The Trinity and all of its supporting doctrines are all circular in reasoning

[e v e]

And adam betrayed him... and adam is the prince of the air ruling this current foreign land God calls Death.

 

[e v e]

Okay. Adam ORIGINALLY was formed from the dust of the ground, i.e. flesh. Adam became a living soul, nep̄eš (nehfesh) when God breathed the breath of life into him. BEFORE this NO MAN EXISTED.

I'm not sure where your foundational belief system stems from but I don't believe it is correct and in turn --- I'm sure you don't think mine is correct.

Thank you for replying @amazing grace . dust in eden is not dirt on the current foreign land. we are not mud creatures...but were made npsh by God and his signature is not dirt... but yes, dust... His signature is on souls, not on the flesh which cannot enter paradise.

ha’eres means land or soil, and the ha’adamah refers to land or soil. ‘Adama 's where adam comes from and also references a land, as also the word ‘aphar as dust = land or soil. then what land is the right question... and of course, the context of Him is Eden paradise in the other reality, not this earth or world which is far from a paradise and whose nature KILLS and does not Love, lacking His character and in which everything dies.... consider his material death is NOT his character for He is life. ‘aphar dust which ends with a Resh representing His Spirit, really has a connection to Him, as light. so not dirt. Dirt on the other hand is inert matter, which is what everything here is made of and which has no feelings, no love, and no connection to him, and which perishes. yet nothing of His perishes!!! He declared His creation GOOD. A hurricane on this foreign land does not care and knocks down a house with people in it. Cancer does not care. The body is filled with microbes, parasites, death, and does not care, simply aging along to death with not a concern for the soul imprisoned in that material flesh, but only caring for the own needs and wants.

 

[e v e]

my beliefs come from reading what He wrote, and studying every word he said, which is His Report, and the covenant to return us to our land, to our Original being in paradise, which has always been the goal, since adam betrayed Him and us.

 

[e v e]

that is what rapture is... restoration to our original land and glorious body made by God. The sons will make the eden land new again, restore her with Christ, and rule their eden land with Christ.

 

[amazing grace]

Thank you for replying @amazing grace . dust in eden is not dirt on the current foreign land. we are not mud creatures...but were made npsh by God and his signature is not dirt... but yes, dust... His signature is on souls, not on the flesh which cannot enter paradise.

ha’eres means land or soil, and the ha’adamah refers to land or soil. ‘Adama 's where adam comes from and also references a land, as also the word ‘aphar as dust = land or soil. then what land is the right question... and of course, the context of Him is Eden paradise in the other reality, not this earth or world which is far from a paradise and whose nature KILLS and does not Love, lacking His character and in which everything dies.... consider his material death is NOT his character for He is life. ‘aphar dust which ends with a Resh representing His Spirit, really has a connection to Him, as light. so not dirt. Dirt on the other hand is inert matter, which is what everything here is made of and which has no feelings, no love, and no connection to him, and which perishes. yet nothing of His perishes!!! He declared His creation GOOD. A hurricane on this foreign land does not care and knocks down a house with people in it. Cancer does not care. The body is filled with microbes, parasites, death, and does not care, simply aging along to death with not a concern for the soul imprisoned in that material flesh, but only caring for the own needs and wants.

then the Lord God formed the man ('āḏām 1. man, mankind; a. man, human being, b. man, mankind (much more frequently intended sense in OT), c. Adam, the first man, d. city in Jordan valley)

of dust of the ground (ʿāp̄ār (aw-fawr') Hebrew: 1. dry earth, dust, powder, ashes, earth, ground, mortar, rubbish --- dry or loose earth, debris, mortar, ore)

and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man ('āḏām 1. man, mankind; a. man, human being, b. man, mankind (much more frequently intended sense in OT), c. Adam, the first man, d. city in Jordan valley)

became a living creature (soul) nep̄eš (nehfesh) 1. soul, self, life, creature, person, appetite, mind, living being, desire, emotion, passion; that which breathes, the breathing substance or being, soul, the inner being of man, living being, living being (with life in the blood), the man himself, self, person or individual, seat of the appetites, seat of emotions and passions, activity of mind, activity of the will, activity of character

I figure earth, dirt, dust in Eden the same as earth, dirt, dust on the ground now. npsh ---- what is this related to?

Yeah, it seems we are on different ends of the spectrum in our beliefs.

 

[e v e]

then the Lord God formed the man ('āḏām 1. man, mankind; a. man, human being, b. man, mankind (much more frequently intended sense in OT), c. Adam, the first man, d. city in Jordan valley)

of dust of the ground (ʿāp̄ār (aw-fawr') Hebrew: 1. dry earth, dust, powder, ashes, earth, ground, mortar, rubbish --- dry or loose earth, debris, mortar, ore)

and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man ('āḏām 1. man, mankind; a. man, human being, b. man, mankind (much more frequently intended sense in OT), c. Adam, the first man, d. city in Jordan valley)

became a living creature (soul) nep̄eš (nehfesh) 1. soul, self, life, creature, person, appetite, mind, living being, desire, emotion, passion; that which breathes, the breathing substance or being, soul, the inner being of man, living being, living being (with life in the blood), the man himself, self, person or individual, seat of the appetites, seat of emotions and passions, activity of mind, activity of the will, activity of character

I figure earth, dirt, dust in Eden the same as earth, dirt, dust on the ground now. npsh ---- what is this related to?

Yeah, it seems we are on different ends of the spectrum in our beliefs.

yes we are...since I do not think this is eden earth. There is no death in Eden like there is here, on every inch of this earth.

 

[e v e]

I am sure all of you trinitarians have noticed by now, but the Trinity doctrine and all of its supporting doctrines are entirely circular in reasoning.

Did you ever notice how you all always begin with a presumption of a trinity god, you list all of your reasons why, but it always circles back to the beginning, all the way to square one, when asked where there is a working example of the trinity in action or someone at least defining the God of the Bible as three, a they, or them? Yet no one in all of history has been able to find that.

Consider the following common arguments produced by trinitarians, just to name a few:
"Jesus is a God-Man"
"Jesus is 100% man and 100% God"
"Jesus resurrected himself"
"Jesus pre-existed his birth"
"Jesus is the Word"
"God incarnated"

Yet the Bible doesn't say any of those things. There is no example of anyone saying Jesus is a God-Man, no examples of Jesus resurrecting himself or anyone saying he did, no examples of him pre-existing in the Old Testament either saying or doing anything. he was never called the Word, and the Bible never says Jesus incarnated.

Everything the trinitarian says begs the question: Why does the Bible never say what you say???

So what happened to all of these trinitarian people? What are they seeing that God, Jesus, the prophets, the disciples, and the early church didn't even talk about?

Can any one answer one or more of these questions:

Where in the Bible does anyone ever define God as three persons in one God?​

​

Trinitarians claim the Trinity is central to Christianity. Why is it that there is not one example of it being taught to anyone in Acts or elsewhere in the New Testament? Why not the Old Testament?​

​

Why do the inspired writers everywhere speak of God like a single person, i,e,. He, Him, His, but never as a they or them?​

​

Why does terminology, or something similar, that says "Jesus is 100% God and 100% man" never appear in the Bible?​

​

Why did no one say Jesus resurrected himself after he died?​

​

If Jesus pre-existed as either the Word, or God, or a member of the trinity, why does the Bible never say that and why are there no examples of such in the Old Testament?​

​

Why did the apostles always call Jesus "the man" (1 Tim. 2:5), "the Son of Man," or "the Son of God," but never "God the Son?"​

​

If the early church really did believe in a Trinity then why were the early centuries filled with disputes regarding who Jesus was with the result not being codified into the Catholic church until the mid-to-late 4th century?​

​

Why did they not agree the Holy Spirit is a 3rd member of the trinity until the late 4th century?​

​

Why do Trinitarians rely heavily on extra-biblical words/phrases (Trinity, hypostatic union, God-man, incarnate, consubstantial, etc) instead of just using the words/phrases the Bible uses?​

my understanding from Him of trinity is not circular in reasoning

 

[e v e]

Christ showed us our resurrection, restoration to God's reality, through His own resurrection. We've to die to this world, meaning take up our cross and follow Him, and return to Him to Eden.

 

[Doug Brents]

We have the Old Testament that is older than John 1. So using your reasoning, since the Word is not God anywhere in the Old Testament, but rather is personified in Hebrew poetry (Psalm 33:6; Psalm 107:20; Psalm 147:15; Isaiah 55:10-11) then there is better exegetical foundation and precedent that the Word is not literally God.

Wrong again. All the way back in Gen 1, we see that the Word was with God, and was consulted as God in the formation of man in Their image. "Their image" indicates, first of all, that they had the same image. Only God had the image of God until man was made in God's image.

 

[Runningman]

Wrong again. All the way back in Gen 1, we see that the Word was with God, and was consulted as God in the formation of man in Their image. "Their image" indicates, first of all, that they had the same image. Only God had the image of God until man was made in God's image.

"The Word" shouldn't be capitalized because it's not a proper noun, but rather a thing. As you can see all the way back in Genesis 1, God used spoken words to create, but as Genesis 1 states, God created alone, not with someone else. So no error on my part, the error is your misunderstandings.

God is a He, His, not a They or Them, meaning God isn't multi-person. So your doctrine doesn't work.

Genesis 1
27So God created man in His own image;
in the image of God He created him;
male and female He created them.

 

[Doug Brents]

"The Word" shouldn't be capitalized because it's not a proper noun, but rather a thing.

Technically, It is a "thing", but it is a proper thing (seeing as it is God). But it also became a man, making it a person; the person we know as Jesus.

As you can see all the way back in Genesis 1, God used spoken words to create, but as Genesis 1 states, God created alone, not with someone else. So no error on my part, the error is your misunderstandings.

God is a He, His, not a They or Them, meaning God isn't multi-person. So your doctrine doesn't work.

Genesis 1
27So God created man in His own image;
in the image of God He created him;
male and female He created them.

God (multiple beings with a singular noun) created mankind (multiple individuals with a singular noun) in His (singular noun representing three beings) image. He didn't talk to Himself saying, "Let me make man in my image". He said, "Let US make man in OUR image. Both "HE" and "US", "I" and "OUR" equally apply to God, because God is both singular and plural at the same time.

 

[Runningman]

Technically, It is a "thing", but it is a proper thing (seeing as it is God). But it also became a man, making it a person; the person we know as Jesus.

Proverbs speaks of Wisdom, a thing, as something created and a woman. No need to see a spoken Word differently and there is precedent for that. So I maintain the Word is a thing, the Bible taught me that.

God (multiple beings with a singular noun) created mankind (multiple individuals with a singular noun) in His (singular noun representing three beings) image. He didn't talk to Himself saying, "Let me make man in my image". He said, "Let US make man in OUR image. Both "HE" and "US", "I" and "OUR" equally apply to God, because God is both singular and plural at the same time.

We, they, or them would be consistent with an Us or Our, but the actual creation event is stated to be by a He, His, Him. "Let us make make in our image" is a statement in a conversation, not descriptive of the creation. When describing the creation itself God is a singular person known as YHWH the Father, in accordance with the Father being the one and only true God alone (John 17:3, 1 Cor. 8:6)

That's Unitarianism. Like it or not, it is fully supported in Scripture from cover to cover.

 

[Doug Brents]

Proverbs speaks of Wisdom, a thing, as something created and a woman. No need to see a spoken Word differently and there is precedent for that. So I maintain the Word is a thing, the Bible taught me that.

This is irrelevant. Yes, wisdom is personified in Scripture, but it is never called God, nor is it said to have taken on flesh, nor is it said to have preexisted Creation. The Word of God is all of those things.

We, they, or them would be consistent with an Us or Our, but the actual creation event is stated to be by a He, His, Him. "Let us make make in our image" is a statement in a conversation, not descriptive of the creation. When describing the creation itself God is a singular person known as YHWH the Father, in accordance with the Father being the one and only true God alone (John 17:3, 1 Cor. 8:6)

That's Unitarianism. Like it or not, it is fully supported in Scripture from cover to cover.

Do you believe that each word used by God has importance?
Or do you believe that it is irrelevant what specific words God used in the original Hebrew and Greek texts?

 

[Runningman]

This is irrelevant. Yes, wisdom is personified in Scripture, but it is never called God, nor is it said to have taken on flesh, nor is it said to have preexisted Creation. The Word of God is all of those things.

There are no issues with the Word being personified as it has already happened (Psalm 33:6; Psalm 107:20; Psalm 147:15; Isaiah 55:10-11) in Hebrew poetry. Why can't it happen in John 1:1? And there is no evidence the Word existed before creation, it says the Word was in the beginning which is not before creation.

Do you believe that each word used by God has importance?
Or do you believe that it is irrelevant what specific words God used in the original Hebrew and Greek texts?

It's important, but translations are debatable.

 

[Doug Brents]

There are no issues with the Word being personified as it has already happened (Psalm 33:6; Psalm 107:20; Psalm 147:15; Isaiah 55:10-11) in Hebrew poetry. Why can't it happen in John 1:1? And there is no evidence the Word existed before creation, it says the Word was in the beginning which is not before creation.

"In the Beginning" the Word was already there. Gen 1:1 says that "In the Beginning, God created (everything that was created)." And John 1:3 says that the Word was responsible for everything that was created. There is no possibility that something can create itself, so the Word HAD TO have preexisted the Creation.

It's important, but translations are debatable.

I'm not talking about translations. I'm talking about the words used in the original Hebrew (OT) and Greek (NT).
These words are very important, yes?
Do you believe that each word is important?
Or do some have importance and some are irrelevant?

 

[Runningman]

"In the Beginning" the Word was already there. Gen 1:1 says that "In the Beginning, God created (everything that was created)." And John 1:3 says that the Word was responsible for everything that was created. There is no possibility that something can create itself, so the Word HAD TO have preexisted the Creation.

What your translation provides is a contradiction if it is the be understood in the hyper-literal fashion you are saying.

I'm not talking about translations. I'm talking about the words used in the original Hebrew (OT) and Greek (NT).
These words are very important, yes?
Do you believe that each word is important?
Or do some have importance and some are irrelevant?

Yes each word is important. Why?

 

[Doug Brents]

What your translation provides is a contradiction if it is the be understood in the hyper-literal fashion you are saying.

Every translation in every language says that the Word existed with God and was God before the beginning, because when the beginning came, it was through the Word that all things that were made were made. This is so because in the original Hebrew that is what is said. This is not "hyper-literal", it is simply what the words say and mean.

Yes each word is important. Why?

If you agree that each and every word is important, then you cannot just ignore, or call it a mistake, when God uses words like "Us" and "Our" when talking about Himself. It is not a mistake. It is not a misused word. It is there for a reason, to tell us something about who and what God is. He is also a They, because there are more than one who makes up the One. The Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all the same God, but they are not all the same being. Jesus is God, as is the Father, as is the Holy Spirit.

 

[Runningman]

Every translation in every language says that the Word existed with God and was God before the beginning, because when the beginning came, it was through the Word that all things that were made were made. This is so because in the original Hebrew that is what is said. This is not "hyper-literal", it is simply what the words say and mean.

That must be the new translation you just invented. Every translation I have seen sets the plot "in the beginning" and then states what happened after the beginning, not before. No suggestion here this is referring to Genesis either

If you agree that each and every word is important, then you cannot just ignore, or call it a mistake, when God uses words like "Us" and "Our" when talking about Himself. It is not a mistake. It is not a misused word. It is there for a reason, to tell us something about who and what God is. He is also a They, because there are more than one who makes up the One. The Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all the same God, but they are not all the same being. Jesus is God, as is the Father, as is the Holy Spirit.

And you cannot ignore it when after the words "Us" and "Our" appeared in Genesis, that God is referred to as a singular He, Him, His, I, or You throughout the entire rest of the Bible, without exception. No one ever called God a they or them. The "us" and "our" statements in Genesis are part of a conversation, not a description of who God is. God is a singular person known as YHWH the Father. Aside from God never being called an us, our, we, they, or them in the Bible, God isn't even ever called the "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" or said to be three persons. There is no doctrine about God being plural in the Bible.

 

[Doug Brents]

That must be the new translation you just invented. Every translation I have seen sets the plot "in the beginning" and then states what happened after the beginning, not before. No suggestion here this is referring to Genesis either

What was the cause of "the Beginning"? It was God. God is the source, the power, the life, the origin from which all things come. God was before the Beginning. The Beginning was our start, not the start of God.

And we have been through this over and over: the Beginning in John 1 is the same Beginning of Genesis. Both refer to the creation of all things that were made. There were not two (or more) Beginnings.

And you cannot ignore it when after the words "Us" and "Our" appeared in Genesis, that God is referred to as a singular He, Him, His, I, or You throughout the entire rest of the Bible, without exception.

There is no need to ignore it. You want to ignore the FACT that God is plural, that it is equally correct to refer to God in the plural: "We", and "Us", and "Our" as it is to refer to God in the singular "I", and "He"; because that is how Scripture properly and clearly addresses God.

No one ever called God a they or them. The "us" and "our" statements in Genesis are part of a conversation, not a description of who God is. God is a singular person known as YHWH the Father. Aside from God never being called an us, our, we, they, or them in the Bible, God isn't even ever called the "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" or said to be three persons. There is no doctrine about God being plural in the Bible.

If, as you claim you believe, each and every word in the original text has meaning, and is important, and is given by God for our learning of Him, then you cannot believe what you wrote above. The "Us" and "Our" in Gen 1 disproves your entire point here. There is a doctrine of God being plural in the Bible. And that means that when, in Matt 28:19, Scripture tells us in whose name to baptized converts, it says that the names of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are united; having the same authority, the same power, and the same unity. Remember, Jesus said that you cannot serve two masters. So either the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are One, or we are to be baptized into three different masters. But Jesus said that if you have two (or more) masters, you will love the one and hate the other.

 

[Runningman]

What was the cause of "the Beginning"? It was God. God is the source, the power, the life, the origin from which all things come. God was before the Beginning. The Beginning was our start, not the start of God.

And we have been through this over and over: the Beginning in John 1 is the same Beginning of Genesis. Both refer to the creation of all things that were made. There were not two (or more) Beginnings.

You're conflating two different beginning points. The beginning of Jesus' ministry (John 1) and the beginning of Creation (Genesis 1) are not really related aside from some common language. The Bible doesn't say what God was doing before creation aside from a few hints here and there, but there is no suggestion that God begin speaking until during the creation event.

So your theory about the Word pre-existing before there were Words doesn't really make any sense. We can demonstrate the silliness of what you're proposing by a simple statement: was God speaking to create before God was speaking to create?

There is no need to ignore it. You want to ignore the FACT that God is plural, that it is equally correct to refer to God in the plural: "We", and "Us", and "Our" as it is to refer to God in the singular "I", and "He"; because that is how Scripture properly and clearly addresses God.

If, as you claim you believe, each and every word in the original text has meaning, and is important, and is given by God for our learning of Him, then you cannot believe what you wrote above. The "Us" and "Our" in Gen 1 disproves your entire point here. There is a doctrine of God being plural in the Bible. And that means that when, in Matt 28:19, Scripture tells us in whose name to baptized converts, it says that the names of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are united; having the same authority, the same power, and the same unity. Remember, Jesus said that you cannot serve two masters. So either the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are One, or we are to be baptized into three different masters. But Jesus said that if you have two (or more) masters, you will love the one and hate the other.

You have based your entire multi-person god hypothesis around one verse that says "Us" and "Our" so what you could do to support your story is show something in-line with your premise. If God is an us our as you say, then the Bible should say God is a "We, they, or them" but it never does. So your plural personal pronoun argument doesn't hold any water, lacks any support with additional examples, or descriptions. Why? Because your foundation is off. You are sitting the entire Bible on top of one badly-translated, which is John 1:1, and attempting to orbit the entire Bible around it. As you can see, I have shown you where the Bible contradicts what you're saying. God is a HE thousands of times in the Bible, never a they or them.