The Trinity Discussion

[valiant]

I do not believe in the trinity theory and its history in the catholic religion is checked with pagan influences and the need to have Constantine, the Roman Emperor’s power behind the rising of the Roman Church to be brought into the religious concept some 300 years after the last disciple died.

This is disproved by the fact that the earliest Christian fathers all stated that Jesus is God long before Constantine was ever born. The concept of the triunity of God was taught by the Apostles and agreed to by the earliest fathers.

There is one section in the Christian Greek scriptures that really impacting on the inability of the trinity being accurate. It is in relation to the birth and baptism of jesus.

well let us look at what it SAYS not what we read into it.

When Jesus was born he did not have any thought of his being the messiah,

Verse? This is simply untrue,

as far as he was concerned he was just a kid of the times, he had a human mum and dad and lived the life of a faithful Jew

So you take what Jesus did at the age of 12 as being the behaviour of any Jewish boy?

.

His study and knowledge of the Jewish manuscripts was exemplary and that was because he was a perfect man/boy, using his brain capacity to the fullest and most righteous course.

So you agree He was unique, even on your theory?

Point one: Jesus had no connection with His Heavenly Father at this time,

.

Luke 2 suggests otherwise.

nor did he have any of God's Active Force (Holy Spirit) upon him

WOW He was born uniquely by the Holy Spirit but He did not even have the same gifts as John who was full of the Holy Spirit from his mother's womb? And John declared Him to be greater than himself.

Jesus did not perform miraculous events,

Proof?

nor did he think that he could.

Proof?

He prayed to God the same way as all the Jewish people did, and he looked forward to the coming of the Messiah.

this is all assumption.

The angels did guide his footsteps, but Jesus did not even know that he was being protected.

You know an awful lot about a period nowhere described in Scripture.

Would this then mean the the trinity consisted for these years of Jesus early life, as only God and the Holy Spirit?

Les us talk about the triune God. It would mean you did not know what you were talking about!

When Jesus went to the Jordon to John the Baptist he did so because it had become the rule to do so, and he was not the first to take on this dedication to God, asking for a clean unconscious as other faithful ones were doing.

Why then did He reply as His did to John's question?

On rising from the immersion in the waters the Bible tells us that the "Heavens opened up to him".

The things that happened at Jesus Baptism did not happen with the others, and remember that when the havens opened up to him Gods Active force, Holy Spirit descended upon Jesus in the form of a white dove.

I wonder why lol?

It was here that Jesus recalled his creation, his heavenly relationship with the creator and the joy of helping to create everything else including the angles themselves.

What grounds have you for saying that He did, or that He had not done so earlier? The coming of the Spirit was His anointing as Messiah, not the first indication he had of the Holy Spirit.

"But more than that happens at Jesus’ baptism. ‘The heavens are opened up’ to him. What does this mean? Likely it means that at the time of Jesus’ baptism, the memory of his prehuman life in heaven returns to him. Thus, Jesus now recalls his life as a spirit son of Jehovah, including truths that God taught him in heaven before he came to earth.

Hah now we know where you got these strange ideas from, the Jehovah's Witnesses. Actually there is no reason to doubt that He already knew that He was the only Son of the Father, God made man..

In addition, at Jesus’ baptism a voice from heaven proclaims: “This is my Son, the beloved, whom I have approved.” (Matthew 3:17).

Confirmation that He was truly THE UNIQUE Son of God.

Whose voice is that? It cannot be Jesus’ own voice; he is right there with John. That voice is God’s.

It is the Father's voice.

Clearly, Jesus is God’s Son. He is not God himself.

He is the Father's true Son, and therefore of the same nature as the Father.

Then: Jesus goes into the wilderness for 40 days. Even with this new given Heavenly supplied position of knowing he is the messiah he has a lot to think about and a lot to understand. The Angels administer to him probably bringing messages to him for his Heavenly father, and giving support for the mission ahead.

Who says it was new? You are just assuming what suits you.

Point 2: When God said in his own voice (One of the few times that God's voice was head by humans), "This is my son with whom I am well pleased" it was not Jesus' voice being a ventriloquist and it was the first time that the human Jesus had heard his Heavenly Father's voice as well, so does any of this fit in with a trinity theory where they were all one at all times?

The voice is never said to be 'God's' in the Gospels. But a moments thought would bring out that it was His Father's voice. Thus it fits in wonderfully.

And how do you know it was the first time He had heard His voice? Luke 2 suggests otherwise

Jesus ministry lasted about 3 years and every prophecy spoken and written about the Messiah was fulfilled at his raising to the heavens after his death on the torture stake.

It actually probably lasted longer. Of course they were fulfilled. He was God's only Son and Messiah,

 

[valiant]

And why was a change necessary, consider this:
"THAT question has to be considered when Bible translators handle the first verse of the Gospel of John. In the New World Translation, the verse is rendered: “In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.” (John 1:1) Some other translations render the last part of the verse to convey the thought that the Word was “divine,” or something similar. (A New Translation of the Bible, by James Moffatt; The New English Bible) Many translations, however, render the last part of John 1:1: “And the Word was God.”—The Holy Bible—New International Version; The Jerusalem Bible.
Greek grammar and the context strongly indicate that the New World Translation rendering is correct and that “the Word” should not be identified as the “God” referred to earlier in the verse. Nevertheless, the fact that the Greek language of the first century did not have an indefinite article (“a” or “an”) leaves the matter open to question in some minds. It is for this reason that a Bible translation in a language that was spoken in the earliest centuries of our Common Era is very interesting.
The language is the Sahidic dialect of Coptic. The Coptic language was spoken in Egypt in the centuries immediately following Jesus’ earthly ministry, and the Sahidic dialect was an early literary form of the language. Regarding the earliest Coptic translations of the Bible, The Anchor Bible Dictionary says: “Since the [Septuagint] and the [Christian Greek Scriptures] were being translated into Coptic during the 3d century C.E., the Coptic version is based on [Greek manuscripts] which are significantly older than the vast majority of extant witnesses.”
The Sahidic Coptic text is especially interesting for two reasons. First, as indicated above, it reflects an understanding of Scripture dating from before the fourth century, which was when the Trinity became official doctrine. Second, Coptic grammar is relatively close to English grammar in one important aspect. The earliest translations of the Christian Greek Scriptures were into Syriac, Latin, and Coptic. Syriac and Latin, like the Greek of those days, do not have an indefinite article. Coptic, however, does. Moreover, scholar Thomas O. Lambdin, in his work Introduction to Sahidic Coptic, says: “The use of the Coptic articles, both definite and indefinite, corresponds closely to the use of the articles in English.”
Hence, the Coptic translation supplies interesting evidence as to how John 1:1 would have been understood back then. What do we find? The Sahidic Coptic translation uses an indefinite article with the word “god” in the final part of John 1:1. Thus, when rendered into modern English, the translation reads: “And the Word was a god.” Evidently, those ancient translators realized that John’s words recorded at John 1:1 did not mean that Jesus was to be identified as Almighty God. The Word was a god, not Almighty God."

Try learning Greek. In a verse which contains the verse 'to be' the subject of a sentence was indicated by the article and the predicate without the article.

Furthermore the article could only be used on the predicate when it was totally interchangeable, and it would not then be put first

But the Word was theos but not the whole of theos. The use of the article in the predicate would have meant that He was Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

But theos come first in the Greek sentence showing that the emphasis was on His being theos. The NEB rightly translates, 'what God was the Word was'. It stated that He was true God but not the whole of God.

 

[graceNpeace]

Try learning Greek. In a verse which contains the verse 'to be' the subject of a sentence was indicated by the article and the predicate without the article.

Furthermore the article could only be used on the predicate when it was totally interchangeable, and it would not then be put first

But the Word was theos but not the whole of theos. The use of the article in the predicate would have meant that He was Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

But theos come first in the Greek sentence showing that the emphasis was on His being theos. The NEB rightly translates, 'what God was the Word was'. It stated that He was true God but not the whole of God.

Correct - and I did point this out in an earlier post.

 

[Bronson]

It would depend on if God could be reconked as a man after the flesh meaning he would have a mother and father beginning of daye end of Spirit life which the Son of man did have a corrupted body . The Son of man said His flesh it.... profits for nothing he poured out His Spirit not seen it gave spirit life .Blood without the spirit essence of life was used as a demonstration being poured out absent of spirt life it returned to the dust from where it came and the Spirit of Christ of its own volition returned to the father who gave it up.

I accept fault in re-creating the trinity debate, a debate that is always crowded with concepts in most religious forums.

My original, introductory question was, "what is a Christian". That question now has to be, "Do you have to believe in the trinity to be a Christian?"

This comment above completely leaves out the very meaning of what Jesus was doing. Once he was baptized he knew eh was to be the ransom sacrifice for man's sins, that he would have to die as a perfect man to replace the perfect man Adam.

There are clear and defined sins that man must not commit if they are to call themselves Christians and to follow these "don'ts" takes more than imperfect man can achieve in the majority of circumstances. But we must try if we are to be in favour of God through Jesus and worthy of being a human of God's Kingdom.

Many things in Christendom, today, are based on pagan practices and no matter what excuse you try they are not Christian in any manner or
form.

The Catholic Church condemns itself, IMO, when it states that if there is conflict between scripture and tradition, tradition should be chosen.

There is, and must be, only one truth. You are very fortunate if you find that truth.

But, let's continue with "Who is a Christian" or "Which religion is the real form of Christianity, uncluttered with man's rites and rituals and based purely on the Word of God as presented in the Bible?"

We do not need to give that religion a name other than being Christian, but I would like to see why you say that a religion is the pure Christian one as against others.

I appreciate that sometimes we are handed our religion by our parents just as we are handed our political preference, and this being the case it is very difficult to entertain any other concepts; however, why don't we try?

 

[Bronson]

Try learning Greek. In a verse which contains the verse 'to be' the subject of a sentence was indicated by the article and the predicate without the article.

Furthermore the article could only be used on the predicate when it was totally interchangeable, and it would not then be put first

But the Word was theos but not the whole of theos. The use of the article in the predicate would have meant that He was Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

But theos come first in the Greek sentence showing that the emphasis was on His being theos. The NEB rightly translates, 'what God was the Word was'. It stated that He was true God but not the whole of God.

So, Please, what was this the beginning of? I cannot be the beginning of God the creator as He had no beginning. Could it be the beginning of creation? I believe it is just that, the "First of all creation by God"

To suggest that three entities, all as powerful as the other arrived at the one time is akin to saying that there were three simultaneous Big Bangs that made all things thereafter. Not in my book of simple logic.

 

[bluto]

You might like to read Archie in Greek Philosophy, it too toys with the theoretical sense of the word. Look also at the Catholic Encyclopedia and the complications of introducing the trinity, which makes Jesus equal to God.

Is Jesus his own father, is the father his own father and the two of them the father of the Holy Spirit, or is the Holy Spirit the father of both of the other two fathers....I wont go and farther. or is the further father.

So bronson my JW friend, here is the definition of "arche" that you told me to look up. "Arche (/ˈɑːrki/; Ancient Greek: ἀρχή) is a Greek word with primary senses "beginning", "origin" or "source of action". ... In the philosophical language of the archaic period (8th-6th century BC), arche (or archai) designates the source, origin or root of things that exist."

Is it not ironic that this is the exact definition which is used at Revelation 3:14 which shows you don't know what your talking about. You used the verse to show Jesus Christ was created being and here you now learned that He is the "CREATOR" and not the created.

Why don't you stop listening to your Watchtower handlers and quit reading the Watchtower magazines and the Asleep, I mean the Awake magazines. You would think at your age you would be able to think for yourself. And then to close out your post you ask a typical asinine question that a cultist (like you) or Unitarian, Christadelphian, and other non Christian groups would ask? "If Jesus is God does that mean He is His own Father?"

Your mixed up bronson, it's the Oneness Petecostals that believe Jesus Christ is God the Father and God the Holy Spirit, not Trinitarians. So let me ask you this question? Why was Jesus Christ crucified according to the Jews? Afterall, you did mention in this post (sarcastically) that Jesus is equal to God. Please read John 5:17,18 for starters.

IN GOD THE SON,
bluto

 

[Bronson]

This is disproved by the fact that the earliest Christian fathers all stated that Jesus is God long before Constantine was ever born. The concept of the triunity of God was taught by the Apostles and agreed to by the earliest fathers. False!



well let us look at what it SAYS not what we read into it.



Verse? This is simply untrue,



So you take what Jesus did at the age of 12 as being the behaviour of any Jewish boy? (I did say he wa a student of the Jewish faith. He was also a perfect human with greater ability in the use of his brain)

.


So you agree He was unique, even on your theory? (In many ways, yes)

.

Luke 2 suggests otherwise.



WOW He was born uniquely by the Holy Spirit but He did not even have the same gifts as John who was full of the Holy Spirit from his mother's womb? And John declared Him to be greater than himself. (What gifts did John have that were so great?)



Proof?



Proof?




this is all assumption.



You know an awful lot about a period nowhere described in Scripture.



Les us talk about the triune God. It would mean you did not know what you were talking about!



Why then did He reply as His did to John's question?

On rising from the immersion in the waters the Bible tells us that the "Heavens opened up to him".



I wonder why lol?



What grounds have you for saying that He did, or that He had not done so earlier? The coming of the Spirit was His anointing as Messiah, not the first indication he had of the Holy Spirit. (would he have not declared what he knew?)



Hah now we know where you got these strange ideas from, the Jehovah's Witnesses. Actually there is no reason to doubt that He already knew that He was the only Son of the Father, God made man.. (Another that looks for a messenger to kill)



Confirmation that He was truly THE UNIQUE Son of God.



It is the Father's voice.



He is the Father's true Son, and therefore of the same nature as the Father. (Yes)



Who says it was new? You are just assuming what suits you.



The voice is never said to be 'God's' in the Gospels. But a moments thought would bring out that it was His Father's voice. Thus it fits in wonderfully.

And how do you know it was the first time He had heard His voice? Luke 2 suggests otherwise



It actually probably lasted longer. Of course they were fulfilled. He was God's only Son and Messiah,

(And here you shoot yourself down in flames. You criticism of my message is based on your assumption of my assumption of probability, and how do you end you diatribe....LOL)

 

[Bronson]

So bronson my JW friend, here is the definition of "arche" that you told me to look up. "Arche (/ˈɑːrki/; Ancient Greek: ἀρχή) is a Greek word with primary senses "beginning", "origin" or "source of action". ... In the philosophical language of the archaic period (8th-6th century BC), arche (or archai) designates the source, origin or root of things that exist."

Is it not ironic that this is the exact definition which is used at Revelation 3:14 which shows you don't know what your talking about. You used the verse to show Jesus Christ was created being and here you now learned that He is the "CREATOR" and not the created.

Why don't you stop listening to your Watchtower handlers and quit reading the Watchtower magazines and the Asleep, I mean the Awake magazines. You would think at your age you would be able to think for yourself. And then to close out your post you ask a typical asinine question that a cultist (like you) or Unitarian, Christadelphian, and other non Christian groups would ask? "If Jesus is God does that mean He is His own Father?"

Your mixed up bronson, it's the Oneness Petecostals that believe Jesus Christ is God the Father and God the Holy Spirit, not Trinitarians. So let me ask you this question? Why was Jesus Christ crucified according to the Jews? Afterall, you did mention in this post (sarcastically) that Jesus is equal to God. Please read John 5:17,18 for starters.

IN GOD THE SON,
bluto

You are beaming with glee now that you think you have the Jws to castigate. You will throw caution to the wind and just shoot at the messenger. It will not matter if one quotes from the Bible you will still attack from the rear., hoping the opportunity to back stab. Have fun, it is really hilarious the way the fools rush in where the intelligent fear to tread.

 

[jaybird88]

You are beaming with glee now that you think you have the Jws to castigate. You will throw caution to the wind and just shoot at the messenger. It will not matter if one quotes from the Bible you will still attack from the rear., hoping the opportunity to back stab. Have fun, it is really hilarious the way the fools rush in where the intelligent fear to tread.

but thats how it works brons, when you ask questions they cant answer, scripture they cant deal with, then they go to their ace in the hole, accuse you of being in some cult that they know everyone hates.

here is some interesting info you may not know, i have strong reason to believe Jesus wasnt Jewish and not from Israel, i know this because JWs believe this so it must be false. yeah i know it makes no sense to me either but thats how some people really think, its mind boggling.

 

[trofimus]

It will not matter if one quotes from the Bible you will still attack from the rear.

So lets quote some Bible:

----

"...Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men."
(Phil 2:5-6)

"For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form." (Col 2:9)

----

He is nothing less than fully God. Will you attack this?

 

[Bronson]

So lets quote some Bible:

----

"...Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men."
(Phil 2:5-6)

"For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form." (Col 2:9)

----

He is nothing less than fully God. Will you attack this?

Sure will, but head on. What those that believe that the three were one must think that God Almighty committed suicide for man's sins. This, of course is ridiculous but no more ridiculous than thinking that God was dead for three days, when you consider the havoc Satan would have caused in the absence of God.

Now if you say God Almighty in the form of Jesus did not die then you accuse the Creator of lying to us.

There were three trinity type groups in the Roman Pagan religions of the time of Constantine and he did not easily inculcate the trinity theory that is used today, into the Holy Roman Church in about 355BCE. but he was a powerful Emperor and the Bishops needed his protection, so they capitulated.

When it came to the Nicene Council, The Encyclopaedia Britannica states: “Constantine himself presided, actively guiding the discussions, and personally proposed . . . the crucial formula expressing the relation of Christ to God in the creed issued by the council . . . Overawed by the emperor, the bishops, with two exceptions only, signed the creed, many of them much against their inclination” (1971 edition, Vol. 6, “Constantine,” p. 386).

Constantine did not care about t he religious connotation of having a trinity his only concern was to have unity and obedience from the Roman Church. Constantine was said to delay his baptism into Christianity until his death bed, but this was common practice amongst the Bishops as well to free themselves from culpability in the mass torture and murders of the Church.

 

[trofimus]

Sure will, but head on. What those that believe that the three were one must think that God Almighty committed suicide for man's sins. This, of course is ridiculous but no more ridiculous than thinking that God was dead for three days, when you consider the havoc Satan would have caused in the absence of God.

Now if you say God Almighty in the form of Jesus did not die then you accuse the Creator of lying to us.

There were three trinity type groups in the Roman Pagan religions of the time of Constantine and he did not easily inculcate the trinity theory that is used today, into the Holy Roman Church in about 355BCE. but he was a powerful Emperor and the Bishops needed his protection, so they capitulated.

When it came to the Nicene Council, The Encyclopaedia Britannica states: “Constantine himself presided, actively guiding the discussions, and personally proposed . . . the crucial formula expressing the relation of Christ to God in the creed issued by the council . . . Overawed by the emperor, the bishops, with two exceptions only, signed the creed, many of them much against their inclination” (1971 edition, Vol. 6, “Constantine,” p. 386).

Constantine did not care about t he religious connotation of having a trinity his only concern was to have unity and obedience from the Roman Church. Constantine was said to delay his baptism into Christianity until his death bed, but this was common practice amongst the Bishops as well to free themselves from culpability in the mass torture and murders of the Church.

What camp the heck are you from?

First you are complaining that somebody is attacking the Bible and in the next post you attack that Christ was God as the Bible says and that He was dead for three days as Bible says and that He died for our sins as Bible says?

 

[Dagallen]

Who used the word Trinity first in recorded history, Tertullion. The meaning of the trinity according to Tertullion, I and the Father are one in respect, not of singularity of a number but the unity of substance, he also did not teach that the Holy Spirit was a being, as the trinity belief does not even come close to the belief of a Trinity, which was the word Tertullian used. As the trinity doctrine was not formalized until long after the Bible was written and the Apostles were in their graves, why is it so hard for the trinity believers to be able to explain the trinity concept ? Because they trying to insert a belief into the scriptures, that the oldest texts does not teach, the trinity concept in not in the Bible itself, as Tertullian openly reveals that he himself use many pagan beliefs. History traces the trinity concept back to a Babylon people, Nimod - Tammuz- Semiramis, as she believed she was the Queen of heaven, she believe her son was, God the Father and God the Son, who she gave birth to, making her the Queen of heaven, she believed her son was the first divined incomprehensible trinity God, as the trinity is the masterpiece of who is called Satan, which was used and is still being used to deceive the whole world, as the book of Revelation clearly states, the beast who is called the devil and Satan, would deceive the whole. That he has done.

 

[valiant]

So, Please, what was this the beginning of? I cannot be the beginning of God the creator as He had no beginning. Could it be the beginning of creation? I believe it is just that, the "First of all creation by God"

To suggest that three entities, all as powerful as the other arrived at the one time is akin to saying that there were three simultaneous Big Bangs that made all things thereafter. Not in my book of simple logic.

In the beginning the Word ALREADY WAS. Thus He existed before the beginning.

The members of the triune God did not 'arrive', they have forever existed. The Son was the creator of all things in agreement with the Father,.

 

[trofimus]

Who used the word Trinity first in recorded history, Tertullion. The meaning of the trinity according to Tertullion, I and the Father are one in respect, not of singularity of a number but the unity of substance, he also did not teach that the Holy Spirit was a being, as the trinity belief does not even come close to the belief of a Trinity, which was the word Tertullian used. As the trinity doctrine was not formalized until long after the Bible was written and the Apostles were in their graves, why is it so hard for the trinity believers to be able to explain the trinity concept ? Because they trying to insert a belief into the scriptures, that the oldest texts does not teach, the trinity concept in not in the Bible itself, as Tertullian openly reveals that he himself use many pagan beliefs. History traces the trinity concept back to a Babylon people, Nimod - Tammuz- Semiramis, as she believed she was the Queen of heaven, she believe her son was, God the Father and God the Son, who she gave birth to, making her the Queen of heaven, she believed her son was the first divined incomprehensible trinity God, as the trinity is the masterpiece of who is called Satan, which was used and is still being used to deceive the whole world, as the book of Revelation clearly states, the beast who is called the devil and Satan, would deceive the whole. That he has done.

I am afraid that your post does not make any sense.

------

Bible says that the Son is God, that Father is God, that the Holy Spirit is God.

Bible says there is just one God.

Bible records that all these three are personalities, not just powers, titles etc.

------

Whether you formalize this or not, Tertullian or not, it still is what the Bible says.

 

[AKAP]

I am afraid that your post does not make any sense.

------

Bible says that the Son is God, that Father is God, that the Holy Spirit is God.

Bible says there is just one God.

Bible records that all these three are personalities, not just powers, titles etc.

------

Whether you formalize this or not, Tertullian or not, it still is what the Bible says.

trofimus: In our resurrected bodies we being filled with the water of life will also become a 'deities' via God and Christ. So there will be MANY personalities in God via Christ...until the Kingdom is returned to God and God will be all in all....mind blowing is it not.

In Christ always

 

[Dagallen]

I am afraid that your post does not make any sense.

------

Bible says that the Son is God, that Father is God, that the Holy Spirit is God.

Bible says there is just one God.

Bible records that all these three are personalities, not just powers, titles etc.

------

Whether you formalize this or not, Tertullian or not, it still is what the Bible says.

There was no trinity concept in the oldest text, as the NT texts was written by modren day Greeks, the Greeks who wrote the NT, did not know Christ himself, did not know the Apostles, there no trinity concept in the Apostles creed but of course trinity believers try to make the scriptures back the trinity concept, as there is more Pagan believers in the world today.

 

[valiant]

Who used the word Trinity first in recorded history, Tertullion.

That is why I prefer to refer to the Triune God based on the Greek Scriptures. Tertullian simply sought to translate into Latin.

The meaning of the trinity according to Tertullion, I and the Father are one in respect, not of singularity of a number but the unity of substance, he also did not teach that the Holy Spirit was a being, as the trinity belief does not even come close to the belief of a Trinity, which was the word Tertullian used.

we do not look to Tertullian for our doctrine. We look to the Scriptures,

As the trinity doctrine was not formalized until long after the Bible was written and the Apostles were in their graves, why is it so hard for the trinity believers to be able to explain the trinity concept ?

The triune God WAS clearly taught in the Scriptures. But we will never fully understand the concept for we are but men. The idea had to be revealed to us.

Because they trying to insert a belief into the scriptures, that the oldest texts does not teach,

The older texts teach the Triune God It is foolish to argue about terminology.

the trinity concept in not in the Bible itself,

Actually the concept is. Those who do not believe it are lacking in truth. It is found everywhere.

Tertullian openly reveals that he himself use many pagan beliefs.

Forget Tertullian.

History traces the trinity concept back to a Babylon people, Nimod - Tammuz- Semiramis, as she believed she was the Queen of heaven, she believe her son was, God the Father and God the Son, who she gave birth to, making her the Queen of heaven, she believed her son was the first divined incomprehensible trinity God,

you mean YOU try to do? They were three Gods. They do not even come close to the idea of the Triune God.

as the trinity is the masterpiece of who is called Satan, which was used and is still being used to deceive the whole world, as the book of Revelation clearly states, the beast who is called the devil and Satan, would deceive the whole. That he has done.

The concept of the triune God is true. Satan is a liar and leads people to fail to see it. He is responsible for all the cults who deny it. He deceives people about the truth.

 

[valiant]

There was no trinity concept in the oldest text, as the NT texts was written by modren day Greeks, the Greeks who wrote the NT, did not know Christ himself, did not know the Apostles, there no trinity concept in the Apostles creed but of course trinity believers try to make the scriptures back the trinity concept, as there is more Pagan believers in the world today.

The original Greek texts were written by the Apostles and by Apostolic men. They KNEW the Triune God. They KNEW that Jesus was YAHWEH, THE NAME of Father, Son and Holy Spirit (Matt 28.19). Thus they believed the 'Trinity concept'. Those who reject the Godhead of Jesus are pagan believers. They serve a false Christ.

 

[valiant]

trofimus: In our resurrected bodies we being filled with the water of life will also become a 'deities' via God and Christ. So there will be MANY personalities in God via Christ...until the Kingdom is returned to God and God will be all in all....mind blowing is it not.

We will not become gods. You are totally in error. There is one God in Threeness. Your teaching is blasphemy. Your mind has disintegrated.