The Trinity is Wrong

[JFish123]

Hi Everyone

The trinity is totally absurd and is the false creation of men in keeping with 2 Corinthians 4:4, "In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of unbelievers, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine unto them." (Douay Rheims Catholic Bible; DRCB). To learn the facts is keeping with John 8:32, "And you shall know the truth: and the truth shall make you free." (DRCB), go to the following links and read my articles:

Documentary on the Book of John Being Anti-Trinitarian-In Multiple Parts:

http://examining-doctrines.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=97

and;

Mainstream Religion Sold Out To Paganism, Details Sellout to Pagan Politicians

http://examining-doctrines.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=209

and;

Trinity = Absurd to the Extreme:

http://examining-doctrines.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=61

and;

Colossians 2:8-12 & John 1:1 - Learn The Facts

http://examining-doctrines.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=93

and;

Scourge of Christendom, The Pagan Trinity:

http://examining-doctrines.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=58

and;

Trinity = Absurd God (YHWH) Dishonoring Doctrine:

http://p078.ezboard.com/fyahwehstruthinchristfrm2.showMessage?topicID=58.topic

and;

Discourse on John 8:58:

http://p078.ezboard.com/fyahwehstruthinchristfrm2.showMessage?topicID=83.topic

and;

Learn - Documentary on Our Savior Jesus (Yeshua):

http://p078.ezboard.com/fyahwehstruthinchristfrm2.showMessage?topicID=74.topic

and;

When God's (YHWH's) Kingdom Starts Rulling:

http://examining-doctrines.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=204

and,

Discourse on the Bible:

http://forum.bismikaallahuma.org:/viewtopic.php?p=46520#46520

and,

Muslims Do Not Comprehend The Bible:

http://forum.bismikaallahuma.org:/viewtopic.php?t=5096

and,

Let's Have Reality in Translation:

http://examining-doctrines.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=207

and,

Discourse on the Whether Christ is Divine:

http://examining-doctrines.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=190

and,

DISCOURSE ON THE MISCONCEPTION WITH RESPECT 'I AM'
http://examining-doctrines.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=185

And,

Discourse On The Holy Spirit:

http://examining-doctrines.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=184

and,

Discourse on Trinitarians Being Blinded to The Truth:

http://examining-doctrines.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=178

and,

Rebuke To A Trinitarian, Trinity is God Dishonoring False Doctrine

http://examining-doctrines.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=176

and,

Discourse On The Trinity of Reasons That Prove The Trinity a Myth:

http://examining-doctrines.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=148

and,

Does the Apostle Thomas' exclamation at John 20:28 prove that Jesus is truly God (YHWH)?
http://examining-doctrines.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=145

And,

Discourse on Jeremiah 23:5-6 and the Confusion on YHWH Tsidqenu and Its Equivalents:
http://examining-doctrines.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=127

Your Friend in Christ Iris89

Sigh, the pagans believed in a Triad of gods. They were polytheists. That means they believed in three main gods (Triad) who were completely separate beings. And they ruled over the rest of the gods. The Trinity is 1 God with three persons-The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit that are equal in essence and nature as One God. And they rule over No other gods as there's only one God. And the Bible clearly states in the Trinity, so it's not from "outside pagan religions."
For example, Peter refers to the saints who have been chosen "according to the foreknowledge of God The Father." (1 Peter 1:2) when Jesus made a post resurrection appearance to Thomas, the disciple worshipfully responded by addressing Him, "My Lord and MY GOD." (John 20:28) The Father also said of the Son, "Your throne O God, is forever and ever." In Acts 5:3-4, we are told that lying to the Holy Spirit is equivalent to lying to God. Peter said,"Ananias, why has satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit,,, You have not lied to men but to God."
Besides being called God, each of the three persons are seen on different occasions to possess the attributes of deity. Note the following examples:
All three persons possess the attribute of omnipresence:
The Father (1 Kings 8:27)
The Son (Matthew 28:20)
The Holy Spirit (psalm 139:7)
All three have the attribute of omniscience:
The Father (psalm 147:5)
The Son (John 16:30)
The Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 2:10)
All three have the attribute of omnipotence:
The Father (Psalm 135:6)
The Son (Matthew 28:18)
The Holy Spirit (Romans 15:19)
Holiness is ascribed to each of the three persons:
The Father (Revelation 15:4)
The Son (Acts 3:14)
The Holy Spirit (Romans 1:4)
Eternity is ascribed to each of the three persons:
The Father (Psalm 90:2)
The Son (Micah 5:2, John 1:4)
The Holy Spirit (Hebrews 9:14)
Each if the three persons is described as the Truth:
The Father (John 7:28)
The Son (Revelation 3:7)
The Holy Spirit (1 John 5:6)
Each of the three is called Lord (Luke 2:11, Romans 10:12, 2 Corinthians 3:17) each is called Everlasting (Romans 16:26, Hebrews 9:14, Revelation 22:13) each is called Almighty (Genesis 17:1, Romans 15:19, Revelation 1:8) and each is called Powerful (Jeremiah 32:17, Zechariah 4:6, Hebrews 1:3)
Can any one other than God have the Attributes of God?
In addition to having the attributes of deity, each of the three persons were involved in doing the works of deity. For example, all three were involved in the creation of the world:
The Father (Genesis 2:7, Psalm 102:25, 1 Corinthians 8:6)
The Son (John 1:3, Colossians 1;16, Hebrews 1:2)
The Holy Spirit (Genesis 1:2, Job 33:4, Psalm 104:30)
They were also involved in the incarnation and resurrection but I won't go into those verses as I think these are good for now.
Also to mention, that the pagans taught the concept of a flood that killed most of humankind and the concept of a messiah like figure named Tammuz who was allegedly resurrected. Are those concepts false just because pagans taught remotely similar accounts?
And if you still don't understand the Trinity, does it mean it's not True? I mean do you think it is possible for human beings to know everything about God? If yes, please explain Isaiah 55:8-9, Romans 11:33, and 1 Corinthians 13:12.
We should not reject a doctrine simply because we cannot fully comprehend it. Especially since it's in the Bible

 

[JFish123]

I've been hearing stuff written by Christians for 8 years. I go to a Christian school.

Well seeing as how you refer to Jesus as "Isa" a name only Muslims use for Jesus, I'd say your Christian school isn't doing a good job or your just not listening

 

[JFish123]

Oh, and one final question: If they really are 3 in 1, how do they get along? You know by experience people don't get along all the time. And you say we are created in God's Image. So, what's the answer? They are all one? I know how sometimes an egg is used to represent the trinity. But, not all the parts are the same. They work together to make one thing, but they are still not the same.

 

[JFish123]

1). God is beyond human comprehension.
2). Why wouldn't they get along?

Yes we say that man is made in God's image, but we also say man is fallen.

I kind of like the shamrock analogy personally, then there's the cherry pie analogy.

The former makes the Trinity out to be like the shamrock where one leaf is split into three. The latter like cherry pie where it's one pie that may be three separate pieces, but the goo connects it all beneath the cuts. In essence three and one.

 

[Muffled]

Obviously, this whole debate doesn't have to rotate around this article. You can add things. Why am I even saying this?:areyoucra

The Trinity

For some reason, I can't post it here, so go ahead and click the link.

I beleive the information in the link is false.

 

[Muffled]

The trinity was a way for the church to explain that they too were part of the monotheistic tradition of Judaism while at the same time still being able to worship Jesus as well as the One G-d.

I do not believe the Trinity is a church explanation but it is a Biblical fact.

 

[Muffled]

^agreed


the one and only g-d was/is not the only one to recieve worship in the ot.

i don't believe the trinity, but i'm christian.

I believe you can call yourself one but that doesn't mean you are one. I don't see how one could be without the Trinity.

 

[jaybird]

^agreed


the one and only g-d was/is not the only one to recieve worship in the ot.

i don't believe the trinity, but i'm christian.

i am a Christian and i dont proclaim this doctrine. and before the church was hijacked by rome most Christians didnt teach this.

 

[jaybird]

i have always had problems with this doctrine. i think there is truth in it as a believe there is divinity in Jesus. but i dont agree with how its taught. the doctrine does not hold up against scripture. Jesus made it clear the Father was greater than the Son, trintity says different. their may be some scriptures that support it but there are far more that raise questions.
does anyone think this doctrine may have been created to separate the faith from Judaism?

 

[Berserk]

Croak's article: "How can the singularly absolute God with his indivisible oneness become three separate beings with three independent decision centers."

Where in the Bible did you get the idea that the Trinity consists of "3 separate Beings?" You probably mean the historical Jesus, but the question needs to be posed about the pre-existent Christ. Do you actually believe that Jesus preexisted as a "guy" who has been eternally wandering around the universe?

Worse, where do you get the idea that the Trinity consists of "3 independent decision centers?" On what grounds do you distinguish the Holy
spirit as a "Being" and "decision maker" from God the Father? Do you actually believe that God the Father and the Holy Spirit might have disagreed at times? Before I address both questions biblically, I want to read your answer.

 

[Muffled]

i am a Christian and i dont proclaim this doctrine. and before the church was hijacked by rome most Christians didnt teach this.

I believe you are very inept when it comes to the history of the church. I believe the Trinity was taught from very early on and if it were not it would have been a non-Biblical omission.

 

[Muffled]

i have always had problems with this doctrine. i think there is truth in it as a believe there is divinity in Jesus. but i dont agree with how its taught. the doctrine does not hold up against scripture. Jesus made it clear the Father was greater than the Son, trintity says different. their may be some scriptures that support it but there are far more that raise questions.
does anyone think this doctrine may have been created to separate the faith from Judaism?

You are probably thinking of the Trinity defined by Wikipedia which probably picks up on someone's doctrine but it was not in the Nicene Creed.

I believe it was not developed to do that but to define what a Christian ought to believe based on the Bible.

I believe that depends on whose doctrine you are talking about. I believe the Nicene creed does align with scripture.

 

[jaybird]

I believe you are very inept when it comes to the history of the church. I believe the Trinity was taught from very early on and if it were not it would have been a non-Biblical omission.

what was taught about Jesus, was He a man, divine elements, was He the Lord most High. this was taught and discussed.
the Lord most High being 3 persons if taught at all was done by a very small group and many did not buy into it. not until many years later. the biggest trinity proponent was Athanasius who was born in 296. so the biggest wave of trinity teaching didnt start until almost 300 years after Jesus taught.

 

[Muffled]

what was taught about Jesus, was He a man, divine elements, was He the Lord most High. this was taught and discussed.
the Lord most High being 3 persons if taught at all was done by a very small group and many did not buy into it. not until many years later. the biggest trinity proponent was Athanasius who was born in 296. so the biggest wave of trinity teaching didnt start until almost 300 years after Jesus taught.

I believe there were many false beliefs flying around at the time and Athanasius had his share. I believe Athanasius was able to present his views at the council of Nicea but they were not accepted by the majority present. I haven't heard much about what earlier teachers taught.

i believe this is the position of Athanasius and incorrect in English so perhaps just as incorrect in his native language. I think the idea was to convey that God has personality that is invested in all three members of the Trinity not that God has three personalities.

I believe the three person group was a minority but believers in the Trinity were certainly a majority.

 

[jaybird]

I believe there were many false beliefs flying around at the time and Athanasius had his share. I believe Athanasius was able to present his views at the council of Nicea but they were not accepted by the majority present. I haven't heard much about what earlier teachers taught.

i believe this is the position of Athanasius and incorrect in English so perhaps just as incorrect in his native language. I think the idea was to convey that God has personality that is invested in all three members of the Trinity not that God has three personalities.

I believe the three person group was a minority but believers in the Trinity were certainly a majority.

athanasius would change his view several times and in the end he sided with constintine. the majority agreed at the final council but that was only because the ones that shared a different view were not invited.
i have no problem with those that believe the trinity. i have a problem with counsels telling me what to believe rather then letting me make my choice by what i learn from the teachings of Jesus Himself.

 

[Shiranui117]

athanasius would change his view several times and in the end he sided with constintine. the majority agreed at the final council but that was only because the ones that shared a different view were not invited.
i have no problem with those that believe the trinity. i have a problem with counsels telling me what to believe rather then letting me make my choice by what i learn from the teachings of Jesus Himself.

What evidence do you have that St. Athanasius changed his views? Also don't forget that Constantine flip-flopped around a lot, exiling Arius, recalling Arius and banishing St. Athanasius, recalling St. Athanasius and banishing Arius again... At the end of the day, Constantine accepted an Arian baptism on his deathbed, not a Trinitarian one.

I believe there were many false beliefs flying around at the time and Athanasius had his share. I believe Athanasius was able to present his views at the council of Nicea but they were not accepted by the majority present. I haven't heard much about what earlier teachers taught.

If Athanasius' views weren't accepted by the majority at the Council, then those views wouldn't have been confirmed as dogma by the Council. As it was, St. Athanasius' defense of the Trinity was upheld as having always been the faith of the Church.

i believe this is the position of Athanasius and incorrect in English so perhaps just as incorrect in his native language. I think the idea was to convey that God has personality that is invested in all three members of the Trinity not that God has three personalities.

I believe the three person group was a minority but believers in the Trinity were certainly a majority.

The Trinity itself means that there are three Persons who are one God, one in essence and undivided. Saying that only a minority believed that God is three Persons while a majority believed that God is Trinity is completely self-contradictory, because those two mean the same thing.

 

[jaybird]

What evidence do you have that St. Athanasius changed his views? Also don't forget that Constantine flip-flopped around a lot, exiling Arius, recalling Arius and banishing St. Athanasius, recalling St. Athanasius and banishing Arius again... At the end of the day, Constantine accepted an Arian baptism on his deathbed, not a Trinitarian one.

i was reading that his early writings seemed to suggest he was more henotheist or duelist, Father and Son but no Holy Spirit. it would be years later when he added the Holy Spirit.
and yes arius flipped a lot to.

 

[Shiranui117]

i was reading that his early writings seemed to suggest he was more henotheist or duelist, Father and Son but no Holy Spirit. it would be years later when he added the Holy Spirit.
and yes arius flipped a lot to.

Do you have citations of his early writings, or a citation of what author asserted this? There are plenty of his works that are available for free online. I've never heard of henotheism or dualism being expoused in the works of his that we have extant.

I'm not sure if Arius flipped a lot, but Constantine most definitely did. I don't think we have enough writings left from Arius to even say whether he flipped a lot. A lot of what we know about him has been pieced together from second- or third-hand sources.

 

[jaybird]

Do you have citations of his early writings, or a citation of what author asserted this? There are plenty of his works that are available for free online. I've never heard of henotheism or dualism being expoused in the works of his that we have extant.

I'm not sure if Arius flipped a lot, but Constantine most definitely did. I don't think we have enough writings left from Arius to even say whether he flipped a lot. A lot of what we know about him has been pieced together from second- or third-hand sources.

when i was reading about this i was looking for the earliest example of the trinity clearly spelled out. i remember reading about Athanasius being the first one but also remember reading that this was not clear until much later. i went through several sources so it might be a bit before i can find them.
one thing im starting to see by studying these early church Fathers, they were IMO devoted, yet they shared different views especially on the nature of Jesus. i think its something that cant be understood the way you would open an academic text book and try and learn physics or whatever. its something that would have to be revealed after so much time following what Jesus taught.

 

[Shiranui117]

when i was reading about this i was looking for the earliest example of the trinity clearly spelled out. i remember reading about Athanasius being the first one but also remember reading that this was not clear until much later. i went through several sources so it might be a bit before i can find them.
one thing im starting to see by studying these early church Fathers, they were IMO devoted, yet they shared different views especially on the nature of Jesus. i think its something that cant be understood the way you would open an academic text book and try and learn physics or whatever. its something that would have to be revealed after so much time following what Jesus taught.

Yes, this is definitely the case. However, it is universally the witness of the Church Fathers that Jesus is God in some way; St. Ignatius of Antioch (the third bishop of Antioch after St. Peter, and a personal student of St. John the Apostle, died in 105 AD) explicitly calls Jesus "God in the flesh" in his Epistle to the Ephesians, ch. 7. A Coptic papyrus fragment dating all the way back to 250 AD has a prayer which calls Mary the Mother of God. St. Justin Martyr (died in 165 AD, 60 years after St. Ignatius of Antioch) called Jesus "God the Son of God" in chapter 128 (chapter CXXVIII) of his Dialogue with Trypho. Also check out Chapters LVI, LVII, LXXVI, LXI, all of which call Jesus God. You can probably find others.

The Church Fathers all agreed about Who Jesus was, Who the Father was, and Who the Holy Spirit was; the wording may have varied, but the ideas were the same. The Council of Nicaea was simply where the faith of the Fathers was expressed in a unified definition with agreed-upon terminology.