Why The Trinity is Wrong: Definition

[praise_yeshua]

Well there's a short version and a much longer one...explanation

As a short intro and to reveal how tricky it is at times to establish what is meant by 'divinity' and 'deity' in the NT, and when we want to make a claim or claims concerning the nature of 'God' and also concerning scripture referencing 'divinity' then we must first examine the specific scripture under study to pin down the meaning intended in the Greek text of those vers(es).

Yes I know, I did not show really any meat yet. This is a subject that cannot be rushed into for a conclusion.

And as some reminders as you may of them already: we get 'deity' from the Latin => meaning god. We get in English the word 'divinity' from the Latin 'divus' that also means god. Surprised? You could say those Latinists messed up more that you think in scripture translations that led to our English translations.


Then in Greek, the English/pagan word God, is Theos used over 1300x. And we extract from this Greek word Theos (noun) three other Greek words: Theois, Theotes and Theiotes....and the latter two are also nouns where Theois is an adjective.

I'm just giving you some of the confusion that can occur...




I'll stop here for now.....

I'm well aware of the Latin influence upon English. It has caused mistakes in translation such as manor or mansion and even affected the name of Jesus.
I'm not aware of any meaningful distinction affecting the application of Divinity and Deity. I'm listening

 

[Wrangler]

Only if the "Critic" knows everything about the totality of God.

Appeal to Ignorance. Since trinitarians cannot also know everything about God, it must mean there is no validity to their doctrine also, right?

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Appeal to Ignorance. Since trinitarians cannot also know everything about God, it must mean there is no validity to their doctrine also, right?

And since "Oneness paradigmatics" cannot also know everything about God, it must mean there is no validity to their doctrine also, right???

 

[Diserner]

Well Bob, I think in one sentence you have just answered 90% of all the debates on Christian forums. Amazing!

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Well Bob, I think in one sentence you have just answered 90% of all the debates on Christian forums. Amazing!

All it takes is experience!!! Pontifications about the entire reality of God are easy.

 

[Wrangler]

And since "Oneness paradigmatics" cannot also know everything about God, it must mean there is no validity to their doctrine also, right???

Appeal to Ignorance. Double down.

Just because we do not know everything does not mean we do not know anything. One thing we know with absolute certainty is that sons are not their fathers. Ergo, Jesus cannot be God, by definition.

 

[GeneZ]

Appeal to Ignorance. Since trinitarians cannot also know everything about God, it must mean there is no validity to their doctrine also, right?

The irony is.... Neither can you!

Yet, you come here like to know better than those who do have the Holy Spirit opening their eyes, while yours never were opened.

We can see at least some while you can not see anything.

For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part;
then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known." 1 Cor 13:12

Being spiritually blind, you can not even locate that mirror.

................

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Appeal to Ignorance. Double down.

Just because we do not know everything does not mean we do not know anything.

True.

One thing we know with absolute certainty is that sons are not their fathers. Ergo, Jesus cannot be God, by definition.

A fine application of "Human Logic" to something that DEFIES Logic. A pregnancy, with no Male human involved. Explain the WORD, who was WITH God, who WAS GOD, and who became flesh.

 

[GeneZ]

A fine application of "Human Logic" to something that DEFIES Logic. A pregnancy, with no Male human involved. Explain the WORD, who was WITH God, who WAS GOD, and who became flesh.

Jesus, in order to have a sinless body could have no human father.
For its by the male sperm that that the sin nature transfers to the embryo.
It says it was by Adam (not Eve) that sin entered the world. Romans 5:12

The Bible says (Genesis 3:15) that his body was to come from the "seed of the woman" (not the man).
The ovum does not pass down the sin nature to the body!
The ovum was what God used to produce the sinless body for Jesus.
The woman's ovum was used, so that the body of Jesus had its source in real humanity

Fertilizing Mary's ovum was accomplished by the Holy Spirit supplying the equivalent of the perfect male chromosomes.
It was done through what we can call.. 'supernatural insemination.'

By using Mary's ovum? It also fulfilled the promise that the Messiah would come from the line of David.
For Mary was from the line of David.


grace and peace!

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Jesus, in order to have a sinless body could have no human father.
For its by the male sperm that that the sin nature transfers to the embryo.
It says it was by Adam (not Eve) that sin entered the world. Romans 5:12

Although apparently Eve sinned first. but the Bible gives the "credit" for introducing SIN in the creation.

its by the male sperm that that the sin nature transfers to the embryo.
The Bible says (Genesis 3:15) that his body was to come from the "seed of the woman" (not the man).

There isn't a "SIN NATURE" that's a "theological invention". There's a HUMAN NATURE, which tends to follow the sequence in James 1:14, 15 just like Adam did BEFORE he had a (supposed) "Sin Nature".

The MIRACLE IS that Jesus was subject to all the TEMPTATIONS common to man, but He NEVER let any of them "Conceive" and become SIN.

 

[GeneZ]

Although apparently Eve sinned first. but the Bible gives the "credit" for introducing SIN in the creation.

There isn't a "SIN NATURE" that's a "theological invention". There's a HUMAN NATURE, which tends to follow the sequence in James 1:14, 15 just like Adam did BEFORE he had a (supposed) "Sin Nature".

The MIRACLE IS that Jesus was subject to all the TEMPTATIONS common to man, but He NEVER let any of them "Conceive" and become SIN.

And, for that matter... there is not a term "human nature" mentioned in the Bible either.

Adam had a human nature before he fell. It does not mean sin nature either...

 

[Wrangler]

True.

A fine application of "Human Logic" to something that DEFIES Logic. A pregnancy, with no Male human involved. Explain the WORD, who was WITH God, who WAS GOD, and who became flesh.

I already did explain that John 1:1 is not referring to the Christ but the literal word of God and it uses multiple senses of god. Do you understand that when I asked my friend bow if he wanted his gift wrapped in a bow that I am not suggested my friend is wrapping for a gift?

 

[GeneZ]

I already did explain that John 1:1 is not referring to the Christ but the literal word of God and it uses multiple senses of god. Do you understand that when I asked my friend bow if he wanted his gift wrapped in a bow that I am not suggested my friend is wrapping for a gift?

Here's your simplistic tactic.

You explain everything the way you want it to be understood, using first half semester seminary lingo.

And... we are to accept without question.

Ironically, you want to do to us (brainwash) as you accuse Christians of being.

New software out next month..... "A. I. Cult Starter." Give it a shot.

 

[Wrangler]

Here's your simplistic tactic.

You explain everything the way you want it to be understood, using first half semester seminary lingo.

Appeal to Ad Homenim. You've lost the argument.

Definition. This thread is about why the trinity is wrong by definition.
P1. Sons are created beings, by definition. Jesus is a son.
P2. God is the Creator, not a created Being.
C. Therefore, Jesus is not God.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

And, for that matter... there is not a term "human nature" mentioned in the Bible either.

Adam had a human nature before he fell. It does not mean sin nature either...

"SIn Nature" is nothing more that JUST ANOTHER "Theological buzz word". The "church generic" wants us to believe that Adam's nature CHANGED, which it really didn't. It's a GIVEN that Eve and him became "Spiritualy Lost" (because of their SIN), and it's a GIVEN that their ENVIRONMENT CHANGED (being cursed by God). but the only thing that I inherited from Adam was his "human nature" that was the same as he was created with.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

I already did explain that John 1:1 is not referring to the Christ but the literal word of God and it uses multiple senses of god. Do you understand that when I asked my friend bow if he wanted his gift wrapped in a bow that I am not suggested my friend is wrapping for a gift?

Word games.

 

[synergy]

Appeal to Ad Homenim. You've lost the argument.

Definition. This thread is about why the trinity is wrong by definition.
P1. Sons are created beings, by definition. Jesus is a son.
P2. God is the Creator, not a created Being.

You conveniently keep forgetting that Jesus also defined Himself as the "I Am" of the OT and is defined as "my God!" by those who believe.

C. Therefore, Jesus is not God.

Therefore, Jesus is God.

 

[GeneZ]

Appeal to Ad Homenim. You've lost the argument.

Definition. This thread is about why the trinity is wrong by definition.
P1. Sons are created beings, by definition. Jesus is a son.
P2. God is the Creator, not a created Being.
C. Therefore, Jesus is not God.

I have not lost the argument. There would be no argument left if you would acknowledge the truths you are told.
It gets boring after a while to try with you.

But, let's see..

For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, ​

whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him​

and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist." Colossians 1:16-17​

All things have been created through and by Him.
Therefore, He could not have created Himself in that case...

Now put that into your famous truth nullifier and let's see what you can "create" out of that.

 

[GeneZ]

I already did explain that John 1:1 is not referring to the Christ but the literal word of God and it uses multiple senses of god. Do you understand that when I asked my friend bow if he wanted his gift wrapped in a bow that I am not suggested my friend is wrapping for a gift?

Ohhhhhh, really now?


The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.
We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son,
who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. John 1:14


God Himself transcends needing words for Himself. The Word is given for those who need to be communicated Truth with.
The Truth we receive from God, is receiving God by means of words.

 

[GeneZ]

"SIn Nature" is nothing more that JUST ANOTHER "Theological buzz word". The "church generic" wants us to believe that Adam's nature CHANGED, which it really didn't. It's a GIVEN that Eve and him became "Spiritualy Lost" (because of their SIN), and it's a GIVEN that their ENVIRONMENT CHANGED (being cursed by God). but the only thing that I inherited from Adam was his "human nature" that was the same as he was created with.

So... you are someone who is telling us God is the author of sin, by creating Adam to sin.

How wonderful.....