Why The Trinity is Wrong: Definition

[GeneZ]

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.

Therefore, Jesus is God.

You are forgetting to mention the Greek tense of "I AM."

Jesus said to them..."Point of doctrine'... 'I keep on saying to you the solemn truth',​

before the point of time Abraham came into existence, I always existed!"​

Jesus was declaring Himself to be God.

And, someone here hates that competition!

 

[GeneZ]

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.

Only if the sons are biologically begotten..... that will be the case.
Jesus was with the Father before anything was created.

Sons of human fathers are created.
The unique Son of God is an exact replica of His being, not created.
Like when an ameba splits!

​

The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, ​

sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, ​

he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven." Hebrews 1:3​

When an ameba splits and what comes of it is an exact same essence!
No greater than, and no less than!

God created the ameba to illustrate for us how He is a Son of God!

 

[Wrangler]

I have not lost the argument.

Yes, you have. Doubling down on personal attack will not help you.

 

[Wrangler]

The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.

Notice how the text does not read, ‘God became flesh?’

 

[Wrangler]

Only if the sons are biologically begotten

The trinity is wrong by definition. There is no definition of son, biological or otherwise, that is not a begotten Being.

You are adding a qualifier, biological, as if it helps your position. It merely strengthens the case against the trinity.

 

[civic]

The trinity is wrong by definition. There is no definition of son, biological or otherwise, that is not a begotten Being.

And there is no Father that was not at one time a son.

 

[Wrangler]

And there is no Father that was not at one time a son.

Untrue, there is God, aka YHWH.

 

[synergy]

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.

Unitarians, like @Wrangler, are masters of rabbit holes. Once cornered, like this example here, they will divert the subject to another rabbit hole that they think promotes unitarian presuppositions. Once that unitarian rabbit hole presupposition is blown out of the water, as was done here, then they will then go to their next rabbit hole. And on and on they go endlessly into utter oblivion.

 

[GeneZ]

Yes, you have. Doubling down on personal attack will not help you.

It is not a personal "attack." Its exposing.

 

[101G]

There is no definition of son, biological or otherwise, that is not a begotten Being.

Son simply means God's character or characteristics, Hebrews 1:3 "Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;"

the express image of his person, simply means character,
G5481 χαρακτήρ charakter (cha-rak-teer') n.
1. an engraver (the tool or the person).
2. (by implication) an engraving.
3. (hence) a “character,” the figure stamped.
4. (by extension) an exact copy.
5. (figuratively) a representation.
[from charasso “to sharpen to a point” (akin to G1125 through the idea of scratching)]
KJV: express image

the Epithet Holy Spirit is the conformation of the titles he holds as Father and Son. Holy is his "character", which means "Son", and Spirit is his NATURE, for God is a Spirit. so, Holy Spirit are God's title of Father and Son.

101G.

 

[GeneZ]

Unitarians, like @Wrangler, are masters of rabbit holes. Once cornered, like this example here, they will divert the subject to another rabbit hole that they think promotes unitarian presuppositions. Once that unitarian rabbit hole presupposition is blown out of the water, as was done here, then they will then go to their next rabbit hole. And on and on they go endlessly into utter oblivion.

If it does not repent and stop he is going to jump down his one last rabbit hole that has no bottom.

 

[101G]

to all,
there is no trinity. Scripture, Isaiah 63:5 "And I looked, and there was none to help; and I wondered that there was none to uphold: therefore mine own arm brought salvation unto me; and my fury, it upheld me."
God's OWN "ARM" is him.... in Flesh. to clearly see this, READ Isaiah chapter 53.

101G.

 

[Wrangler]

Unitarians, like @Wrangler, are masters of rabbit holes.

Projecting. The trinity is not in the Bible. That’s a rabbit hole for ya.

 

[Wrangler]

Son simply means God's character or characteristics

Sure - as long as you ignore actual word meanings and make up your own as you go.

 

[101G]

Sure - as long as you ignore actual word meanings and make up your own as you go.

from Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words "Son".
[ 1,,G5207, huios ]
primarily signifies the relation of offspring to parent (See John 9:18-John 9:20; Gal 4:30. It is often used metaphorically of prominent moral characteristics (See below). It is used in the NT of (a) male offspring, Gal 4:30; (b) legitimate, as opposed to illegitimate offspring, Heb 12:8; (c) descendants, without reference to sex, Rom 9:27; (d) friends attending a wedding, Matt 9:15; (e) those who enjoy certain privileges, Acts 3:25; (f) those who act in a certain way, whether evil, Matt 23:31, or good, Gal 3:7; (g) those who manifest a certain character, whether evil, Acts 13:10; Eph 2:2, or good, Luke 6:35; Acts 4:36; Rom 8:14; (h) the destiny that corresponds with the character, whether evil, Matt 23:15; John 17:12; 2Thess 2:3, or good, Luke 20:36; (i) the dignity of the relationship with God whereinto men are brought by the Holy Spirit when they believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, Rom 8:19; Gal 3:26. ...

(smile), B.A.M. BAM, BAM.

101G.

 

[GeneZ]

Projecting. The trinity is not in the Bible. That’s a rabbit hole for ya.

For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father,
the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one." 1 John 5:7

Keep in mind..

John 1:14 tells us that the Word became flesh and 'tabernacled' with us...
Jesus was the Word of God becoming flesh. That makes "three" being one.

Believers decided at some point in time to simply refer to the "three being One" as the Trinity.

 

[synergy]

Projecting.

What you're actually doing is running away once again this time from Colossians 1:16-17, not necessarily projecting. Run Wrangler Run.

The trinity is not in the Bible. That’s a rabbit hole for ya.

Here's another one of your rabbit hole presupposition trounced, by none other than R.C. Sproul:

What's your next rabbit hole presupposition?

 

[GeneZ]

What you're actually doing is running away once again this time from Colossians 1:16-17, not necessarily projecting. Run Wrangler Run.

Here's another one of your rabbit hole presupposition trounced, by none other than R.C. Sproul:

What's your next rabbit hole presupposition?

For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible,
whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through
him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together." Colossians 1:16-17

No wonder there will be no excuse accepted......

 

[Wrangler]

1 John 5:7

Relying on a bad translation to make your case shows there is no actual evidence for your position.

 

[GeneZ]

Relying on a bad translation to make your case shows there is no actual evidence for your position.

Never having to show a corrected translation makes for an easy way out for when you are cornered.
Show the good translation to us and explain why....

And, how about your often seen "eisegesis" labeling of something that you can not refute?
While never able to show anyone what sound exegesis would render?

After while others will get to see your pattern.....