There Are Many Scriptures That Disprove The Trinity

[Bowman]

Truly, I do not see how you get from the word "God" the idea of either "triune" or "polytheist" in this chapter.
God (triune or polytheist ??????) told Abimelech he was a dead man if he touched Sarah.
Abimelech pleads with God.
Abimelech asks Abraham why he did this to him.
Abimelech gives Abraham a great gift and sends him and Sarah away.
God heals all of those in the house of Abimelech.
The end. No context about triune or plolythiest that I can see. Just God. Unless you have some hebrew translation that gives different names to God which is not unusual.

Study the original Hebrew language instead of skimming through an English rendering.

What is the matter with you people...?

Gen 20.13....'they caused me to wonder'.....etc, etc....

A better encounter of the 3 persons known as Yahweh would be Genesis chapter 18 as Abraham entertains 3 holy men. Many Christian scholars say that this was the Godhead that visited Abraham. Do you have context on this encounter?

Abraham saw Jesus in the OT…


Your father Abraham leaped for joy that he should see My day, and he saw, and rejoiced.
Then the Jews said to Him, You do not yet have fifty years, and have You seen Abraham?
Jesus said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, Before Abraham came to be, I AM!

(John 8.56 – 58)


Compare…



Genesis chapters 18 – 19 comprise the longest Trinitarian proof text in the entire Holy Bible.

· Yahweh appears as ‘three men’ to Abraham (Gen 18.1 – 2)
· Abraham addresses the ‘three men’ as ‘my Lords’ (adonai - plural)
· Abrahams responds… “If I have found favor in your (singular) sight (singular)…” (Gen 18.3)
· “They answered Abraham” indicating that each of the ‘three men’ were Lord (Gen 18.5) (Effectively eliminating the three angels or God and two angels argument)
· Yahweh speaks of Yahweh in the third person (Gen 18.14, 19)
· Yahweh remained to talk with Abraham, then returned to Heaven without going to Sodom (Gen 18.33)
· According to the text, there are at least two Yahwehs in Genesis 18 – 19. One Yahweh stated that he would go down to Sodom – and then two of the ‘three men’ went to Sodom (Gen 18.2, 22; 19.12). Abraham remained talking with another Yahweh (Gen 18.21 – 22). Later, Yahweh is described as being in Heaven while Yahweh is mentioned as being in Sodom (Gen 19.24)
· Gen 18 -19 shows us that there was never such a thing as the ‘Majestic Plural’

 

[Bowman]

I didn't say worship, I said pray. There is a difference. And you are praying to God, but the angel is what does the work of God.

All OT usages of the term are worship with reference to Yahweh.

The verses i use to show God manifestation are the same ones you use to show Jesus pre existed. We interpret them differently. I look at them as angels because they are called elohim, which means might ones. You look at it as pre existant Jesus because...well because I really don't know why because it doesn't say it is him but I do see interpreting it like that. Both our interpretations work there though.

Feel free to provide verifiable exegesis for ANY of your supposed proof scriptures.

Good luck...

 

[Bowman]

I checked again and I don't see that there at all. I simply see "elohim" repeated twice.

וַיִּתְפַּלֵּל אַבְרָהָם, אֶל-הָאֱלֹהִים; וַיִּרְפָּא אֱלֹהִים אֶת-אֲבִימֶלֶךְ וְאֶת-אִשְׁתּוֹ, וְאַמְהֹתָיו--וַיֵּלֵדוּ

 

[tucksma]

All OT usages of the term are worship with reference to Yahweh.





Feel free to provide verifiable exegesis for ANY of your supposed proof scriptures.

Good luck...

It is literally the same stuff you use, just interpreted differently. Like you see Malek Yahweh being Jesus, I see it as messenger of God. You use evidence showing that Malek yahweh is Yahweh, I say it is an angel holding the name of Yahweh because he is a messenger (like in my messenger/Queen analogy). Its a different interpretation that is supported by scripture. I do see where you come from, but it doesn't say Malek Yahweh HAS to be Jesus. It could be, but it doesn't HAVE to be. It never outright calls Malek Yahweh Jesus (at least not that I've seen you show).

Using God manifestation you can also show that the three angels idea works if the angels carry God's name by doing his will.

This is going back to the old convo though where it was you using your trinity doctrine, and me using God manifestation. Both worked in every situation you stated.

Sense we are going to now be going back and forth and niether of us is learning a thing, I'm backing out of this thread again....hopefully lol.


God bless.

 

[Bowman]

Also with Yahweh being called elohim that makes sense because God is a mighty one. Elohim is plural though, so it includes more than just God.

The Trinity.

 

[tucksma]

וַיִּתְפַּלֵּל אַבְרָהָם, אֶל-הָאֱלֹהִים; וַיִּרְפָּא אֱלֹהִים אֶת-אֲבִימֶלֶךְ וְאֶת-אִשְׁתּוֹ, וְאַמְהֹתָיו--וַיֵּלֵדוּ

You underlining stuff doesn't prove a thing because I don't know how well you know Hebrew, and i sure as heck don't know how to read it.

 

[Bowman]

It is literally the same stuff you use, just interpreted differently. Like you see Malek Yahweh being Jesus, I see it as messenger of God.

Even in the NT Jesus is referred to as a 'Messenger of God'.....Even the authors of the Koran knew this....and?

You use evidence showing that Malek yahweh is Yahweh, I say it is an angel holding the name of Yahweh because he is a messenger (like in my messenger/Queen analogy).

Your messenger/Queen analogy is fatally flawed for the very fact that ANYONE can see the messenger is NOT the Queen.

Come on...

Its a different interpretation that is supported by scripture. I do see where you come from, but it doesn't say Malek Yahweh HAS to be Jesus. It could be, but it doesn't HAVE to be. It never outright calls Malek Yahweh Jesus (at least not that I've seen you show).

Using God manifestation you can also show that the three angels idea works if the angels carry God's name by doing his will.

This is going back to the old convo though where it was you using your trinity doctrine, and me using God manifestation. Both worked in every situation you stated.

Sense we are going to now be going back and forth and niether of us is learning a thing, I'm backing out of this thread again....hopefully lol.


God bless.

Strap this example on for size and let me know how it fits...



How about Ezekiel?

We have the Son proclaimed in Ezekiel:

• The Word (Eze 1.3)
• Also called the Glory (Eze 1.28)
• The Glory has the appearance of a Man (Eze 1.26 – 28)
• Compare how the NT refers to the Son as the Glory & the Word (John 1.14; Heb 1.3)
• Ezekiel states that the Glory by the river (Eze 1.3, 28) is the same Glory as mentioned throughout the book (Eze 3.22 – 23; 10.18 – 20; 43.3)

We have the Spirit proclaimed in Ezekiel:

• The Man that is portrayed in (Eze 8.1 - 3) is also mentioned in (Eze 40.3)
• The Man is a representation of the Spirit (Eze 8.2 – 3; 43.5 – 6)
• The Hand of Yahweh is also the Spirit (Eze 3.14; 8.3; 37.1)
• The Man and the Glory are often associated with Yahweh
• We have the Man bringing Ezekiel back to the east gate (Eze 44.1)
• Prior to this, the Man was w/Ezekiel by the east gate (Eze 43.1)

We have the Trinity proclaimed in Ezekiel:

• The Spirit & the Glory are mentioned together – but at the same time, distinction is made between them (Eze 1.28 – 2.2; 3.12 – 14, 23 – 24; 8.3 – 4; 10.18 – 11.1, 22 – 23; 43.1 – 5)
• The Man quotes the Father (Yahweh) (Eze 44.6; 45.9, 18; 46.1, 16; 47.13)
• The Glory quotes the Father (Yahweh) (Eze 3.11 – 12; 11.5; 43.18, 19, 27)
• The Man (Eze 44.1) referred the Glory, and went through the east gate into the temple (Eze 43.2 – 5), as Yahweh the Father (Eze 44.2)
• Therefore, the Glory (the Word) is the Son
• The Man (The Hand of Yahweh) is the Spirit
• Yahweh is the Father

 

[VCO]

Even in the NT Jesus is referred to as a 'Messenger of God'.....Even the authors of the Koran knew this....and?

Your messenger/Queen analogy is fatally flawed for the very fact that ANYONE can see the messenger is NOT the Queen.

Come on...

Strap this example on for size and let me know how it fits...

How about Ezekiel?

We have the Son proclaimed in Ezekiel:

• The Word (Eze 1.3)
• Also called the Glory (Eze 1.28)
• The Glory has the appearance of a Man (Eze 1.26 – 28)
• Compare how the NT refers to the Son as the Glory & the Word (John 1.14; Heb 1.3)
• Ezekiel states that the Glory by the river (Eze 1.3, 28) is the same Glory as mentioned throughout the book (Eze 3.22 – 23; 10.18 – 20; 43.3)

We have the Spirit proclaimed in Ezekiel:

• The Man that is portrayed in (Eze 8.1 - 3) is also mentioned in (Eze 40.3)
• The Man is a representation of the Spirit (Eze 8.2 – 3; 43.5 – 6)
• The Hand of Yahweh is also the Spirit (Eze 3.14; 8.3; 37.1)
• The Man and the Glory are often associated with Yahweh
• We have the Man bringing Ezekiel back to the east gate (Eze 44.1)
• Prior to this, the Man was w/Ezekiel by the east gate (Eze 43.1)

We have the Trinity proclaimed in Ezekiel:

• The Spirit & the Glory are mentioned together – but at the same time, distinction is made between them (Eze 1.28 – 2.2; 3.12 – 14, 23 – 24; 8.3 – 4; 10.18 – 11.1, 22 – 23; 43.1 – 5)
• The Man quotes the Father (Yahweh) (Eze 44.6; 45.9, 18; 46.1, 16; 47.13)
• The Glory quotes the Father (Yahweh) (Eze 3.11 – 12; 11.5; 43.18, 19, 27)
• The Man (Eze 44.1) referred the Glory, and went through the east gate into the temple (Eze 43.2 – 5), as Yahweh the Father (Eze 44.2)
• Therefore, the Glory (the Word) is the Son
• The Man (The Hand of Yahweh) is the Spirit
• Yahweh is the Father

Very good Post.

Isaiah 42:8 (HCSB)
[SUP]8 [/SUP] I am Yahweh, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another or My praise to idols.


John 1:14 (HCSB)
[SUP]14 [/SUP] The Word became flesh and took up residence among us. We observed His glory, the glory as the One and Only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

 

[Arwen4CJ]

Look into the history of the trinity sometime and you'll see why so many believe it. Around 300ish AD there was a meeting where the trinity was voted on. The trinity side won but only by a few. Anyone who then didn't believe in the trinity was killed and it was like that for about 1000 years. That is why now most faiths believe it. I'm not saying it is right or wrong with this message, just saying that if that vote never happened 1, there would be a lot more wars and 2, There would be a lot more people not believing the trinity.

Nope. Those who believed in Jesus' full deity did not win out by only a few. They overwhelmingly won out.

The idea that it won out by only a few is a lie that has been propagated by atheists, non-Christians, and non-Trinitarians.

 

[capumetu]

Not to those that thinks the Bible contradicts itself.

 

[johnluke]

Are you a believer in the Holy Trinity or Not? It is the Holy Spirit who Teaches us that the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity is True. Only when He has brought our once dead human spirit, to Eternal Life; is it possible to hear with understanding spiritual truths, including the deep things of God.

I absolutely believe in the Holy Trinity, but I do not believe they are consubstantial. There are too many scriptures that declare that the 3 are not only distinct from each other, but also separate from each other.

 

[johnluke]

Nope. Those who believed in Jesus' full deity did not win out by only a few. They overwhelmingly won out.

The idea that it won out by only a few is a lie that has been propagated by atheists, non-Christians, and non-Trinitarians.

The final vote was more like Arwen4CJ says, but that does not tell the story. A large % of the Bishops (maybe as high as 50%) did not like the creed, but because of the pressure put on them by Constantine and his army of soldiers and Bishops, they plugged their noses and voted for the creed. Almost 100% of the Bishops did not like the word (homoousios - of the same substance) because it smacked of Sabellianism which was declared anathema by a church conference in Rome and Pope Callistus 1 excommunicated Sabellius around 220AD. Sabellianism (Modalism) was at the forefront of the emerging idea of the Trinity. The other reason they did not like it was because the word "homoousios" was unbiblical.
So for these reasons, even though they voted yes, they did not like it. A good % of Bishops when they returned back to their homes, were replaced by angry members of the church that did not like the creed also.
The war of words has not abated even till today.

 

[johnluke]

You underlining stuff doesn't prove a thing because I don't know how well you know Hebrew, and i sure as heck don't know how to read it.

You may want to consider going to a website called "scripture4all.org" and then look about halfway down the page and click on "hebrew interlinear bible" or "greek interlinear bible". Hope you like it.

 

[johnluke]

By taking the preaching of the Gospel PERSONAL, does it make you feel any more confident that God will forgive you of your sins, even though you reject his advocacy?

I have a sinner nose detector dude............

Guess where I got it from

being absolutely fed up with my own back-slidden heart.....................

repenting and serving Jesus

ehe... ye sinner, u need 2 quit looking for faults u fault finder and have a Holy Spirit Revival........

ah ppl God's angry very angry, the judgement is coming, get right with the King ppl

No, im just not going to let you try and use me as an excuse to sin more....................... dont focus on me and my sin, focus on ur own sin Daniel... that way u can see way clearer how to take the sin out of my eyes

Jesus brought the bible to the Romans................ figure that out......................... for hundreds of years the vassal states of rome were influenced by the bible.................... figure out how confusing that must have been to their satanic religions................ the Bible totally changed laws in the land, morality............. but now people in the Church have just ignored all the demonic attacks on the church because of stupidity

they destroyed our bibles, then they destroyed our scientific credibility even though many of the science forefathers were Christians, and then they forced social marxist stalin hitlarian evolution down our throats....... then they forced women to work by giving them rights that God had already given them (they actually took away the rights that women had).

women had a right to NOT work.......... of course they could work................... and so what if they couldn't vote, the votes are rigged anyways.............. old news, same toilet.......... then the kids didn't have parents to protect them from the world anymore so the parents were too busy and gave the children to strangers to educate them

ppl we live in a sick messed up world, where they brain wash us from young and when we old we turn out to be sickos weirdos and freaks............

As many messed up people there is in the world, the Lord has countered that with good and righteous people so look for the good and righteous and hang out with them and your life will be better.

Oh ppl God is angry all the day with sinners, ppl u need 2 repent. read ur bible folks...........

If you don't want God to be angry at you, do the things that he did and your life will be better.

 

[VCO]

Not to those that thinks the Bible contradicts itself.

Any time you think you found a Contradiction in the Bible, you can be absolutely certain of ONE thing, you totally misinterpreted at least one, if not both verses.

 

[VCO]

I know the history,at the council of Nicaea I in the year 325ad the church elders contributed to the formulation of the creed which professes belief in the Trinity. And yes many have been condemned and killed by those professing to be servants of Jesus Christ, even to this day. God is not mocked and what so ever a man sows that shall he also reap.
May God have mercy on all our souls in Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Better study some more of that History for yourself. It took little effort to validate you were wrong, and apparently just spreading the falsehood, that someone else taught you.

For example Polycarp lived from 70 A.D somewhere in the mid first century. Here's how he prayed:


"O Lord God almighty... I bless you and glorify you through the eternal and heavenly high priest Jesus Christ, your beloved Son, through whom be glory to you, with Him and the Holy Spirit, both now and forever."
. . .


Likewise Justin (another Martyr and church leader from the first century) had this to say about baptism:


"For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water"
. . .
By the first decade of the second century, we have quite a collection of declarations about the Trinity. Here is Tertullian:


And at the same time the mystery of the oikonomia is safeguarded, for the unity is distributed in a Trinity. Placed in order, the three are the Father, Son, and Spirit. They are three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in being, but in form; not in power, but in kind; of one being, however, and one condition and one power, because he is one God of whom degrees and forms and kinds are taken into account in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.


The list goes on. I can't quote them all here but Ignatius the Bishop of Antioch, Irenaeus, a disciple of Polycarp and later Bishop of Lyons, Didache, Hippolytus, Novatian, Origen, and other Fathers through the first and second entries can all be quoted with emphatic articulations of the Trinity.


The exact formulation and best way to articulate this mystery has been widely debated in every age and language since. The above Fathers certainly had variying ideas about just what it meant to have a single God with three persons. We still struggle to wrap our heads around this today. And that's ok as long as we do not err on the side of either denying either the unity or diversity of his nature. We must not make out the persons of the Trinity to be separate beings nor deny that the one being is revealed to us in thee persons.

The Ante-NiceneFathers affirmed Christ's deity and spoke of "Father, Son and Holy Spirit", even though their language is not that of the traditional doctrine as formalised in the fourth century. Trinitarians view these as elements of the codified doctrine.[SUP][21][/SUP]Ignatius of Antioch provides early support for the Trinity around 110,[SUP][22][/SUP] exhorting obedience to "Christ, and to the Father, and to the Spirit".[SUP][23][/SUP]Justin Martyr (AD 100–c. 165) also writes, "in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit".[SUP][24][/SUP] The first of the early church fathers to be recorded using the word "Trinity" was Theophilus of Antioch writing in the late 2nd century. He defines the Trinity as God, His Word (Logos) and His Wisdom (Sophia)[SUP][25][/SUP] in the context of a discussion of the first three days of creation. The first defence of the doctrine of the Trinity was in the early 3rd century by the early church father Tertullian. He explicitly defined the Trinity as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and defended the Trinitarian theology against the "Praxean" heresy.[SUP][26] [/SUP][SUP]

Trinity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[/SUP]

[SUP]


You know, if you wanted to tell believable falsehoods about the Origin of the Doctrine of the Trinity, you'd think you would take the time to get more of your facts straight.[/SUP]

 

[johnluke]

That's the chapter before the part I just quoted from.....

Genesis 18, NASB
18 Now the LORD appeared to him by the [SUP][a][/SUP]oaks of Mamre, while he was sitting at the tent door in the heat of the day. [SUP]2 [/SUP]When he lifted up his eyes and looked, behold, three men were standing opposite him; and when he saw them, he ran from the tent door to meet them and bowed himself to the earth, [SUP]3 [/SUP]and said, “[SUP][b][/SUP]My Lord, if now I have found favor in Your sight, please do not [SUP][c][/SUP]pass Your servant by. [SUP]4 [/SUP]Please let a little water be brought and wash your feet, and [SUP][d][/SUP]rest yourselves under the tree; [SUP]5 [/SUP]and I will [SUP][e][/SUP]bring a piece of bread, that you may [SUP][f][/SUP]refresh yourselves; after that you may go on, since you have [SUP][g][/SUP]visited your servant.” And they said, “So do, as you have said.” [SUP]6 [/SUP]So Abraham hurried into the tent to Sarah, and said, “[SUP][h][/SUP]Quickly, prepare three [SUP][i][/SUP]measures of fine flour, knead it and make bread cakes.” [SUP]7 [/SUP]Abraham also ran to the herd, and took a tender and [SUP][j][/SUP]choice calf and gave it to the servant, and he hurried to prepare it. [SUP]8 [/SUP]He took curds and milk and the calf which he had prepared, and placed it before them; and he was standing by them under the tree [SUP][k][/SUP]as they ate.

[SUP]9 [/SUP]Then they said to him, “Where is Sarah your wife?” And he said, “There, in the tent.” [SUP]10 [/SUP]He said, “I will surely return to you [SUP][l][/SUP]at this time next year; and behold, Sarah your wife will have a son.” And Sarah was listening at the tent door, which was behind him. [SUP]11 [/SUP]Now Abraham and Sarah were old, advanced in age; Sarah was past [SUP][m][/SUP]childbearing. [SUP]12 [/SUP]Sarah laughed [SUP][n][/SUP]to herself, saying, “After I have become old, shall I have pleasure, my lord being old also?” [SUP]13 [/SUP]And the LORD said to Abraham, “Why did Sarah laugh, saying, ‘Shall I indeed [SUP][o][/SUP]bear a child, when I am so old?’ [SUP]14 [/SUP]Is anything too [SUP][p][/SUP]difficult for the LORD? At the appointed time I will return to you, [SUP][q][/SUP]at this time next year, and Sarah will have a son.” [SUP]15 [/SUP]Sarah denied it however, saying, “I did not laugh”; for she was afraid. And He said, “No, but you did laugh.”

[SUP]16 [/SUP]Then the men rose up from there, and looked down toward Sodom; and Abraham was walking with them to send them off. [SUP]17 [/SUP]The LORD said, “Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do, [SUP]18 [/SUP]since Abraham will surely become a great and [SUP][r][/SUP]mighty nation, and in him all the nations of the earth will be blessed? [SUP]19[/SUP]For I have [SUP][s][/SUP]chosen him, so that he may command his children and his household after him to keep the way of the LORD by doing righteousness and justice, so that the LORD may bring upon Abraham what He has spoken about him.” [SUP]20 [/SUP]And the LORD said, “The outcry of Sodom and Gomorrah is indeed great, and their sin is exceedingly grave. [SUP]21 [/SUP]I will go down now, and see if they have done entirely according to its outcry, which has come to Me; and if not, I will know.”

[SUP]22 [/SUP]Then the men turned away from there and went toward Sodom, while Abraham was still standing before the LORD. [SUP]23 [/SUP]Abraham came near and said, “Will You indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked? [SUP]24 [/SUP]Suppose there are fifty righteous within the city; will You indeed sweep it away and not [SUP][t][/SUP]spare the place for the sake of the fifty righteous who are in it? [SUP]25 [/SUP]Far be it from You to do [SUP][u][/SUP]such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous and the wicked are treated alike. Far be it from You! Shall not the Judge of all the earth [SUP][v][/SUP]deal justly?” [SUP]26 [/SUP]So the LORD said, “If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will [SUP][w][/SUP]spare the whole place on their account.” [SUP]27 [/SUP]And Abraham replied, “Now behold, I have [SUP][x][/SUP]ventured to speak to the Lord, although I am but dust and ashes. [SUP]28 [/SUP]Suppose the fifty righteous are lacking five, will You destroy the whole city because of five?” And He said, “I will not destroy it if I find forty-five there.” [SUP]29 [/SUP]He spoke to Him yet again and said, “Suppose forty are found there?” And He said, “I will not do it on account of the forty.” [SUP]30 [/SUP]Then he said, “Oh may the Lord not be angry, and I shall speak; suppose thirty are found there?” And He said, “I will not do it if I find thirty there.” [SUP]31 [/SUP]And he said, “Now behold, I have [SUP][y][/SUP]ventured to speak to the Lord; suppose twenty are found there?” And He said, “I will not destroy it on account of the twenty.” [SUP]32 [/SUP]Then he said, “Oh may the Lord not be angry, and I shall speak only this once; suppose ten are found there?” And He said, “I will not destroy it on account of the ten.” [SUP]33 [/SUP]As soon as He had finished speaking to Abraham the LORD departed, and Abraham returned to his place.



This isn't rock solid, as it can be interpreted different ways, but it does suggest the strong possibility that three Persons are Yahweh.

For instance, it constantly shifts between plural and singular, even when Yahweh Himself is speaking about Himself. It seems to me that Yahweh appeared to Abraham in three Persons. Towards the end of the chapter, two of the Persons left, but Abraham was still left talking to the third Person, all three of which appear to be Yahweh.

I would like to comment on just the first 5 verses of Genesis 18.
First of all it says that "the Lord" appeared to Abraham. But when Abraham looked up there were "3 men" standing by him.
It was not the Holy Trinity because Abraham would have only seen 1 man standing next to him. Remember the 3 are in 1 and they are consubstantial.
We have a pretty good idea that Abraham new the Lord from previous experiences and so when he looked up he saw the 3 men, he also recognized the Lord. It would be perfect behavior for him to address the leader of this group only, perhaps not knowing the other 2. So to say that he addresses the Lord because he was the only one standing there is not very logical. If a king had ridden up to Abraham's tent with 2 other assistants, Abraham may very well have rushed to him and said, my lord... not even acknowledging his assistants. We would certainly not say because Abraham addresses the king only that the other assistants were consubstantial with the king.
The only verbiage that would be Trinitarian is when "they" responded to Abraham in verse 5. I thought that was interesting until I read in chapter 19 verse 5 as the men of the city were talking to Lot it says, "they" called out to Lot and said where are the men.... Here again is this strange verbiage like all the men were calling out, but it probably was just one calling out.
Then later in verse 9 it says, "get out of the way "they" said, adding this one came here a foreigner and he's acting like a judge. Again it is not logical that the entire group of men from the city would be yelling in unison "get out of the way... and he's acting like a judge?
So the only solid verse is verse 2 where Abraham saw 3 separate and distinct men standing in front of him. So if this is the Trinity standing in front of him, the scripture declares the 3 members of the Trinity are separate and distinct.

 

[Arwen4CJ]

I would like to comment on just the first 5 verses of Genesis 18.
First of all it says that "the Lord" appeared to Abraham. But when Abraham looked up there were "3 men" standing by him.
It was not the Holy Trinity because Abraham would have only seen 1 man standing next to him. Remember the 3 are in 1 and they are consubstantial.
We have a pretty good idea that Abraham new the Lord from previous experiences and so when he looked up he saw the 3 men, he also recognized the Lord. It would be perfect behavior for him to address the leader of this group only, perhaps not knowing the other 2. So to say that he addresses the Lord because he was the only one standing there is not very logical. If a king had ridden up to Abraham's tent with 2 other assistants, Abraham may very well have rushed to him and said, my lord... not even acknowledging his assistants. We would certainly not say because Abraham addresses the king only that the other assistants were consubstantial with the king.
The only verbiage that would be Trinitarian is when "they" responded to Abraham in verse 5. I thought that was interesting until I read in chapter 19 verse 5 as the men of the city were talking to Lot it says, "they" called out to Lot and said where are the men.... Here again is this strange verbiage like all the men were calling out, but it probably was just one calling out.
Then later in verse 9 it says, "get out of the way "they" said, adding this one came here a foreigner and he's acting like a judge. Again it is not logical that the entire group of men from the city would be yelling in unison "get out of the way... and he's acting like a judge?
So the only solid verse is verse 2 where Abraham saw 3 separate and distinct men standing in front of him. So if this is the Trinity standing in front of him, the scripture declares the 3 members of the Trinity are separate and distinct.

You keep failing to understand that the doctrine of the Trinity acknowledges the three Persons as being separate and distinct. The term "consubstantial" does not mean that the Persons are not separate and distinct. What it does mean, though, is that they are all the same God, Yahweh. They are not three different gods.

Having the three Persons appear separately from one another does not disprove the Trinity, nor does it disprove the Persons being consubstantial. All it shows is that there are three Persons who are called Yahweh. Even in appearing in three Persons at once, He is still one God. The three Persons don't have to appear as one Person in order for the Persons to be one God, Yahweh.

God is not like us. What "makes sense" for us doesn't have to "make sense" for God.

 

[VCO]

I absolutely believe in the Holy Trinity, but I do not believe they are consubstantial. There are too many scriptures that declare that the 3 are not only distinct from each other, but also separate from each other.

Then How do you get past these verses?

Isaiah 43:10-11 (HCSB)
[SUP]10 [/SUP] “You are My witnesses”— ⌊this is⌋ the LORD’s declaration— “and My servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe Me and understand that I am He. No god was formed before Me, and there will be none after Me.
[SUP]11 [/SUP] I, I am Yahweh, and there is no other Savior but Me.

Acts 4:11-12 (HCSB)
[SUP]11 [/SUP] This ⌊Jesus⌋ is the stone rejected by you builders, which has become the cornerstone.
[SUP]12 [/SUP] There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to people, and we must be saved by it.”

Isaiah 42:8 (HCSB)
[SUP]8 [/SUP]I am Yahweh, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another or My praise to idols.

Hebrews 1:3 (HCSB)
[SUP]3 [/SUP] The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact expression of His nature, sustaining all things by His powerful word. After making purification for sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.

1 Peter 4:14 (NKJV)
[SUP]14 [/SUP] If you are reproached for the name of Christ, blessed are you, for the Spirit of glory and of God rests upon you. On their part He is blasphemed, but on your part He is glorified.

 

[johnluke]

You keep failing to understand that the doctrine of the Trinity acknowledges the three Persons as being separate and distinct. The term "consubstantial" does not mean that the Persons are not separate and distinct. What it does mean, though, is that they are all the same God, Yahweh. They are not three different gods.

Having the three Persons appear separately from one another does not disprove the Trinity, nor does it disprove the Persons being consubstantial. All it shows is that there are three Persons who are called Yahweh. Even in appearing in three Persons at once, He is still one God. The three Persons don't have to appear as one Person in order for the Persons to be one God, Yahweh.

God is not like us. What "makes sense" for us doesn't have to "make sense" for God.

If the 3 Persons in the Godhead are separate and distinct from each other
If the 3 Persons in the Godhead can appear as 3 separate and distinct men at the same time
If the 3 Persons don't appear as 1 Person in order to be 1 God.
How is this definition any different that what the Mormons believe?