There Are Many Scriptures That Disprove The Trinity

[VCO]

Re: Study up...

I have never heard it explained better. Jesus is doing the will of His Father by taking His rightful place, before and after all is said and done. This would be a very good example for those who try to down grade God's original words from the beginning of time. It is no wonder why Jesus said he came to fulfill, and not take anything away from the original law and prophets. Thank you

You welcome, but I give all the credit to an elderly Pastor that I once knew, Pastor Neil Berry. When I was a bull in a fine china store, young Christian. He saw me witnessing downtown on the sidewalk to someone one day, and leaned back against the store wall and listened to me for awhile, saying nothing at the time. Kinda proud that my Pastor saw me, I was riding high until Sunday morning. As I walked into the Church door, he reached out and grabbed me by the arm, and said "Come into my Office." As I stepped in, he shut the door and said, "I have one thing to say to you about your witnessing. Keep it simple Stupid, you were going clean over his head!" I never forgot that lesson, and learned to look up to him as a spiritual Grandfather.

 

[just-me]

Re: Study up...

You welcome, but I give all the credit to an elderly Pastor that I once knew, Pastor Neil Berry. When I was a bull in a fine china store, young Christian. He saw me witnessing downtown on the sidewalk to someone one day, and leaned back against the store wall and listened to me for awhile, saying nothing at the time. Kinda proud that my Pastor saw me, I was riding high until Sunday morning. As I walked into the Church door, he reached out and grabbed me by the arm, and said "Come into my Office." As I stepped in, he shut the door and said, "I have one thing to say to you about your witnessing. Keep it simple Stupid, you were going clean over his head!" I never forgot that lesson, and learned to look up to him as a spiritual Grandfather.

Greet them with a KISS

 

[Bowman]

If my theology is jacked, then so is yours, because we both get our theologies from the same place, the Holy Bible.
Everything I ever quote is from the Bible, anything you quote I suspect is from the Bible. I have seen in just a short time however that you were able to spin in your mind that Matthew 3:16-17 was a rock solid confirmation of the Trinity. I find it to be a rock solid condemnation of the Trinity. So who is right? Could both our theologies be jacked? Who is to know? Where do we go for our final arbitration?

Seems you follow the JW stance to scripture interpretation.

This means that you don't know what the Trinity even is....only...that you are against it.

You claim that that scripture states that the Father, Son and Spirit are separate referents....so what?!

This is already comprehended by the Trinity.

 

[Bowman]

That is typically the problem with those who deny the trinity as they often deny the deity of Christ.

Agreed....

 

[jag1977]

No one is denying, they are interpreting for themselves. Just as intended.

 

[VCO]

Re: Study up...

I have never heard it explained better. Jesus is doing the will of His Father by taking His rightful place, before and after all is said and done. This would be a very good example for those who try to down grade God's original words from the beginning of time. It is no wonder why Jesus said he came to fulfill, and not take anything away from the original law and prophets. Thank you

Isn't it a bummer getting old and trying to proof read what we wrote. Re-Reading it as having no errors only to find the typos later. I left out the word DO in the original, sorry.


The purpose and function of Jesus Christ within the Triune Godhead, has always been to DO the will of the Father, and therefore he will continue to do it.

 

[VCO]

Seems you follow the JW stance to scripture interpretation.

This means that you don't know what the Trinity even is....only...that you are against it.

You claim that that scripture states that the Father, Son and Spirit are separate referents....so what?!

This is already comprehended by the Trinity.

t t t

And the JW stance is to allow their Translators to add anything they wanted to the inspired Text, to make the Scriptures say EXACTLY what THEY wanted them to say,

instead of what GOD really inspired the Prophets and Apostles to say.

Now that may sound like a very BOLD statement, but I have absolute PROOF that the Watchtower Society's TRANSLATORS actually admitted to doing EXACTLY WHAT I JUST STATED.

Ask any Jehovah Witness, "Do you believe that anyone who adds their own words to the Word of God is a False Prophet?" If they say "Yes", then ask them to read the FOREWORD of the Second Edition of the New World Translation copyright 1961, THAT GREEN HARDBACK THEY USED TO HAND OUT IN THE 60's & 70's:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

FOREWORD​

IT IS a very responsible thing to translate the Holy Scriptures from their original languages, Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, into modern speech. Translating the Holy Scriptures means a rendering into another language the thoughts and sayings of the heavenly Author of this sacred library of sixty-six books, Jehovah God, which holy men of long ago put down in writing under inspiration for our benefit today. That is a sobering thought. The translators who have a fear and love of the divine Author of the Holy Scriptures feel especially a responsibility toward Him to transmit his thoughts and declarations as accurately as possible. They also feel a responsibility toward the searching readers of the modern translation who depend upon the inspired Word of the Most High God for their everlasting salvation. It was with such a sense of solemn responsibility that the committee of dedicated men have produced the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, over the course of many years. As soon as each part of the translation became available for publication it was turned over to the publishers for printing, all together in six volumes. The New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, containing the twenty-seven books from Matthew through The Revelation, first appeared in 1950. In due order the volumes of the New World Translation of the Hebrew-Aramaic Scriptures appeared, the first volume in 1953, the second in 1955, the third in 1957, the fourth in 1958, and the fifth in 1960. From the start of the work it was the desire of the translators to have all these contemplated volumes brought together in the form of one book, inasmuch as the Holy Scriptures are in fact one book by the One Author. To this end, as soon as the final volume of the series had been issued in 1960, the committee set to work to prepare the entire translation for publication under one cover. The committee was then able to take under survey the translation as a whole and to discern where improvements could be made. An effort was put forth to bring about even greater consistency in the renderings of the related parts of the Holy Scriptures, such as in harmonizing with the original Hebrew readings of the reading of quotations made in the Christian Greek Scriptures. Since the one-volume edition of the Holy Scriptures was to contain no footnotes,

many footnote readings that had appeared in the earlier translation

in six distinct volumes were lifted and put into the main text of the

one-volume edition.

This does not mean that the earlier rendering that was now replaced was rejected. Rather, the purpose was to attain to closer conformity to the literal reading in the original languages. All this process has resulted in revisions in the main text of the translation.

The now completed one-volume edition may therefore be properly called a revised edition of the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures. In releasing it for publication we do so with a deep sense of gratitude to the Divine Author of the Holy Scriptures, who has thus privileged us and in whose spirit we have trusted to co-operate with us in this worthy work. We hope for His blessing upon the published translation in behalf of all who read and use it in learning his holy will.

​

New World Bible Translation Committee
January 17, 1961, New York, N.Y.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

DOES THAT NOT SOLIDLY IDENTIFY THE WATCHTOWER SOCIETY AS A FALSE PROPHET.

A lot of us Christians started pointing out to them that the New World Bible Translation Committee admitted that they lifted their footnotes into the text, thus adding their words to the Word of God. The Watch Tower Society, responded by publishing a third edition, totally changing the FORWARD, and deleting that paragraph entirely.

Prov 30:6 (KJV)6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.​

 

[Bowman]

The cults know just enough scripture to be dangerous.

Prerequisites for membership in Jehovah witnesses, Christadelphians, Unitarians and other Trinity-denier cults is simple scriptural ignorance...

Their half-truths are a FULL lie.

 

[VCO]

WE TRINITY BELIEVERS DID NOT ADD our comments to the TEXT. We believe what HE inspired the Apostles to write.

Matthew 28:19 (NKJV)
[SUP]19 [/SUP] Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

By inspiration from the Holy Spirit, Matthew wrote in the NAME -SINGULAR, of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, forever making it CLEAR the THREE ARE ONE GOD.

 

[VCO]

Re: Study up...

Greet them with a KISS

Unless they teach Another Christ, Another Gospel, or Another Doctrine of Christ than the Apostles taught:


2 John 1:7-11 (HCSB)
[SUP]7 [/SUP] Many deceivers have gone out into the world; they do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist.
[SUP]8 [/SUP] Watch yourselves so you don’t lose what we have worked for, but that you may receive a full reward.
[SUP]9 [/SUP] Anyone who does not remain in Christ’s teaching but goes beyond it, does not have God. The one who remains in that teaching, this one has both the Father and the Son.
[SUP]10 [/SUP] If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your home, and don’t say, “Welcome,” to him;
[SUP]11 [/SUP] for the one who says, “Welcome,” to him shares in his evil works.

 

[Arwen4CJ]

It seems to me that we have just about every view regarding the Trinity represented in this thread (including all non-Trinitarian viewpoints). The only view we lack in this thread seems to be the Oneness Pentecostal view, which is a non-Trinitarian viewpoint, but unlike the other non-Trinitarian viewpoints, it does recognize Jesus' deity, but in a non-orthodox way.

These are the views that have been expressed so far in this thread, at least from what I can see:
Arianism, Jehovah's Witness variety
Arianism, Christadelphian variety
Arianism, undefined
Tri-theism
New Age/gnosticism/occult view that says that all humans are part of God
Trinitarian

I half expect a Oneness Pentecostal to join in this discussion at some point.

Due to all these viewpoints in this thread, we really have to be careful to define terms, and that we are extra careful to be as clear as possible. We also have to be aware that this thread could easily go in any number of directions, but I think we can all learn from each other. Those of us who are Trinitarian hopefully will have a better grasp on our own beliefs through this discussion, and have a firmer understanding of why we believe what we believe.

I'm going to bed right now. Happy New Year, everyone.

 

[VCO]

It seems to me that we have just about every view regarding the Trinity represented in this thread (including all non-Trinitarian viewpoints). The only view we lack in this thread seems to be the Oneness Pentecostal view, which is a non-Trinitarian viewpoint, but unlike the other non-Trinitarian viewpoints, it does recognize Jesus' deity, but in a non-orthodox way.

These are the views that have been expressed so far in this thread, at least from what I can see:
Arianism, Jehovah's Witness variety
Arianism, Christadelphian variety
Arianism, undefined
Tri-theism
New Age/gnosticism/occult view that says that all humans are part of God
Trinitarian

I half expect a Oneness Pentecostal to join in this discussion at some point.

Due to all these viewpoints in this thread, we really have to be careful to define terms, and that we are extra careful to be as clear as possible. We also have to be aware that this thread could easily go in any number of directions, but I think we can all learn from each other. Those of us who are Trinitarian hopefully will have a better grasp on our own beliefs through this discussion, and have a firmer understanding of why we believe what we believe.

I'm going to bed right now. Happy New Year, everyone.

I think Oneness and Unitarianism is pretty much the same thing.

Happy New Year.

 

[Arwen4CJ]

I think Oneness and Unitarianism is pretty much the same thing.

Happy New Year.

Unitarianism is actually quite diverse, and technically Oneness theology is a form of unitarianism (because they believe that God is just one Person, rather than three Persons, so they reject the trinity.)

The Arianism varieties, and most other kinds of unitarian theologies say that Yahweh (God) is just one Person, the Father.

Modalism (of which Oneness Pentecostalism is a type of) theologies say that Yahweh (God) is just one Person, Jesus.

While Oneness Pentecostals will acknowledge that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are mentioned separately in Scripture, they claim that these are simply names for roles that Jesus has taken on throughout time. For them, these are names for different hats that Jesus wears in the Bible and throughout time.

So, in John 17 when Jesus prays to the Father (or any other time Jesus prays), they claim that the human part of Jesus is praying to the divine part of Jesus. I'm not sure how they explain what happened at Jesus' baptism. They flatly reject that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are distinct Persons.

So they claim that the Father is a name for Jesus.
The Son is a name for Jesus.
The Holy Spirit is a name for Jesus.

I've debated with Oneness Pentecostals before on the Internet...it's been awhile.

Like most people who reject the Trinity, they misunderstand what it is. They tend to think that we are Arians -- I don't think they see a difference between Trinitarianism and Arianism. So when debating with them, they will constantly try to prove Jesus' deity to us, and that Jesus is Yahweh, because they think we deny this. Even when we tell them that we believe in Jesus' deity, they still think we don't believe it.

Some who hold to Arianism can't see the difference between Trinitarianism and modalism (Oneness theology), so they will treat us like we don't believe there is a distinction between the Persons.

These views are important to keep in mind in a debate like this. We have to know what the issues are, where there is misunderstanding, and what the actual views of others we are debating are. We have to treat each person in a debate as a person, rather than assuming that we know what they believe. There are variations even among people in a particular group. So we have to test their beliefs to see if they fit with what we think they believe. If we misunderstand them, then we need to change our understanding of them and their beliefs so that we are actually dialogue with them. Otherwise, we'll just be making straw men arguments, and the discussion will go nowhere.

That's just an observation I wanted to make.

 

[Arwen4CJ]

Of course there are some in all unitarian belief systems who think that we Trinitarians are tri-theists.

 

[sao]

I apologise in advance if this question has already been asked. Did anyone know that the concept of the Trinity was first introduced or believed in 325 AD at the Council of Nicaea by the Roman Emperor Constantine?

I therefore do not believe in the trinity as Jesus never preached this.

You can look it up yourselves if you like.

 

[Bowman]

I apologise in advance if this question has already been asked. Did anyone know that the concept of the Trinity was first introduced or believed in 325 AD at the Council of Nicaea by the Roman Emperor Constantine?

I therefore do not believe in the trinity as Jesus never preached this.

You can look it up yourselves if you like.

Moses was Trinitarian.

 

[Arwen4CJ]

I apologise in advance if this question has already been asked. Did anyone know that the concept of the Trinity was first introduced or believed in 325 AD at the Council of Nicaea by the Roman Emperor Constantine?

I therefore do not believe in the trinity as Jesus never preached this.

You can look it up yourselves if you like.

The main issue at the Council of Nicea was over the nature of Jesus' deity.

While there were some who denied Jesus' deity (the Arians -- people who followed Arius' beliefs), there were many who believed in Jesus' deity.

Arius argued that Jesus was a created creature, created by the Father. He denied that Jesus was eternal, denying that Jesus had no beginning. He denied Jesus' deity.

Others argued for Jesus' full deity...that Jesus was uncreated, eternal, had no beginning, etc.

The Council examined Scripture and determined that Arianism was heresy. Thus, the Nicene Creed was hammered out in order to address Arianism.

Each creed was written to address a specific theological issue that came up. It wasn't as though no one believed the the things in the creeds until after they were written, as if they could just make things up. Through this process, the Councils defined what was out of bounds in terms of Christian orthodoxy.

Back then it was a lot like it is now. There were a lot of people who claimed to be Christian with varying beliefs. The Councils were formed and creeds formulated to address these issues. Today many people ignore the creeds or are ignorant of what they say, or dismiss them entirely, even in mainline churches. So once again we have a lot of variation in beliefs of those who claim to be Christian.

The beliefs that were declared to be heretical never went away completely. They keep resurfacing in various people and groups. Some of these groups think they thought of something new. All they need to do is look at church history. There are really no new theological beliefs. It's simply the same stuff repeated, sometimes packaged differently.

The stuff discussed at the Council of Nicea probably went a lot like our discussions in this thread. The only difference was that the people discussing the issues had voting power to determine what was within Christian orthodoxy and what was outside of it.

 

[tucksma]

The only thing I have to say is just because the council chose what it did, does not mean it was right.

I'm not trying to get back in the debate, I'm happy with it ending here. I'm just throwing that point out there.

 

[krow]

John 17

After Jesus said this, he looked toward heaven and prayed:“Father, the hour has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you. [SUP]2 [/SUP]For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him. [SUP]3 [/SUP]Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. [SUP]4 [/SUP]I have brought you glory on earth by finishing the work you gave me to do. [SUP]5 [/SUP]And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.



Jesus is eternal. He existed with God before the world began. "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and was God..."

 

[Bowman]

Unitarians like to listen to their stereo out of one speaker...