Why The Trinity is Wrong: Juxtaposition

[Doug Brents]

No. Trinitarians are exactly there, believing in 3 Gods while also calling THEM 1.

YHWH is God
Jesus is God
The HS is God.

These are 3 Gods. Saying these 3 are ine show your need to violate the Law of Identity.

Trinitarians do not even admit they are parts fo 1 God but each in their own right are fully God.

Doug Brents married Shannon Caswell who then became Shannon Brents and the two became one family, the Brents couple.
Doug is fully the Brents couple.
Shannon is fully the Brents couple.
Both together are fully the Brents couple.

This is what it means that God is three in one. There are three that are equally God, and that does not violate the Law of Identity in any way. They are still three, but they are also united as one.

You also claim one of these gods is fully God and fully man. The only way this could be possible is if man were God. The desire for the man is god thesis is the Original sin.

No, man is not God, but one of the parts of who and what God is emptied Himself and became like His creation. He had to do so. Because God is Just, He cannot overlook sin. Yet His love compels Him to offer reunion with us who have sinned against Him. And the only way for those two character traits to exist at the same time, is for Him to pay the cost that we could not pay for the sin that He was not guilty of. And to do so, He had to be in the form of one who could suffer the torment of temptation yet not violate God's Law in the face of those temptations.

 

[Wrangler]

What's IGNORED is the simple fact that Jesus (who was the RESULT of the WORD, who was GOD becoming "Flesh")

Projecting. The simple fact is nowhere does the Bible say Jesus is God.

The word cannot become God or result in God in the flesh because God is not becoming but is eternal and never changes. What you are ignoring is John 20:31 who explained his purpose for writing his gospel was to show that Jesus is NOT God but Anointed by God.

It is from this stated purpose you must rationally reject the Eisegesis of re-purposing his prologue. John never says Jesus is God but did write the most anti-trinitarian book of the Bible.

This is why John did not say God became flesh. That’s not what he was saying. He was saying God’s ideas were put in flesh to fulfill Deuteronomy 18:15-18. The one Moses told us about as Philip said to Nathanial.

That you have to rely on such mental gymnastics shows how weak your argument is.

 

[Behold]

The word cannot become God or result in God in the flesh because God is not becoming but is eternal and never changes.

C'mon.

"Jesus is the same, Yesterday, Today, and forever".

Yesterday, He was Pre-Incarnate.

Today, He is Jesus the Lord, in the resurrected flesh, in Heaven.

Forever, He is King of Kings, yet, when He was down here, He was the Lamb led to the slaughter.... "making Himself of no reputation", Yet, He was and is..>"GOD manifested in the flesh, who "made the world".... John 1:10

So, according to your posted THEOLOGY....you have a very narrow focus, when you Look at God and Christ., and the HS.
That's a fact.

Its true that God is unchanging, but its also True that "with God ALL THINGS are possible"

Take your one track Doctrinal Limitations off of the Bible and off of the Holy Spirit and Off of God and off of Christ., and if you do, He'll show you some things that you dont understand right now, @Wrangler

 

[Matthias]

The difference is the subject of this thread; juxtaposition. Trinitarians reading skills seem to ignore the pesky prepositions when Jesus and God are in the same sentence. To wit:

1. Jesus is the lamb of God —>
2. Jesus is <the lamb of> God —>
3. Jesus is God.

I’ve had quite a few conversations that go like this:

Trinitarian - ”Jesus is the lamb of God.”

Me - “Who is God?”

Trinitarian - ”Jesus.”

Me - “Jesus is the lamb of God. Who is God?”

Trinitarian - ”I told you. Jesus.”

Me - “Jesus is the lamb God?”

Trinitarian - ”No. Jesus is the Son of the Father.”

Me - “So the answer to my question about who is God is the Father. Right?”

Trinitarian - ”No. Jesus is the lamb of God. Jesus is God.”

Me - “Got it. Thanks.”

 

[Doug Brents]

Projecting. The simple fact is nowhere does the Bible say Jesus is God.

The word cannot become God or result in God in the flesh because God is not becoming but is eternal and never changes. What you are ignoring is John 20:31 who explained his purpose for writing his gospel was to show that Jesus is NOT God but Anointed by God.

It is from this stated purpose you must rationally reject the Eisegesis of re-purposing his prologue. John never says Jesus is God but did write the most anti-trinitarian book of the Bible.

This is why John did not say God became flesh. That’s not what he was saying. He was saying God’s ideas were put in flesh to fulfill Deuteronomy 18:15-18. The one Moses told us about as Philip said to Nathanial.

That you have to rely on such mental gymnastics shows how weak your argument is.

Who was speaking to Moses out of the burning bush? God, yes? And what did He tell Moses to say about who sent him? I AM has sent you (Exo 3:14). Correct?
Then in John 8:58 Jesus says, "before Abraham was born, I AM." Jesus is saying quite clearly that He is God, and that is why the Jews wanted to stone Him; because He was saying He was God.

And again in John 10:30-38 Jesus says that He is God (in a round-about way), and the people, clearly understand what He is saying, again want to stone Him for blasphemy. But it is only blasphemy to claim to be God if it is not true.

Look at Daniel 7:22 & 27. Who is the "Highest One"? Is that not God? Now look back to verse 13 and the "one like a son of man". He is given the Kingdom, and His is the Kingdom that will last forever. And that is exactly who Jesus said He was over, and over, and over: the Son of Man. That is a claim to be God, as all the Jews understood it to be.

 

[Wrangler]

Doug is fully the Brents couple.
Shannon is fully the Brents couple.

Nope. A couple is not 1 - by definition.

A trinity is not 1 - by definition.

There is such a thing as invalid definitions. Maybe a topic for another thread.

 

[Wrangler]

I’ve had quite a few conversations that go like this:

Trinitarian - ”Jesus is the lamb of God.”

Me - “Who is God?”

Trinitarian - ”Jesus.”

Me - “Jesus is the lamb of God. Who is God?”

Trinitarian - ”I told you. Jesus.”

Me - “Jesus is the lamb God?”

Trinitarian - ”No. Jesus is the Son of the Father.”

Me - “So the answer to my question about who is God is the Father. Right?”

Trinitarian - ”No. Jesus is the lamb of God. Jesus is God.”

Me - “Got it. Thanks.”

Like a Who’s On First Skit

 

[Wrangler]

Who was speaking to Moses out of the burning bush? God, yes? And what did He tell Moses to say about who sent him? I AM has sent you (Exo 3:14). Correct?

Ever read Ex 3:15?

God said his name is YHWH. He did not say I am is my name. Think about it. God’s name is not Jesus. Simple.

 

[Wrangler]

no

Yes.

 

[101G]

What distinction are you making here? One is just an abbreviated version of the other. Jesus is referred interchangeably as the son and as the son of God.

ERROR, the Lamb of God has "BLOOD", the Lamb do not. listen and learn, John 1:29 "The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." the way he got rid of sin is by his giving of his blood. now after his resurrection. Luke 24:39 "Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have."

flesh and bone? what's missing? ..... drum roll please.... BLOOD.

that which is in heaven NOW is Not "NATURAL" as was on earth with blood.

101G.

 

[101G]

Ever read Ex 3:15?

God said his name is YHWH. He did not say I am is my name. Think about it. God’s name is not Jesus. Simple.

I am is not a NAME but a TITLE. and two I AM or H1961 הָיָה hayah (haw-yaw) v..... is a VERB, and verbs are not nouns.

I AM is "WHAT" he is in Name, JESUS a Noun is "WHO" he is in Name. know the difference of "What" a name is vs "Who" a Name is.

101G

 

[Matthias]

Like a Who’s On First Skit

Except no one was laughing.

 

[Diserner]

God is also his own Lamb.

No problems.

 

[101G]

Are you married? I am, and as God says, she and I are one. She is still an individual that is distinct from me, and I am distinct from her, yet she and I are one unit (a unity). That is God. He is the Father, and the Son, and the Spirit united into one thing we call God.

this is what the Greeks say is G243 ALLOS vs G2087 Heteros, understand you both are one unit, but it's two induvial. God is not a unit of two, NO. he is the "Diversity" or the EQUAL "SHARE" of his OWNSELF. understand? supportive scripture, Philippians 2:6 "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:"

form here is NATURE, the Lord Jesus have the same NATURE as the LORD, who is JESUS himself.... How? because he is the ECHAD of himself in the "EQUAL SHARE" of HIMSELE, or ...... LISTEN "WITH" himself. why do the scripture say "WITH?" for if the scriptures would have said, EQUAL ... "TO", then that would have indicated two separate person. but in the ECHAD, is the same one person, hence the rendering "EQUAL .... "WITH".

how do 101G know this? by bible example. scripture, Isaiah 41:4 "Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? I the LORD, the first, and with the last; I am he." the LORD, all cap, is "WITH" the Last, and he said, "I, I, I, AM he..... only one person. let's see it in scriptures, Isaiah 48:12 "Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last." bingo, there it is .... "WITH" just as the Word in John 1:1 was "WITH" God and John 1:1c "WAS GOD.... the same one person, as here in Philippians 2:6 "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:"

this is the same one PERSON. see the HUSBAND is not the wife, vice verse..... but God, the "Lord" is God, who is JESUS, and the "LORD" who is God is Jesus. see the difference now. hope you understand.

101G.

 

[civic]

Like a Who’s On First Skit

Don't confuse us with modalists.

 

[101G]

not yet but very soon I'm praying for you my friend

(smile), lol, lol, lol, the sane here.

be blessed.

101G.

 

[101G]

God is also his own Lamb.

100% correct, and on POINT. Most do not KNOW this. bro. dizerner, may I add a revelation to your statement? ... thanks. Genesis 22:8 "And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together."

NOTICE what the verse did not say, "and Abraham said, My son, God will provide "FOR" himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together."
he, GOD, is his OWN "Lamb". for years 101G read past it, until one day the Holy Spirit brought it to my attention.

good spot bro. dizerner, Keep up the good work, may God bless you.

101G.

 

[Wrangler]

God is also his own Lamb.

No problems.

No! This is not how language is used.

1. God made Christ both lord and savior. Acts 2:36
2. God raised Jesus from the dead.
3. God gave Jesus to the world.

This is not to mean one made, raised and gave himself. Juxtaposition.

 

[Wrangler]

Don't confuse us with modalists.

I don’t even know what modalism is - and I don’t want to know. It’s like delving into what type of Satanism was practiced. The genus is enough to stay away from.

 

[101G]

No! This is not how language is used.

1. God made Christ both lord and savior. Acts 2:36
2. God raised Jesus from the dead.
3. God gave Jesus to the world.

This is not to mean one made, raised and gave himself. Juxtaposition.

who raised up the Lord Jesus body? God which is correct, because Jesus is "God". let the scripture speak. John 2:18 "Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things?" John 2:19 "Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." John 2:20 "Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?" John 2:21 "But he spake of the temple of his body." (PLEASE READ THAT AGAIN). John 2:22 "When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said."

NOW "W", did the Lord Jesus LIE in saying that he would raise up his own BODY/Temple? your answer please.

101G.