jesus taught about the humanity and deity of Christ, his death and resurrection, and that faith alone brings salvation.

Law
Paul taught that Christians did not need to follow the Law of Moses, which was controversial at the time.

Final judgment
Some say that Jesus and Paul's teachings about the final judgment are similar, even though Jesus used more fire metaphors

Similarities of Jesus and Paul:

• Both Jesus and Paul were born and raised Jewish, and neither one of them saw himself as departing from the truth of Judaism and the Jewish God. They both understood that they were proclaiming the “true” form of Judaism. Neither of them thought they were staring a “new religion.”
• Both Jesus and Paul proclaimed an apocalyptic message rooted in the categories of Jewish apocalypticism, which understood that the current age was ruled by the forces of evil, but a new age was coming in which God would destroy the forces of evil and bring in a utopian kingdom here on earth.
• Both Jesus and Paul thought that this climactic moment of all human history was soon to come, it was right around the corner, it would be here within their own generation.
• Both Jesus and Paul dismissed what they saw as the Pharisaic concern for the scrupulous observance of the Jewish Law as a way to obtain a right standing before God.
• Both Jesus and Paul taught the ultimate need of faith and saw the love one’s neighbor as the summing up and fulfilling of the law, as the most important thing the followers of God could do.
• The Messages of Jesus and Paul: Basically the Same or Fundamentally Different? | The Bart Ehrman Blog

Harmonizing Teachings of Jesus and Paul

Apparent conflicts between the teachings of Jesus and Paul are not real and can be harmonized by looking at context, terms, and themes.

christinscripture.com

- Mt. 5:17 = Gal. 5:14. Christ fulfilled the Law by His supreme love of His neighbour (us) as Himself.

- There are times when Paul's inspired commentary opens up some of the Lord's more difficult sayings. "Be you therefore perfect" has always been hard to understand (Mt. 5:48). Paul's comment is: "Be perfected" (2 Cor. 13:11). This is quite different to how many may take it- 'Let God perfect you' is the message.

- Mt. 6:2,3 = 1 Tim. 4:8. The implication is that we aren't to take Mt. 6:2,3 (" they have their reward" ) as implying that we have no reward in this life. We do (cp. Mt. 19:29).

- Mt. 6:14 = Eph. 4:32. Jesus said: " If you forgive, you'll be forgiven" . Paul subtly changes the tenses: " You've been forgiven already, so forgive" . It's as if Paul is saying: 'Think carefully about Mt. 6:14. Don't think it means 'If you do this, I'll do that for you'. No. God has forgiven you. But that forgiveness is conditional on the fact that in the future you will forgive people. If you don't, then that forgiveness you've already been given is cancelled. This is what Jesus really had in mind'. This would suggest a very very close analysis of those simple words of Jesus, using all the logic and knowledge of Biblical principles which Paul had.

- Mt. 6:24 = Tit. 1:9. Holding to God as your master rather than mammon is achieved through holding on to His word.

- Mt. 6:25 = Phil. 4:6. How do we obey that command to " take no thought for your life" ? By praying consciously for every little thing that you need in daily life, e.g. daily bread.

- Mt. 7:21 = Rom. 2:13. Paul saw the " Lord, Lord" people of the parable as the Jews of the first century who initially responded enthusiastically to the Gospel.

- Mt. 7:22 = 1 Cor. 13:2. To say " Lord, Lord" without really knowing Christ is living without love. Thus Paul saw an association between a lack of true love and an external show of appreciation of Christ's Lordship. Not doing what Christ says is a lack of love, in Paul's mind. If we appreciate this, we will see that those who are ignorant of Christ's words cannot show true love. Biblically ignorant Christians need to think through the implications of this

- Mt. 7:23 = 2 Tim. 2:19. Depart from sin now, or you'll depart from Christ at the judgment. This is Paul's classic way of making plays on words; again an indication of how his writings are partly a product of his own meditation upon and familiarity with the Gospels.

Pauls Use Of The Sermon On THe Mount

Don't know which snake charmer site you copied and pasted from but, this is really terrible spaghetti on wall - wild goose hunt fallacy. You have succeeded however in finding the God of confusion and the wolf in sheeps clothing prophecied by Lord Jesus in Matt 7.

The claim is not tht Paul and Jesus are similar that needs be shown but the claim that Jesus taught "Sola Fide" - Faith Alone. Nothing in what you post addresses or supports this claim. I agree that Paul stated the Golden Rule -the main Rule that Jesus taught .. I also agree that Jesus broke the covenant with Lord YHWH and Lord Jealous and thus was not bound to the law. ..

What Jesus did not teach was a "Faith Alone" salvation formulation. I don't know that Paul taught such a thing either however there were early Pauline Christians that were making this claim .. Nor am I saying that all of Paul is uninspired. I am only addressing the places where the teachings of Paul are in conflict with the teachings of Jesus .. from an academic perspective I am going to default to the teachings of Jesus.

What is really irritating though - and a snake charmer site trade-mark .. is posting scripture attributed to Paul - but was not written by Paul -- and which deveates from the authentic writings of Paul .. 2 Tim 2:19. and then it is falsely claimed that this passage has something to do with Matt 7:23 - whithout explaining what .. but the claim itself preposterously false .. as one expects when cut and pasting from Snake charmer site.

The irritating part is you don't realize what you are posting ..and of course Jesus thought he was starting a new religion. New Covenant = New Religion.

 

[Sargonski]

The texts says that paul got information directly from Jesus himself by revelations. wow

The information is spread out in his letters.

?? - The voice in Paul's head may well have been the voice of Jesus ... or it may have been a voice he attributed to Jesus .. but regardless .. who cares as this has nothing to do with the Trinity with respect to the fact that Jesus never taught that he was God "The Father" .. and not that it matters .. for reasons previously explained, but Paul does not teach that Jesus is "The Father" either .. but again .. we don't care what Paul thinks as we are after what Jesus taught

 

[Sargonski]

Don't limit God, he is able and did make matter from nothing.

You are the one who limits God .. the second you claim God is "unlimited" the claim that God defacto made matter from "Nothing" is a preposterous falsehood .. something you simply don't know .. but are claiming to know for certain. This is woefull deception of self and others. In addition - nowhere in the Bible is it claimed that God made matter out of nothing. ... not that this would help you if it did but, just saying.

 

[walt]

sure

John 3:16 and John 17:3 The way I look at it, all anyone needs is only one scripture, because Jesus never used the word trinity or any of the words that define the word trinity.

It's not very hard to disprove something Jesus never explains.

 

[metis]

As far as I know 'nothing comes from nothing'

That neither supports nor negates the concept of the Trinity.

 

[metis]

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.

The above in no way disproves the concept of the Trinity, but then no one can prove it either as it is an abstract concept.

IMO, it makes no difference to me one way or another as it is virtually impossible to prove or disprove such a concept.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

That neither supports nor negates the concept of the Trinity.

Nothing comes from nothing so for there to be something there must be something
In other words, the universe did Not come from nothing but at Psalm 104:30 from God's spirit ( power/strength - Isaiah 40:26)
This something is Someone and according to Psalm 90:2 God had No beginning, thus God was 'before' the beginning of anything else
However, pre-human heavenly Jesus had his start "IN" the beginning Not ' before ' the beginning as his God was
Plus, like us (Ecclesiastes 12:7 B) God's spirit also is Not a person but a genderless "it"- Numbers 11:17,25

 

[metis]

Nothing comes from nothing so for there to be something there must be something

The Trinitarian concept does not posit that creation came from nothing.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

The above in no way disproves the concept of the Trinity, but then no one can prove "it" either as " it " is an abstract concept.
IMO, it makes no difference to me one way or another as it is virtually impossible to prove or disprove such a concept.

Can't help but notice the word " it " ^ above^ used in connection to the trinity concept or lack of "it"
People don't think of their triune God as an "it" but God's spirit (Psalm 104:30) is a neuter "it" - Numbers 11:17,25
So, a genderless "it" is Not a person
Just like a car or a ships sometimes is called as a 'she' but they remain as a neuter "it"
Greek grammar rules allow for a neuter to be referred to as a pronoun he or him, but that does Not change an "it" into a person
Even our 'spirit' is also a genderless "it" at Ecclesiastes 12:7 B

 

[URAVIP2ME]

The Trinitarian concept does not posit that creation came from nothing.

A while back a Southern Baptist leaving a restaurant at night saw me and said isn't it wonderful God made everything out of nothing
To me, I said that God's spirit is not a nothing - Psalm 104:30 - but something
As far as I know Baptist's do believe or accept a triune-person god

 

[metis]

Can't help but notice the word " it " ^ above^ used in connection to the trinity concept or lack of "it"
People don't think of their triune God as an "it" but God's spirit (Psalm 104:30) is a neuter "it" - Numbers 11:17,25
So, a genderless "it" is Not a person
Just like a car or a ships sometimes is called as a 'she' but they remain as a neuter "it"
Greek grammar rules allow for a neuter to be referred to as a pronoun he or him, but that does Not change an "it" into a person
Even our 'spirit' is also a genderless "it" at Ecclesiastes 12:7 B

The "it" refers to a hypothetical associate between God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, thus "it" does not in any way deny their existence, nor is it a reference to three separate entities.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Don't limit God, he is able and did make matter from nothing.

Please post what verse or verses you have in mind _______________________
God sent forth His spirit used in creating as per Psalm 104:30
God used His power and strength, His dynamic energy to create both the invisible and visible realm of existence - Isaiah 40:26

 

[URAVIP2ME]

The "it" refers to a hypothetical associate between God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, thus "it" does not in any way deny their existence, nor is it a reference to three separate entities.

' the God ' ' the Jesus ' and holy spirit
Who is the One who sends forth His spirit at Psalm 104:30 KJV

 

[learner Daniel]

Don't know which snake charmer site you copied and pasted from but, this is really terrible spaghetti on wall - wild goose hunt fallacy. You have succeeded however in finding the God of confusion and the wolf in sheeps clothing prophecied by Lord Jesus in Matt 7.

The claim is not tht Paul and Jesus are similar that needs be shown but the claim that Jesus taught "Sola Fide" - Faith Alone. Nothing in what you post addresses or supports this claim. I agree that Paul stated the Golden Rule -the main Rule that Jesus taught .. I also agree that Jesus broke the covenant with Lord YHWH and Lord Jealous and thus was not bound to the law. ..

What Jesus did not teach was a "Faith Alone" salvation formulation. I don't know that Paul taught such a thing either however there were early Pauline Christians that were making this claim .. Nor am I saying that all of Paul is uninspired. I am only addressing the places where the teachings of Paul are in conflict with the teachings of Jesus .. from an academic perspective I am going to default to the teachings of Jesus.

What is really irritating though - and a snake charmer site trade-mark .. is posting scripture attributed to Paul - but was not written by Paul -- and which deveates from the authentic writings of Paul .. 2 Tim 2:19. and then it is falsely claimed that this passage has something to do with Matt 7:23 - whithout explaining what .. but the claim itself preposterously false .. as one expects when cut and pasting from Snake charmer site.

The irritating part is you don't realize what you are posting ..and of course Jesus thought he was starting a new religion. New Covenant = New Religion.

They are reliable sites.