Your Views on The Trinity

John 1:1-5 John declares that the Logos not only was with God, He was God. So in one sense, the Word must be distinguished from God, and in another sense, the Word must be identified with God.

But then along came monarchianism.

The first great heresy that the church had to confront with respect to monarchianism was called “modalistic monarchianism” or simply “modalism.” The idea behind modalism was that all three persons of the Trinity are the same person, but that they behave in unique “modes” at different times. Modalists held that God was initially the Creator, then became the Redeemer, then became the Spirit at Pentecost.

And on and on we go.

Adoptionism is another one
In time, according to adoptionism, the Logos became incarnate in the person of Jesus. In His human nature, the Logos was one with the Father in terms of carrying out the same mission and working toward the same goals. He was obedient to the Father, and because of His obedience, the Father “adopted” Him. Thus, it is proper to call the Logos the Son of God. However, He became the Son of God dynamically. There was a change. He was not always the Son of God, but His Sonship was something He earned.
"John 1:1-5 John declares that the Logos not only was with God, He was God. So in one sense, the Word must be distinguished from God, and in another sense, the Word must be identified with God."

Correct, but I follow not the Trinity (anymore), but I follow what Christ taught on how He became flesh Jn 6:51 (being why John wrote Jn 1:1,14); and "the only begotten son of God." How does a trinitarian consider Christ a son? By His flesh? No! His flesh is human from the earth; not a real son! By His person? No! He is God the person who always existed! Can't be the son any, if one always existed. So, He's not really a son, or even a only son!).

What verse(s) do you use to show, or back up the Trinity's version of the incarnation of Christ, how Christ taught how He became flesh?
 
Right, so God's person is always one person, so, ""DIVERSITY" of himself.", or not, if God is always only one person, then that same person cannot say they both sent, and did not send (John 17:3: 7:28; 8:42), because that same person is responsible for what they think, say, and do. Showing the contradiction of them being the same person.
you said, ""DIVERSITY" of himself.", or not," not 101G, but the definition in the bible word do... (smile). Listen and Learn. Revelation 22:16 "I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star."

see that term "offspring", it's the Greek word,
G1085 γένος genos (ǰe'-nos) n.
kin.
{abstract or concrete, literal or figurative, individual or collective}
[from G1096]
KJV: born, country(-man), diversity, generation, kind(-red), nation, offspring, stock
Root(s): G1096
BINGO, see how the KJV and translate that .... "diversity". yes, kin, the KINsman REDEEMER. just as the OT states the same. Zechariah 13:7 "Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, and against the man that is my fellow, saith the LORD of hosts: smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered: and I will turn mine hand upon the little ones." here, "FELLOW" is the KINSman Redeemer, the Lord Jesus, God's FELLOW.
FELLOW: H5997 עָמִית `amiyth (aw-meeth') n-m.
1. companionship.
2. (hence, concretely) a comrade or kindred man.
[from a primitive root meaning to associate]
KJV: another, fellow, neighbour.

yes, God shared or "Diversified" in flesh, (concretely) the "LAST", the KINsman Redeemer of Revelation 22:16, who is the Root and the "OFFSPRING" ... Oh this is so EASY no to be misunderstood.

the KINsman Redeemer is the same one person who is the LORD, who is the Holy Spirit, who is the MEDIATOR, who is the ADVOCATE, better known as the
G3875 παράκλητος parakletos (pa-ra'-klee-tos) n.
1. (properly) one called near (to give help).
2. an intercessor (one who entreats of behalf of another).
3. a comforter.
[(not given)]
KJV: advocate, comforter
Root(s): G3844, G2822

yes, the KINsman Redeemer, the Lord Jesus is the Comforter, the ECHAD of God in flesh..... again Isaiah 63:5 and read Isaiah chapter 53.

When will they learn Lord. answer, Isaiah 28:9 "Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts."Isaiah 28:10 "For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:"Isaiah 28:11 "For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people."Isaiah 28:12 "To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear."Isaiah 28:13 "But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken."

101G.
 
you said, ""DIVERSITY" of himself.", or not," not 101G, but the definition in the bible word do... (smile). Listen and Learn. Revelation 22:16 "I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star."

see that term "offspring", it's the Greek word,
G1085 γένος genos (ǰe'-nos) n.
kin.
{abstract or concrete, literal or figurative, individual or collective}
[from G1096]
KJV: born, country(-man), diversity, generation, kind(-red), nation, offspring, stock
Root(s): G1096
BINGO, see how the KJV and translate that .... "diversity". yes, kin, the KINsman REDEEMER. just as the OT states the same. Zechariah 13:7 "Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, and against the man that is my fellow, saith the LORD of hosts: smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered: and I will turn mine hand upon the little ones." here, "FELLOW" is the KINSman Redeemer, the Lord Jesus, God's FELLOW.
FELLOW: H5997 עָמִית `amiyth (aw-meeth') n-m.
1. companionship.
2. (hence, concretely) a comrade or kindred man.
[from a primitive root meaning to associate]
KJV: another, fellow, neighbour.

yes, God shared or "Diversified" in flesh, (concretely) the "LAST", the KINsman Redeemer of Revelation 22:16, who is the Root and the "OFFSPRING" ... Oh this is so EASY no to be misunderstood.

the KINsman Redeemer is the same one person who is the LORD, who is the Holy Spirit, who is the MEDIATOR, who is the ADVOCATE, better known as the
G3875 παράκλητος parakletos (pa-ra'-klee-tos) n.
1. (properly) one called near (to give help).
2. an intercessor (one who entreats of behalf of another).
3. a comforter.
[(not given)]
KJV: advocate, comforter
Root(s): G3844, G2822

yes, the KINsman Redeemer, the Lord Jesus is the Comforter, the ECHAD of God in flesh..... again Isaiah 63:5 and read Isaiah chapter 53.

When will they learn Lord. answer, Isaiah 28:9 "Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts."Isaiah 28:10 "For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:"Isaiah 28:11 "For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people."Isaiah 28:12 "To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear."Isaiah 28:13 "But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken."

101G.
I know, you still refuse to actually answer the point. You could go about trying to prove the Father and the Son are the same persons all day long, but..
Diversity is meaningless, if it does not solve your contradiction, a one person God who is both the Father (who sent) and Jesus Christ (who did not send)!
Diversity is meaningless, if it does not produce two persons, one that sent, and one that did not send!
Teacher, teacher, are you still not able to explain this, clearly in your own words, so all the student could understand!?
 
I know, you still refuse to actually answer the point. You could go about trying to prove the Father and the Son are the same persons all day long, but..
Diversity is meaningless,
LOL, LOL, LOL, 101G know that it is meaningless to YOU. for the scriptures are correct. 2 Thessalonians 2:10 "And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved."2 Thessalonians 2:11 "And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:"

so, your reply to 101G is meaningless.... :D YIKES! .... see you in Judgment...... good luck.

101G.
 
has anyone around here attempted a cohesive and detailed explanation of a non-trinitarian view of Christ, the Spirit and the Father?
There is a guy trying to present such a view at theos.org but it does not sound any better than the trinitarian concept
 
has anyone around here attempted a cohesive and detailed explanation of a non-trinitarian view of Christ, the Spirit and the Father?
There is a guy trying to present such a view at theos.org but it does not sound any better than the trinitarian concept
Well there is not one in my opinion. They either deny the deity of Christ, the person of the Holy Spirit or like with oneness/ Modalism make them one person wearing different masks.
 
Well there is not one in my opinion. They either deny the deity of Christ, the person of the Holy Spirit or like with oneness/ Modalism make them one person wearing different masks.
Another option is to deny the divinity of Christ. I can understand finding the Trinitarian concept being unsatisfying. The concepts do not try to give a full understanding of God in his uniqueness but only to reject ideas that don't work.
The guy on the other website seems to be intelligent but for a passage like Jesus saying he exists before Abraham, he throws in a suggestion that maybe Jesus' words could reflect interdimentionality. It seems this guy does not like the idea of God being of multiple persons.
His stance is okay in a narrow sense. It can make sense to develop some alternative ideas to the Trinity in case some alternative actually works better. I tell that to the JWs especially saying it does not help to convince me. you JWs need to make an argument that can convince theologians. This guy has written a book but has not found a publisher.
 
Last edited:
has anyone around here attempted a cohesive and detailed explanation of a non-trinitarian view of Christ, the Spirit and the Father?
There is a guy trying to present such a view at theos.org but it does not sound any better than the trinitarian concept
yes, just get a complete understanding of God in a plurality of ONE PERSON which the bible in the OT states God is the H259 ECHAD od himself in flesh to come. and in the NT the G243 Allos of himself in flesh. which in both OT and NT clearly display in the terms "First" and "Last"

101G.
 
yes, just get a complete understanding of God in a plurality of ONE PERSON which the bible in the OT states God is the H259 ECHAD od himself in flesh to come. and in the NT the G243 Allos of himself in flesh. which in both OT and NT clearly display in the terms "First" and "Last"

101G.
An oxymoron- a plurality of a single person .

Are you a plural person ?

Are you our father?
Are you your son?
Are you your mother?
Are you your sister ?
Are you your grandfather?
 
An oxymoron- a plurality of a single person .

Are you a plural person ?

Are you our father?
Are you your son?
Are you your mother?
Are you your sister ?
Are you your grandfather?
that's your problem, let's see if what you say is true. listen and learn. 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."

now question time, is the First and the Last here the same ONE PERSON.... yes or no. your answer please.

101G.
 
@civic,
see, this is why you cannot answer the question. the Root, the Father is the Offspring, the Son. right there in Revelation. so, that
Are you our father?
Are you your son?
Are you your mother?
Are you your sister ?
Are you your grandfather?


all that above is just an excuse to know the truth of God. did you not understand? Matthew 19:26 "But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible."

101G
 
yes, just get a complete understanding of God in a plurality of ONE PERSON which the bible in the OT states God is the H259 ECHAD od himself in flesh to come. and in the NT the G243 Allos of himself in flesh. which in both OT and NT clearly display in the terms "First" and "Last"

101G.
I have no idea what you are trying to say.
 
He is a modalist, oneness. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all the same person.
I think I've seen that before. The problem here is that his post did not make sense. He does not focus on intelligibility. Does that reflect the way he thinks too?
 
I have no idea what you are trying to say.
GINOLJC, to all.
101G knows. this is the problem of the today's churches. a LACK of Knowledge and without UNDERSTANDING. here are the cluses since you're clueless. 101G suggest you copy and paste this in your WP for slow consumption, which is for your edification.

Clue #1, God is a Plurality of himself. supportive scripture. Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."
the Hebrew term "God" here in the verse is defined as,
H430 אֱלֹהִים 'elohiym (el-o-heem') n-m.
אֱלֹהֵי 'elohiy (el-o-hee') [alternate plural]
1. (literally) supreme ones.
2. (hence, in the ordinary sense) gods.
3. (specifically, in the plural, especially with the article) the Supreme God (i.e. the all supreme).
4. (sometimes) supreme, used as a superlative.
5. (occasionally, by way of deference) supreme magistrates, the highest magistrates of the land.
6. (also) the supreme angels (entities of unspecified type).
[plural of H433]
KJV: angels, X exceeding, God (gods)(-dess, -ly), X (very) great, judges, X mighty.
Root(s): H433

Clue #2
Note: plural of H433 ok, who is H433?
H433 אֱלוֹהַּ 'elowahh (el-o'-ah) n-m.
אֱלֹהַּ 'eloahh (el-o'-ah) [shortened (rarely)]
1. one with supreme strength and ability.
2. the Supreme Being, God the Creator, Yahweh by name.

3. a supreme entity, a god-like creature (that is, one of God's supreme creations, or one of man's inventions).
[probably prolonged (emphat.) from H410]
KJV: God, god.

this is GOD, whom no one in the OT had seen directly.
did you notice definition #2. the Supreme Being, God the Creator, Yahweh by name.
Hold it, is not H430 אֱלֹהִים 'elohiym (el-o-heem') n-m, in the first definition is God? yes, but is the plural of H433. so, dose this not prove the three separate and distinct persons? NO, and here's why. the first definition states H430 אֱלֹהִים 'elohiym (el-o-heem') is the plural of H433. not "FROM" H433, but "OF" H433. understand when used as Preposition (following a noun) With regards to, it means "about", "concerning", or "regarding," the noun it proceeds. here it's the same person. but the question must me asked, "HOW". answer, the term "beginning" in Genesis 1:1 gives us the answer.

Clue #3
beginning: H7225 רֵאשִׁית re'shiyth (ray-sheeth') n-f.
1. the first, in place, time, order or rank.
2. (specifically) a firstfruit.

[from the same as H7218]
KJV: beginning, chief(-est), first(-fruits, part, time), principal thing.
Root(s): H7218

note Definition #1. the first, in place, time, order or rank. notice, FIRST in Place, TIME, Order or Rank.

101G underlined "TIME". so how do "TIME" describe this plurality of ONE PERSON called God? TIME is rendered here as in the BEGINNING, or FIRST. and in time God came in flesh. supportive scripture. Galatians 4:4 "But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law," and this "TIME" was the "LAST" days of TIME. so we have the First in TIME, and the LAST in TIME. but how do that explain God's Plurality. answer, the FIRST and the LAST in "TIME" are in "ORDER" as the definition states. so what is that ORDER? answer "Ordinal" Order. supportive Scripture. Deuteronomy 6:4 "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:" NOTICE the term "ONE" here in conjunction with "LORD". the term "ONE" here is the Hebrew word,

Clue #4
H259 אֶחָד 'echad (ech-awd') adj.
1. (properly) united, i.e. one.
2. (as an ordinal) first.
[a numeral from H258]
KJV: a, alike, alone, altogether, and, any(-thing), apiece, a certain, (dai-)ly, each (one), + eleven, every, few, first, + highway, a man, once, one, only, other, some, together.
Root(s): H258
notice definition #2. (as an ordinal) first. and ordinal designations come in POSITION, and not in sums, meaning in "ORDER", and this ORDER is in TIME. meaning FIRST and LAST. well how is this First and Last in TIME prove that God is a Plurality of one Person? the answer is in the scriptures themselves. 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." here the FIRST/LORD is WITH the LAST/ who is the Lord. this term "WITH" seems to in indicate two separate and distinct persons, just like the trinity says.... do it not? well let the scriptures answers this. 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 is our definitive answer. "I also am the last" I, I, I, one single Person who is "ALSO" the Last? yes. and the term ALSO means, in addition; too. bingo, there is our answer. in addition to being the "FIRST, who is LORD, (all cap, who is the Father), he is "ALSO" the Lord, (only the "L" is capitalize), is the Son in flesh.

the scriptures are true, JESUS is FIRST/LORD/Father/Spirit/without flesh, without bone, and without blood in the BEGINNING, made all things just as Isaiah 44:24 states. and yes he was "ALONE", and "BY HIMSELF" when he made all things, as with per John 1:3.

Clue #5
this Plurality of God as "WITH" is seen in John 1:1. "the Word was (WITH) God, and the Word was God". same one person in the ECHAD of First and LAST.... IN "TIME", and in "ORDER". in "PLACE", the OT, and the NT. in "RANK", Ordinal First, (LORD), Ordinal Last, (Lord). the same one person.

with just these two word definition in Gemesis, "Beginning" and "God" 101G proves that God is ONLY ONE PERSON, "Equally Shared" in the H259 ECHAD of ONE Spirit. this is borne out in Philippians 2:6 "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:" note "Equal with", there is that term "with" again. understand "Equal With" not "Equal to". for using the term "WITH" defines no separation, or distinction in PERSON. just as in Genesis 1:1 "of" H433, and not "from" H433, which shows no separation and no distinction.

again, 101G suggest you copy and paste this for further study at your leisure.

101G.

ps if you have any question feel free to ask.
 
what are you saying? I see these apparent lexicon entries highlighted and in big letters and cannot tell what you are arguing. It seems that you are addressing issues that only got resolved when debating and forming the Trinitarian doctrine.
 
what are you saying? I see these apparent lexicon entries highlighted and in big letters and cannot tell what you are arguing. It seems that you are addressing issues that only got resolved when debating and forming the Trinitarian doctrine.
(smile). #1. these are not lexicon entries. #2. not arguing, BIG LETTER is for attention.... meaning IMPORTAN, not shouting, nor arguing. the only issue 101G is addressing is the three-person mistake. nor is 101G debating, just INFORMATION.

now if you have no questions, then fine, or else this is not for you. Good day.

101G.
 
@civic and @Fred
the TRUTH is in all of our faces. what 101G is about the say is not for argument, nor debate, just edification. the very first verse of the bible, eliminates any three-person Godhead. it is revealed in the term God itself ... the key to understanding the ONE "Person" in the H259 ECHAD of his own self is revealed. Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." the term God here is the Hebrew word,
H430 אֱלֹהִים 'elohiym (el-o-heem') n-m.
אֱלֹהֵי 'elohiy (el-o-hee') [alternate plural]
1. (literally) supreme ones.
2. (hence, in the ordinary sense) gods.
3. (specifically, in the plural, especially with the article) the Supreme God (i.e. the all supreme).
4. (sometimes) supreme, used as a superlative.
5. (occasionally, by way of deference) supreme magistrates, the highest magistrates of the land.
6. (also) the supreme angels (entities of unspecified type).
[plural of H433]
KJV: angels, X exceeding, God (gods)(-dess, -ly), X (very) great, judges, X mighty.
Root(s): H433

notice definition 3. (specifically, in the plural, especially with the article) the Supreme God (i.e. the all supreme). but the definition also states, [plural of H433]. and H433 states,
H433 אֱלוֹהַּ 'elowahh (el-o'-ah) n-m.
אֱלֹהַּ 'eloahh (el-o'-ah) [shortened (rarely)]
1. one with supreme strength and ability.
2. the Supreme Being, God the Creator, Yahweh by name.
3. a supreme entity, a god-like creature (that is, one of God's supreme creations, or one of man's inventions).
[probably prolonged (emphat.) from H410]
KJV: God, god.
Root(s): H410

now if this is two separate and distinct persons, and both are co-equal, then by default you have two separate and distinct Supreme Being, and the bible clearly states, Isaiah 44:6 "Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God." ........ "me" is a single person. who is FIRST/Father, and LAST/Son. this is the same one person, for "me" is a single person designation. this is bared out in Psalms 110:1 "A Psalm of David. The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool."

The LORD and my Lord? two separate and distinct person? no, for the same my Lord, in verse one sitting at the LORD right is Yahweh by name in verse 5. listen, Psalms 110:5 "The Lord at thy right hand shall strike through kings in the day of his wrath." yes, the "Lord", the same Lord in verse one at the LORD's right is Yahweh. let the bible speak.
Lord at verses 5:
H136 אֲדֹנָי 'Adonay (ad-o-noy') n-m.
1. (meaning) Lord (used as a proper name of God only).
2. (person) Adonai, The Lord God of Israel (which is actually “Yahweh God of Israel” - see Exodus 5:1 and 120 other occurrences).

[am emphatic form of H113]
KJV: (my) Lord.
Root(s): H113

Notice definition #2. (person) Adonai, The Lord God of Israel (which is actually “Yahweh God of Israel” - see Exodus 5:1 and 120 other occurrences).

Adonai/"Lord" is Yahweh God of Israel” yes, the LORD, all capitalization. not a second person, no, the SAME ONE PERSON. for definition #2. said, 2. (person) Adonai. there it is, (person). and not (persons). so again, the three persons of God is eliminated.

as said, this is not to argue with 101G, nor a debate with 101G but for your edification. if you want to argue, argue with the scriptures, and the definitions. by the way the definitions are coming from the Mickelson's Enhanced Strong's Dictionaries of the Greek and Hebrew Testaments, all these definitions can be reproduced. these definitions are of Mickelson's and Strong's works, and not of 101G's works.

'Now. the key to all of this is as said. [plural of H433] when the definition said, "plural .. OF". that right there should have ended any two, three, or more persons. for the term "of "means, or is expressing the relationship between a part and a whole. if one say God is a PART that is many, (two or more), then one has two or More separate and distinct person, which means the PARTS shows division, meaning polyethnic in nature. for a part, whom many say is the person(s) of the ONE God. that's an ERROR on the reader part. for the bible is clear, Philippians 2:6 addresses and clear up the PARTS question, listen, "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:" the Greek term "FORM" here certifies the Hebrew term H259 ECHAD and confirms the term "OF either as a "PART" or a "WHOLE.

Form: G3444 μορφή morphe (mor-fee') n.
1. form.
2. (intrinsically) fundamental nature.
[perhaps from the base of G3313 (through the idea of adjustment of parts)]
KJV: form
Root(s): G3313

and the NATURE of God is Spirit, as definitions #2 states. but the definition states also, (through the idea of adjustment of parts). let's address this. as well as the WHOLE. the Root of the word here, it holds the key to understanding if God is a PART of himself, or the WHOLE of himself as the scripture states, "to be equal with God:".... notice not equal TO, but equal WITH. lets see this word root.
G3313 μέρος meros (me'-ros) n.
1. a portion (i.e. an amount allotted, a part of something).
2. a part
.

STOP, we need not to go any further. here lies the answer to God as a WHOLE of himself, or in Parts, (separate and distinct, persons). as said if in Parts, one has more than one EQUAL/CO-EQUAL PERSON, and that's ANTI BIBLE. FOR AGAIN HE SAID, "no "God" beside .... me", meaning one person. but is the "WHOLE" of God being in PORTION? if so, then we will have our BIBICIAL answer. and here it is. for another word or the synonyms word for Portion is "SHARE" there is the TRUTH biblically. God is the EQUAL "SHARE" of himself in flesh.

and this EQUAL SHARE of himself in flesh confirm the Hebrew term H259 "ECHAD" meaning ONE as in Deuteronomy 6:4 which states, "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:" and this oneness in the ECHAD is based on the designations of Ordinal First and Ordinal Last in TIME, PLACE, ORDER, and RANK, just as the term "beginning" states in Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1.

for the term "beginning" at Genesis 1:1 is the Hebrew word,
H7225 רֵאשִׁית re'shiyth (ray-sheeth') n-f.
1. the first, in place, time, order or rank.
2. (specifically) a firstfruit.
[from the same as H7218]
KJV: beginning, chief(-est), first(-fruits, part, time), principal thing.
Root(s): H7218

BINGO. the first, in place, time, order or rank. so in time as in Psalms 110:1 & 5 the Fist/Father is also the Last/Son. the same one person.

so the trinity is the BIG DECEPTION, and the GREAT DELUSION. we have been walking by sight instead of by Faith. What is a Delusion: 1. a false belief or judgment about external reality, held despite incontrovertible evidence to the contrary, as a symptom of serious mental illness.
2. a false belief, judgment, or perception.
3. the action of deluding or the state of being deluded.

for the scriptures are correct. OT, Isaiah 66:4 "I also will choose their delusions, and will bring their fears upon them; because when I called, none did answer; when I spake, they did not hear: but they did evil before mine eyes, and chose that in which I delighted not."

NT, 2 Thessalonians 2:9 "Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders," 2 Thessalonians 2:10 "And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved." 2 Thessalonians 2:11 "And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:" 2 Thessalonians 2:12 "That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness."

God winked at this before, but now calls all men unto repentance. 101G will not argue with anyone, but you may argue with the scriptures.

101G.
 
To those outside the Christian faith, the doctrine of the Trinity seems a very strange teaching indeed. It seems to violate logic, for it claims that God is three and yet that he is one. How can this be? And why would the church propound such a doctrine? It does not appear to be taught in Scripture, which is the Christian’s supreme authority in matters of faith and practice. And it presents an obstacle to faith for those who otherwise might be inclined to accept the Christian faith. Is it a teaching that perhaps was a mistake in the first place, and certainly is a hindrance and an embarrassment to Christianity? Could it be omitted from Christian faith and theology, without any loss and even with considerable gain? I submit that the doctrine of the Trinity is of great importance in our time, and therefore needs to be examined carefully, for several reasons.

First, this doctrine historically was the first that the church felt it necessary to elaborate in a definitive fashion. The church began preaching its message, which entailed the deity of Jesus as well as that of the Father. It had not thoroughly worked out the nature of the relationship between these two persons, however. Christians simply assumed that both were God. Soon some persons began to raise questions regarding just what this meant. The proposals they made in attempting to give some concrete content did not sound totally correct to many Christians, however, so a more complete explanation was worked out. This became the full doctrine of the Trinity, that all three, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are divine, but that they are not three Gods, but one. It was deemed essential to the life of the church to hold this doctrine of God’s three-in-oneness.

It was not simply the church of the third and fourth centuries that encountered challenges to this view. Although more than fifteen centuries have gone by since the church took its stand, there are still varieties of Christianity that deny the Trinity. This is still very much an issue in our time, as groups such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses dispute the full deity of Jesus and thus the doctrine of the Trinity. Numerous cults and sects reject this view, as do some liberal Christians within better known Christian denominations.


Making Sense of the Trinity
There is not one verse that says Jesus is God the Son. Nor has there ever been a teaching on it anywhere in the Bible. The Jews never saw it anywhere in the entire Old Testament nor anyone in the New Testament ever taught it. The Catholics who invented this nonsense have used only about 8 verses that they have to piece together from statements that are scattered all over the New Testament. One should think if such nonsense was true and important that it would have been taught by someone. And it is not. Only in the minds of Catholics who cannot explain it.
 
He is a modalist, oneness. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all the same person.
There must be some reason why folks think there was some reason why God would come down as a man. What would that profit? Romans 5:15 says “For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many.” Some theologians teach that only God could pay for the sins of mankind, but the Bible specifically says that a man must do it. The book of Corinthians makes the same point Romans does when it says “For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead” (1 Corinthians 15:21).
 
Back
Top Bottom