The Trinity Doctrine in the Bible

[Athanasius377]

I don’t believe in Sola scriptura so I don’t have to prove everything from the Bible. Mary has a body in Revelation. If she were spirit only, she wouldn’t have a body.

Wait a second, if the woman in in Revelation 12 is Mary how is it that she has birth pangs? In Roman theology she remained a virgin and this is not possible if she is having birth pangs so that doesn't work does it? What the woman represents is an idealized Israel and is often described in as a woman in travail. cf Isa 54:1; 2 Esdr 10:7; Gal 4:26.

 

[ewq1938]

Wait a second, if the woman in in Revelation 12 is Mary how is it that she has birth pangs? In Roman theology she remained a virgin and this is not possible if she is having birth pangs so that doesn't work does it? What the woman represents is an idealized Israel and is often described in as a woman in travail. cf Isa 54:1; 2 Esdr 10:7; Gal 4:26.

Birthpangs only prove she was pregnant not whether she was a virgin or not.

 

[S3RV4NT]

Where does the belief in the trinity come from?
We have seen how that, throughout the Bible God is only described as being one being. We have seen how that Jesus and the early followers of Christ also believed this and clearly taught it. So where and how has this view of the trinity come from?

Our history books show us that the belief comes from a creed called the Athinasian creed. It was published and imposed in the fourth century after Christ died, about 300 years after Jesus walked the earth. The Romans used this creed when they changed from being Pagans to so called Christians and this Creed is still used in Churches around us today and is the basis of The Roman Catholic faith and the basis of the other faiths who have split from the Catholics. Here is a quote from it:

“The Catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity. Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the substance. For there is one person of the father another of the son and another of the holy ghost. But the Godhead of the father, of the son and of the holy ghost is all one, the glory equal the majesty co-eternal.”​

Now we notice that none of this is backed up by scripture, the true word of God. Surly any true follower of God would have written in the relevant passages so that everyone could understand and know why this creed had to be obeyed. But there is not one.

The belief in the trinity is showed by nearly all history books to of been put in place after the early apostles and therefore is admitted to not of been what the early Christians believed. In a historical book called “The Doctrine of the trinity” by a Mr. P.E.White (who is a Catholic) we read this:

“From the very first the rule has been as a matter of fact, for the Church to preach the Truth, and then appeal to scripture in vindication of its own teaching.”​

Sadly we feel that he is speaking truth. But why do so many follow after the belief of the Trinity? The answer is simple. They do not check it for themselves with what the Bible teaches. Consider Jesus Christ’s words:

Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. John 5:39​

So it is to the Bible we must turn, and when we do, we do not find any evidence to suggest that God is made up of three beings.

 

[Athanasius377]

Birthpangs only prove she was pregnant not whether she was a virgin or not.

That's not what that means in Roman theology. How do I say this delicately, and do allow me some rope: In order to remain a virgin certain "parts" need to remain in place that would be torn in order for a child to be birthed in a natural way. That's why you have Roman Apologists insist that Mary's pregnancy with our Lord did not result in any birth pangs.

 

[S3RV4NT]

 

[Blackpowderduelist]

You are attempting to trap me in admitting something that you believe supports the Trinity, but it does not.

All 3 are God ... BUT that does NOT prove the Trinity in ANY way.

They are 3 aspects/characteristics of God, NOT 3 'DISTINCT' entities/persons that also happen to be one god - as the Trinity doctrine claims.

Me, myself and I are ALL ME ... BUT here is what so many are NOT grasping:

All 3 aspects of myself 'ARE' all me. They are NOT Distinct persons within myself.


Me 'IS' myself, ... myself 'IS' I ... and I 'IS' me.

You see? This in NO WAY supports the Trinity doctrine.

The Father 'IS' the Son.

"... he that hath seen Me, hath seen the Father; ..." (Jesus speaking: John 14:9)

The Son 'IS' the Father.

"I and the Father are one." (Jesus speaking: John 10:30)

Further, many worshiped Jesus while he lived in the flesh and He did not tell them to stop, confirming His acceptance to them that He WAS God.

John 1:1-4 further proves that they are ONE, and NOT separate beings or persons. They are ONE.

And, again, there is no mention whatsoever of any 3rd member of their one-ness.

Modalism; That's what you are promoting.

 

[S3RV4NT]

Ten Ways the Bible Disproves the Trinity

The doctrine of the Trinity defines God as one being who eternally exists as three distinct Persons — the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Put simply, “one God in three persons”. Each of these persons has their own will, personality and they each perform different roles. While distinct from one another in these regards, in all else they are stated to be co-equal, and “each is God, whole and entire”. This is a typical diagram used by Trinitarians to summarise the doctrine of the Trinity:

Now, if the Trinity represents the truth about the nature of God Almighty, and was preached by Jesus (peace be upon him), then one would expect this to be reflected clearly throughout the Bible. Moreover, one would not expect to find anything which negates the doctrine. What follows are ten reasons, taken from the Bible, that disprove the doctrine of the Trinity.
1. God does not change.

2. It compromises God’s absolute perfection.

3. Jesus affirms the pure monotheism of the Old Testament.

4. The Trinity is paradoxical.

5. Not defined anywhere in the Bible.

6. Fabrications inserted into the Bible to support the doctrine.

7. Trinitarian scholars manipulate the Bible to protect the doctrine.

8. All persons of the Trinity are equal, but some are more equal than others.

9. Jesus acknowledges that he has a God.

10. God is above Jesus in hierarchy.

For the details of each point, check out the l

 

[Blackpowderduelist]

Modalism seems to be making a return as of late. With non teachers like Steven Furdic espousing this view I'm sure it will continue to grow, and become another branch of the great apostasy

 

[S3RV4NT]

Modalism; That's what you are promoting.

I'm defending and teaching the ONENESS of God - just as scripture states over and over. God is not a 3-person being like one of the many Pagan religions of old.

Everything I present is backed by scripture. You may call it whatever you like.

If you don't like the idea that God is One, as the Bible states repeatedly, then you don't like the God of the Bible.

Clearly you worship a Trinitarian god.

 

[Magenta]

He didn't inhabit space and time until He was born in the flesh. Therefore He didn't
inhabit the world WHILE He was creating it, His physical body did not exist yet.

Your claim was:

The Father does now, and always has, existed OUTSIDE of time and space (i.e. matter).
For He created them. Therefore, the Creator cannot originate, or exist, within His creation.

And you have been proven wrong. Man up.

Also, you place limits on God that are nowhere expressed in the Bible. Shame on you.

 

[S3RV4NT]

Modalism seems to be making a return as of late. With non teachers like Steven Furdic espousing this view I'm sure it will continue to grow, and become another branch of the great apostasy

Those who passionately deny scripture are still around as they've always been. And they're worse today than they've ever been before.

You deny that God is One.

"The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is One Lord: And thou shall love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment." (Jesus speaking Mark 12:29; Deut. 6:4)

 

[Blackpowderduelist]

Jesus being the fullnes of God said, " I do what I hear my father say" , "and also I must go but I will send the Holy Spirit."

Jesus make distinction between himself and the Father many times when he teaches. And he also speaks of the Holy Spirit in a distinctive way.
He doesn't say I will come back as an inhabiting Spirit, but I will send the Holy Spirit.
I'm not going to suggest that Jesus was being dishonest or didn't know what he was say nor that he purposefully obfuscated the relationship between himself, the Father, or the Holy Spirit. This impunes the integrity of Jesus.

 

[S3RV4NT]

Your claim was:

The Father does now, and always has, existed OUTSIDE of time and space (i.e. matter).
For He created them. Therefore, the Creator cannot originate, or exist, within His creation.

And you have been proven wrong. Man up.

Also, you place limits on God that are nowhere expressed in the Bible. Shame on you.

The thought that didn't get completed in that sentence was, "Therefore, the Creator cannot originiate, or exist, within His creation before it is created."

There's nothing to man up to, Post.

The logic is sound and it followed perfectly within the context of the rest of my post.

 

[Blackpowderduelist]

Moralism was dispelled by the same counsil that canonized the bible also radified the Athanasius creed, the Nicaean creed. Casting shade on their work casts shade on the bible itself.

 

[ewq1938]

That's not what that means in Roman theology. How do I say this delicately, and do allow me some rope: In order to remain a virgin certain "parts" need to remain in place that would be torn in order for a child to be birthed in a natural way. That's why you have Roman Apologists insist that Mary's pregnancy with our Lord did not result in any birth pangs.

Birthpangs are contractions and the other painful aspects of giving birth and is not at all related to virginity. Also, the body part that is alterated during the first sexual act would be alterated during a birth even if it was intact after conception. The only way to avoid that is a C-section which I doubt Mary had.



Rev 12:2 And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.

G5605
ὠδίνω
ōdinō
o-dee'-no
From G5604; to experience the pains of parturition (literally or figuratively): - travail in (birth).
Total KJV occurrences: 3

 

[S3RV4NT]

Jesus being the fullnes of God said, " I do what I hear my father say" , "and also I must go but I will send the Holy Spirit."

Jesus make distinction between himself and the Father many times when he teaches. And he also speaks of the Holy Spirit in a distinctive way.
He doesn't say I will come back as an inhabiting Spirit, but I will send the Holy Spirit.
I'm not going to suggest that Jesus was being dishonest or didn't know what he was say nor that he purposefully obfuscated the relationship between himself, the Father, or the Holy Spirit. This impunes the integrity of Jesus.

Why couldn't He send the Holy Spirit until He returned to the Father, BPD?

Because the Holy Spirit was not, and is not, a separate person/entity that was hanging out up there with God kicking rocks looking for something to do.

The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Father and Jesus and they are ONE. If the HS was a SEPARATE, DISTINCT being of the other 2, there is no reason why Jesus had to wait until he had ascended and been glorified in order to send HIS Spirit back to ALL that would embrace His Truth.

AND ... If He HAD chosen to send the 3rd person of the Trinity to His disciples WHILE HE WAS STILL IN THE FLESH UPON THE EARTH, wouldn't that have been an IRON CLAD proof of the Trinity right there? Yes, it sure would.

That is NOT what He did because that is NOT something He had any desire to present.

The biggest proof of all that the Trinity is bogus is that it is so debated. PERIOD.

If it were something God wanted to make known as Truth, there would be ZERO debate about it because it would be CRYSTAL clear all throughout scripture from the OT through the NT.

Face it. It is an obscure extra-biblical concept that is completely fabricated by man.

 

[Blackpowderduelist]

I'm defending and teaching the ONENESS of God - just as scripture states over and over. God is not a 3-person being like one of the many Pagan religions of old.

Everything I present is backed by scripture. You may call it whatever you like.

If you don't like the idea that God is One, as the Bible states repeatedly, then you don't like the God of the Bible.

Clearly you worship a Trinitarian god.

Jesus said, " I do what I hear my Father say". That is distinction.
He also said, I must Go, I will SEND the Holy Spirit. This is also distinction. And the teaching of Jesus in spirit and truth, not deceptive and dishonest. You make Jesus into a liar, or a fool who doesn't know what he is saying. Sorry the counsel of nicaea that canonized the Bible also adopted the nicaean creed and the Athanasius creed. Where they heritics and the bible a farse, or were they true and the creeds also true teaching?

 

[S3RV4NT]

Moralism was dispelled by the same counsil that canonized the bible also radified the Athanasius creed, the Nicaean creed. Casting shade on their work casts shade on the bible itself.

Hmmm ... so what is your opinion of Martin Luther, John Wycliffe, William Tyndale, Huss, Jerome, Erasmus, Zwingli, John Knox, Baxter, Flavel, Alleine and all others who opposed their work?

And the countless unnamed martyrs who died in defiance of their work? Were they, too, casting shade upon the Holy Word of God?

 

[Blackpowderduelist]

Either the nicaean counsil was a bunch of false teachers and prophets or they were true and Godly.

 

[S3RV4NT]

Jesus said, " I do what I hear my Father say". That is distinction.
He also said, I must Go, I will SEND the Holy Spirit. This is also distinction. And the teaching of Jesus in spirit and truth, not deceptive and dishonest. You make Jesus into a liar, or a fool who doesn't know what he is saying. Sorry the counsel of nicaea that canonized the Bible also adopted the nicaean creed and the Athanasius creed. Where they heritics and the bible a farse, or were they true and the creeds also true teaching?

Not sure how you conclude that the Bible is a farce if those of the counsel were heretics. Not a True supposition though.

God wrote the Bible, not men. And certainly NOT those particular counsels. If the Bible could be effectively destroyed, or completely corrupted, it wouldn't even still exist.

Kings and Countries have attempted to destroy and thwart God's Word from the beginning of time. FAIL

It will NEVER be destroyed or corrupted enough to negate its inherent, infallible Truths.