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

[Runningman]

The Doctrine of the Trinity is not taught anywhere in the Bible...

This should be all the evidence any normal person would need to understand that the Trinity is not Biblical. Some of the Bullshit I have heard over the years are...

• It's there.
• It's a mystery.
• You need to be born again to see it.
• God did not mean for us to understand.
• Humans cannot understand the things of God.
• It's hidden because God had to keep it a secret.
• You have to find all the pieces... hints and clues.
• You need to ask the Holy Spirit to show it to you.

Trinitarianism leans heavily on gnostic propaganda and esoteric teachings to attempt to gatekeep understanding the Bible through the secret knowledge fallacy and appeal to mystery. Just when you show them that the Father is alone the true God (John 17:3) they will say that's all wrong and present to you a different god never once mentioned in the Bible. From a Biblical perspective, trinitarianism is a cult. It's just a big one. It being the most numerous at the moment doesn't make it valid.

 

[mikesw]

Trinitarianism leans heavily on gnostic propaganda and esoteric teachings to attempt to gatekeep understanding the Bible through the secret knowledge fallacy and appeal to mystery. Just when you show them that the Father is alone the true God (John 17:3) they will say that's all wrong and present to you a different god never once mentioned in the Bible. From a Biblical perspective, trinitarianism is a cult. It's just a big one. It being the most numerous at the moment doesn't make it valid.

Wow. Amazing that you call John's writing as gnosticism and esoteric writing. You are calling biblical teaching as heresy from the the first century. I know that you feel like you are providing some big correction to Christianity so you can help people "understand" scripture. However, you have not found valid arguments to deny the testimony of the deity of Christ and thus are providing error instead of insight. Again you show your one-verse hyperliteral use of John 17:3 (while excluding v5) to determine how to read the rest of scripture. That is not how exegesis works.

 

[mikesw]

The Doctrine of the Trinity is not taught anywhere in the Bible...

This should be all the evidence any normal person would need to understand that the Trinity is not Biblical. Some of the Bullshit I have heard over the years are...

• It's there.
• It's a mystery.
• You need to be born again to see it.
• God did not mean for us to understand.
• Humans cannot understand the things of God.
• It's hidden because God had to keep it a secret.
• You have to find all the pieces... hints and clues.
• You need to ask the Holy Spirit to show it to you.

oh my. Just because people focus on the Trinitarian detail as hard to describe, you let the be your guide to deny the deity of Christ upon which the doctrine seeks to reconcile -- reconciling the obvious deity of Christ with the Oneness of the Shema. That is just bad logic on your part. The deity of Christ is the beef of the matter while the Trinitarian doctrine is the adornments to him being deity.

 

[mikesw]

Jesus saying "you must be born from above" wasn't him making a moot point. Spiritual birth from "above" refers to the same place Jesus was spiritually born from. That's the way Jesus descended from heaven.

you conflate two totally different situations. Jesus pre-exists and is sent from heaven. Nicodemus was not sent from heaven. Don't conflate things. That just makes mush out of scripture.

 

[mikesw]

You seem to want to believe God is the way the Bible presents Him, but you hold on to too many assumptions and philosophical ideas that you tend to interpret God around. I think if you just simply take the Bible for what it says at face value you won't have any issues understanding Scripture the way it represents itself.

perhaps if you stop distorting it through your ideas, even if you think you have found special insight into them, we would not b facing such a conflict.

 

[Peterlag]

Trinitarianism leans heavily on gnostic propaganda and esoteric teachings to attempt to gatekeep understanding the Bible through the secret knowledge fallacy and appeal to mystery. Just when you show them that the Father is alone the true God (John 17:3) they will say that's all wrong and present to you a different god never once mentioned in the Bible. From a Biblical perspective, trinitarianism is a cult. It's just a big one. It being the most numerous at the moment doesn't make it valid.

Boy do you got that right. I believe many will see heaven, but many may not.

 

[Runningman]

Wow. Amazing that you call John's writing as gnosticism and esoteric writing. You are calling biblical teaching as heresy from the the first century. I know that you feel like you are providing some big correction to Christianity so you can help people "understand" scripture. However, you have not found valid arguments to deny the testimony of the deity of Christ and thus are providing error instead of insight. Again you show your one-verse hyperliteral use of John 17:3 (while excluding v5) to determine how to read the rest of scripture. That is not how exegesis works.

Trinitarian philosophy is Gnosticism. Just pagan propaganda decorated with Bible verses. Sorry you have fallen victim to it.

 

[Runningman]

Boy do you got that right. I believe many will see heaven, but many may not.

I agree, but I think there can come a point in which a line is crossed. God doesn't take willful unrepentant sin lightly. It might even come down to what one has been exposed to. Jesus taught that having awareness of sin brings about guilt, saying "If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin." in John 15:22. I think this gives us a peak into how sin is judged. Innocence, ignorance, accidents, mistakes, and limited knowledge are taken into account. Willful idolatry probably falls under judgement category. Willful unrepentant sin isn't covered under the sin sacrifice clause of the New Covenant (Hebrews 10:26)

So I think some people just don't take it seriously. Or maybe they are extremely delusional or indoctrinated.

 

[Runningman]

you conflate two totally different situations. Jesus pre-exists and is sent from heaven. Nicodemus was not sent from heaven. Don't conflate things. That just makes mush out of scripture.

Jesus is born from above. His teachings apply to himself as well. Pretty sure Jesus practices what he preaches. People can be born from the same place as Jesus.

 

[mikesw]

Trinitarian philosophy is Gnosticism. Just pagan propaganda decorated with Bible verses. Sorry you have fallen victim to it.

that means that John was Gnostic in pointing out the deity of Christ. Forget the trinitarian doctrine for now. Just reflect on the pre-existent One who was with God and was God and continued existence in flesh as Jesus.

 

[mikesw]

Jesus is born from above. His teachings apply to himself as well. Pretty sure Jesus practices what he preaches. People can be born from the same place as Jesus.

You are mixing the spiritual person in heaven that pre-exists every child and then gets a body at birth. That is Jehovah Witness doctrine, not Christian doctrine. Only Jesus pre-exists. You have to fix your doctrine.

 

[Runningman]

that means that John was Gnostic in pointing out the deity of Christ. Forget the trinitarian doctrine for now. Just reflect on the pre-existent One who was with God and was God and continued existence in flesh as Jesus.

No idea what you're talking about. John never pointed out the deity of Jesus or said he pre-existed. This is where your philosophy should kick in. I'm sure you'll have some verses to attach to it.

 

[Runningman]

You are mixing the spiritual person in heaven that pre-exists every child and then gets a body at birth. That is Jehovah Witness doctrine, not Christian doctrine. Only Jesus pre-exists. You have to fix your doctrine.

John 3:3 is not Jehova witness doctrine. You're attempting to poison the well because the Bible states something you don't agree with.

John 3
3Jesus answered and said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, except anyone be born from above, he is not able to see the kingdom of God.”

 

[mikesw]

No idea what you're talking about. John never pointed out the deity of Jesus or said he pre-existed. This is where your philosophy should kick in. I'm sure you'll have some verses to attach to it.

john writes to explain the reality of what Philo tries to say of logos but so incompletely. If John got confused, then it is not my fault for accepting what he says as gospel.

 

[Runningman]

john writes to explain the reality of what Philo tries to say of logos but so incompletely. If John got confused, then it is not my fault for accepting what he says as gospel.

John explained plainly the Word is a thing that was revealed by or manifested in Jesus in 1 John 1:1-3. The version you're thinking of in most bibles that refers to the "Word as God" is false. It's a bad translation. This translation has already been completely challenged and other valid translations have been published.

 

[mikesw]

John explained plainly the Word is a thing that was revealed by or manifested in Jesus in 1 John 1:1-3. The version you're thinking of in most bibles that refers to the "Word as God" is false. It's a bad translation. This translation has already been completely challenged and other valid translations have been published.

You keep conflating the use of logos so as to make its meaningless in a passage like John 1. Uh I do not know of a translation that says the "Word as God." As such your point is off target. John 1:1 says the Word was with God and the Word was God. Then later he says this pre-existing One became flesh. To the dismay of unitarians, this Word acts in conscious interaction -- not something just spoken by the Father -- as if you are making your doctrine out of the word of faith heresy.

Sorry if I have misunderstood your point.

 

[Runningman]

You keep conflating the use of logos so as to make its meaningless in a passage like John 1. Uh I do not know of a translation that says the "Word as God." As such your point is off target. John 1:1 says the Word was with God and the Word was God. Then later he says this pre-existing One became flesh. To the dismay of unitarians, this Word acts in conscious interaction -- not something just spoken by the Father -- as if you are making your doctrine out of the word of faith heresy.

Sorry if I have misunderstood your point.

No the Word isn't God. It's in the Greek grammar of John 1:1. There are two distinct usages of god in John 1:1. The is the Word as theos and God as Ton Theon. The Word isn't identified as a primary definitive God. In the context of John 1:1, since there is a definite article with one God but not the other God, it means that the Word is θεὸς (anarthrous predicate nominative) which refers to nature or quality, but not identity. The JWs get this wrong as well, because they seem to think Jesus pre-existed as a god, but really the Word in context is godly, but not God. Perfectly aligns with 1 John 1:1-3 about the Word being a thing and the Father being the only true God. John 1:1 is what I am quoting too. When properly translated it's one of dozens of Unitarian prooftexts.

 

[mikesw]

No the Word isn't God. It's in the Greek grammar of John 1:1. There are two distinct usages of god in John 1:1. The is the Word as theos and God as Ton Theon.

Funny how you claim greater Greek knowledge than Greek scholars. Pretty amazing. That is a pretty good snow job.

What does your wording even mean? Maybe your source of information can help explain what you mean.

The Word isn't identified as a primary definitive God. In the context of John 1:1, since there is a definite article with one God but not the other God, it means that the Word is θεὸς (anarthrous predicate nominative) which refers to nature or quality, but not identity.

First, I have no idea what you mean by saying Word is θεὸς since the text is past tense.
Can you provide other instances of how the anarthrous wording in the Greek gives you this type of reading in the English?

We have John 1:1
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, in the beginning was the Word
καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, and the Word was with God {Do you have something other than being with God?}
καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. and the Word was God {How do you explain the past tense here?}
How did the Word change from being God to not being God? What spiritual or physical thing happened to make this past tense?

Here is the AI response
If you force “with the God” vs “was a god/another god” simply from the article, you end up reading an ontological distinction out of what is largely a syntactic device. A Unitarian reading tends to load too much theology onto the presence or absence of the article.

Mike: I already knew the use of articles or omission is not consistent in translation or significance in the same way we use them in English.

The JWs get this wrong as well, because they seem to think Jesus pre-existed as a god, but really the Word in context is godly, but not God.

I think the JWs just say Michael the archangel. The logos in John 1:1 is past tense and thus you would be saying that the Word changed from godly to ungodly

Perfectly aligns with 1 John 1:1-3 about the Word being a thing and the Father being the only true God.

Nonsensical point again. The focus is on the word of Life in a different context.

John 1:1 is what I am quoting too. When properly translated it's one of dozens of Unitarian prooftexts.

Nothing like providing unqualified prooftexts instead of real arguments

 

[Peterlag]

I agree, but I think there can come a point in which a line is crossed. God doesn't take willful unrepentant sin lightly. It might even come down to what one has been exposed to. Jesus taught that having awareness of sin brings about guilt, saying "If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin." in John 15:22. I think this gives us a peak into how sin is judged. Innocence, ignorance, accidents, mistakes, and limited knowledge are taken into account. Willful idolatry probably falls under judgement category. Willful unrepentant sin isn't covered under the sin sacrifice clause of the New Covenant (Hebrews 10:26)

So I think some people just don't take it seriously. Or maybe they are extremely delusional or indoctrinated.

As far as I understand salvation... you either have the spirit or you don't. I believe the following may not get you spirit...

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord God, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised Himself from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

 

[Runningman]

Funny how you claim greater Greek knowledge than Greek scholars. Pretty amazing. That is a pretty good snow job.

What does your wording even mean? Maybe your source of information can help explain what you mean.

First, I have no idea what you mean by saying Word is θεὸς since the text is past tense.
Can you provide other instances of how the anarthrous wording in the Greek gives you this type of reading in the English?

We have John 1:1
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, in the beginning was the Word
καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, and the Word was with God {Do you have something other than being with God?}
καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. and the Word was God {How do you explain the past tense here?}
How did the Word change from being God to not being God? What spiritual or physical thing happened to make this past tense?

Here is the AI response
If you force “with the God” vs “was a god/another god” simply from the article, you end up reading an ontological distinction out of what is largely a syntactic device. A Unitarian reading tends to load too much theology onto the presence or absence of the article.

Mike: I already knew the use of articles or omission is not consistent in translation or significance in the same way we use them in English.

I think the JWs just say Michael the archangel. The logos in John 1:1 is past tense and thus you would be saying that the Word changed from godly to ungodly

Nonsensical point again. The focus is on the word of Life in a different context.


Nothing like providing unqualified prooftexts instead of real arguments

All of this is blown out of the water by the fact that the "Word as God" is an anarthrous predicate nominative. There is literally no way for the trinitarian or the JW version of John 1:1 to work. Biblical Unitarians got this right. Want to really prove it? The word of God is personified repeatedly throughout the Old Testament, but never represented as a distinct being or a God with God. Also, the Word is still called a that, which, this, that, and it in 1 John 1:1-3. Argue all you want, but those are non-person pronouns, meaning the Word can be 100% honestly and accurately understood to be a thing. No mention of any incarnation anywhere in all of Scripture. The case against your theories about the Word is overwhelming. There are even passages where the Word is next to Jesus in the same context as something distinct from him and not him.