Why the trinity is false

[Dimi95]

You need only read the letters being sent to the churches which record how far they are from their former ways.

Rarely who does that.

They just open up the Gospels , Acts , Epistiles and Apocalypse.

There is so much to read outside of the NT.

 

[Rival]

Rarely who does that.

They just open up the Gospels , Acts , Epistiles and Apocalypse.

There is so much to read outside of the NT.

Uhh, the epistles are letters.....

Also, loads of people do that. They're just not unbelievers

Read Ignatius, for instance.

 

[walt]

Malachi 3
"I will send my messenger, who will prepare the way before me. Then suddenly the Lord you are seeking will come to his temple; the messenger of the covenant, whom you desire, will come," says the Lord Almighty.

it follows

Mark 1:1-3
"The beginning of the good news about Jesus the Messiah,the Son of God,as it is written in Isaiah the prophet:
'I will send my messenger ahead of you,
who will prepare your way'."

It is not written only in Isaiah the prophet , as it seems..




There is only one detail you are missing

1 Corinthians 15:47
"The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven."



"God is not a man , that he should lie"

what I mean is 3 of anything being one God. "I believe" I should put faith in how Jesus explains himself and his father. I agree with you.

 

[Dimi95]

Uhh, the epistles are letters.....

Also, loads of people do that.

Read Ignatius, for instance.

Part of the Apostolic Father collection are not in the NT.

I am Orthodox

How would i not know Theophorus

 

[Rival]

Part of the Apostolic Father collection are not in the NT.

I am Orthodox

How would i not know Theophorus

I have many such collections. They are not widely read by Prots and Atheists and so some end up making silly arguments. It's frustrating.

 

[walt]

Uhh, the epistles are letters.....

Also, loads of people do that.

Read Ignatius, for instance.

I agree with you, I read all the earliest church fathers words.. I look from all kinds of sources for information. So I asked myself hundreds of Bibles translate scriptures so differently in one Bible from another, How am I supposed to figure this out? I have discovered that for some reason Jesus words alone do not vary in their wording very much from one Bible to another In every language I have found this to be true mostly. And I used the epistles too, but I first find out what Jesus says then I keep reading the epistles until I get no disagreement no scriptures in conflict with another. It seems like in the epistles a few scriptures say the opposite from bible to bible. To look for agreement I feel helps, I think Harmony of scripture is important.

 

[Dimi95]

I have many such collections. They are not widely read by Prots and atheists and so some end up making silly arguments. It's frustrating.

There are also letters from 3rd centuries that need to be noted

Like the The Epistle of Hymenaeus (270)
Also known as:
The Epistle of Six Bishops, or, The Epistle to Paul of Samosata
"This letter was written and signed by Hymenaeus the bishop of Jerusalem, who presided at the Council of Antioch in 264/268. It was also signed by five other bishops (Theophilus, Theotecnus, Maximus, Proclus, and Bolanus) to express their opposition against the teachings of Paul of Samosata. It was mentioned and summarized by Eusebius of Caesarea.

Paul of Samosata (Greek: Παῦλος ὁ Σαμοσατεύς, lived from 200 to 275 AD) was Bishop of Antioch from 260 to 268 and the originator of the Paulianist heresy named after him. He was a believer in monarchianism, a nontrinitarian doctrine; his teachings reflect adoptionism."

This is example of what some non-trinitarian teachings reflected.

 

[Dimi95]

I agree with you, I read all the earliest church fathers words.. I look from all kinds of sources for information. So I asked myself hundreds of Bibles translate scriptures so differently in one Bible from another, How am I supposed to figure this out?

First you need to figure out why there are so many translations.

Just because there are so many translations , that does not mean that the Bible is false.

Show me any example , i will explain to you why is that like it is.

IMO we should start from there , to understand why there are so many translations.

I have discovered that for some reason Jesus words alone do not vary in their wording very much from one Bible to another In every language I have found this to be true mostly. And I used the epistles too, but I first find out what Jesus says then I keep reading the epistles until I get no disagreement no scriptures in conflict with another. It seems like in the epistles a few scriptures say the opposite from bible to bible. To look for agreement I feel helps, I think Harmony of scripture is important.

However you look at it , you will not see any change of the fundemental idea of Christianity.

The easiest way to say is : Most probably it is corrupted.

 

[walt]

Part of the Apostolic Father collection are not in the NT.

I am Orthodox

How would i not know Theophorus

Durant_Will_-_The_story_of_civilization.. He talks about the division in Christianity that happened in the first three centuries, i am downloading the PDF but I think he says christianity divided into a hundred different divisions In the early centuries after Jesus died. I will post what I find.

 

[Dimi95]

To look for agreement I feel helps, I think Harmony of scripture is important.

The problem are the interpretations , not the translations.

There is one thought in my head lately
'First and Last'
'Beginning and End'

Could it be also The Father and the Son?

 

[Dimi95]

Durant_Will_-_The_story_of_civilization.. He talks about the division in Christianity that happened in the first three centuries, i am downloading the PDF but I think he says christianity divided into a hundred different divisions In the early centuries after Jesus died. I will post what I find.

You don't have to

I have read that

Just because there is division , does not mean it is neccessary false.

For example , Protestantism originated as result of dissatisfaction in the Roman Church.

Today Protestantism methods are statistically the most efficient in preaching Christianity.

Lately many Protestants have joined Orrhodoxy

We differ in certain doctrines , not in Christ.

 

[walt]

I agree with you totally, in the scriptures below division had already started even while the Bible was being written by the Apostles So is that not a real good reason to at least first start with 100% agreement with Jesus words which are very reliable?

THE STORY OF CIVILIZATION
VOLUME THREE
CAESAR AND CHRIST 1944
A History of Roman Civilization and of Christianity
from their beginnings to A.D. 325
by Will Durant

CHAPTER XXVIII: The Growth of the Church: A.D. 96-305
I. THE CHRISTIANS

II. THE CONFLICT OF CREEDS

Aside from these basic tenets, the followers of Christ, in the first
three centuries, divided into a hundred creeds.

Apostles say reject empty speech that has already started:
2 Timothy 2:16-18 But reject empty speeches that violate what is holy, for they will lead to more and more ungodliness, 17 and their word will spread like gangrene. Hy·me·naeʹus and Phi·leʹtus are among them. 18 These men have deviated from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already occurred, and they are subverting the faith of some.

Acts 15:24 Since we have heard that some went out from among us and caused you trouble with what they have said, trying to subvert you, although we did not give them any instructions,

2 John 1:9, 10 Everyone who pushes ahead and does not remain in the teaching of the Christ does not have God. The one who does remain in this teaching is the one who has both the Father and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your homesc or say a greeting to him.

 

[walt]

You don't have to

I have read that

Just because there is division , does not mean it is neccessary false.

For example , Protestantism originated as result of dissatisfaction in the Roman Church.

Today Protestantism methods are statistically the most efficient in preaching Christianity.

Lately many Protestants have joined Orrhodoxy

We differ in certain doctrines , not in Christ.

I agree with you I do the same thing. I just try to match it up with what Jesus said at the earliest point in christianity. I am just looking for agreement not disagreement.

 

[Dimi95]

I agree with you totally, in the scriptures below division had already started even while the Bible was being written by the Apostles So is that not a real good reason to at least first start with 100% agreement with Jesus words which are very reliable?

You need to learn all about the Councils and the three Creeds - Apostles' Creed , Athanasian Creed and most important - Nicene Creed.

You are thinking 'Sola Scriptura' , that is why you ask these questions.
You need to learn more about tradition.
Take the advice from @Rival and read something more about Ignatius and the Church Fathers.
Do you know what Eucharist means?

THE STORY OF CIVILIZATION
VOLUME THREE
CAESAR AND CHRIST 1944
A History of Roman Civilization and of Christianity
from their beginnings to A.D. 325
by Will Durant

CHAPTER XXVIII: The Growth of the Church: A.D. 96-305
I. THE CHRISTIANS

II. THE CONFLICT OF CREEDS

Aside from these basic tenets, the followers of Christ, in the first
three centuries, divided into a hundred creeds.

Yet , the Nicene Creed is the one who survived through these centuries.Have you asked yourself why?

Apostles say reject empty speech that has already started:
2 Timothy 2:16-18 But reject empty speeches that violate what is holy, for they will lead to more and more ungodliness, 17 and their word will spread like gangrene. Hy·me·naeʹus and Phi·leʹtus are among them. 18 These men have deviated from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already occurred, and they are subverting the faith of some.

Acts 15:24 Since we have heard that some went out from among us and caused you trouble with what they have said, trying to subvert you, although we did not give them any instructions,

2 John 1:9, 10 Everyone who pushes ahead and does not remain in the teaching of the Christ does not have God. The one who does remain in this teaching is the one who has both the Father and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your homesc or say a greeting to him.

I would like to know what do you want to say with these verses before i answer , because these verses are not for random use.

 

[walt]

You need to learn all about the Councils and the three Creeds - Apostles' Creed , Athanasian Creed and most important - Nicene Creed.

You are thinking 'Sola Scriptura' , that is why you ask these questions.
You need to learn more about tradition.
Take the advice from @Rival and read something more about Ignatius and the Church Fathers.
Do you know what Eucharist means?


Yet , the Nicene Creed is the one who survived through these centuries.Have you asked yourself why?


I would like to know what do you want to say with these verses before i answer , because these verses are not for random use.

These verses 2 Tim. 2:16-18; Acts 15:24; 2 Jn. 1:9-10 shows that even before the New Testament was finished already some people were not speaking the original gospel they learned from Jesus. The Apostles say reject it and stay with the Original Gospel. The Apostle Paul says these two scriptures..
2 Thessalonians 1:8 He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. NIV.
Hebrews 5:9 and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him. NIV.

I think anytime we can find a scripture that helps us follow Jesus Original Gospel a little more and more is somehow a good thing.
The Nicene Creed was written well over 300 years after Jesus died.

Why would Paul say these things, if it wasn't true somehow?

 

[walt]

You need to learn all about the Councils and the three Creeds - Apostles' Creed , Athanasian Creed and most important - Nicene Creed.

You are thinking 'Sola Scriptura' , that is why you ask these questions.
You need to learn more about tradition.
Take the advice from @Rival and read something more about Ignatius and the Church Fathers.
Do you know what Eucharist means?


Yet , the Nicene Creed is the one who survived through these centuries.Have you asked yourself why?


I would like to know what do you want to say with these verses before i answer , because these verses are not for random use.

I see where you are coming from, I think the majority would agree with you not me, I am seeing things through a very narrow window, I am stuck on Jesus words first to find an Agreement to be honest, because it came before the rest of the New Testament.

 

[Firenze]

These arguments show a lack of understanding of Classical Paganism as well as early Christianity. It baffles me as to why unbelievers always go to the Pagan arguments when Christianity was as opposite to Paganism as possible. You need only read the letters being sent to the churches which record how far they are from their former ways.

Historic Pagans were baffled by Christianity. They didn't understand why they reversed the dominance order (i.e. why are they so proud of including women, slaves, poor people etc.)

Christians refused to engage in Pagan practices such as throwing unwanted and disabled children on garbage dumps, for example.

They wouldn't honour the Emperor with sacrifices.

They were killed for not engaging in Pagan activities.

So why these arguments keep cropping up as anyone's guess. Why would they start using Pagan theology to appeal to Pagans when everything else they threw out?

It's absolute nonsense and it's completely basic.

Yes, they were baffled. That's why a convincing sales pitch had to be marketed. A triune god fit that need.

And a simple search would reveal to you that the 1st 4 countries that made Christianity their national religion were Armenia, Georgia, Ethiopia, and Eritrea - all of which were previously dominated by Paganism - and then there's the Roman Empire, also dominated by paganism. To deny the huge role of pagans as the primary targets of conversion is simply wrong. Why did paganism all but disappear by 800 ce? Communism?

 

[Rival]

Yes, they were baffled. That's why a convincing sales pitch had to be marketed. A triune god fit that need.

And a simple search would reveal to you that the 1st 4 countries that made Christianity their national religion were Armenia, Georgia, Ethiopia, and Eritrea - all of which were previously dominated by Paganism - and then there's the Roman Empire, also dominated by paganism. To deny the huge role of pagans as the primary targets of conversion is simply wrong. Why did paganism all but disappear by 800 ce? Communism?

Because Christianity had more to offer and Pagan cults had been in decline long before Christianity.

 

[Firenze]

Because Christianity had more to offer and Pagan cults had been in declined long before Christianity.

So now you recognize the role of pagans in conversion. What were you on about then in your previous screed if you agree with me??

 

[Rival]

So now you recognize the role of pagans in conversion. What were you on about then in your previous screed if you agree with me??

Wtf are you talking about?

Who else was there to convert?