Your Views on The Trinity

[civic]

Gee, sounds just like you.

projecting again lol

 

[Runningman]

Trinitarians piece together statements that are scattered all over the Bible.

They basically use bits and pieces of words and half verses along with their own human reasoning, imagination, speculation and assumptions as they pick one verse here, and another verse there, a hint here, and a clue there, and then they construct their "own God" which is the product of their own human thinking.

The trinitarian has only 3 to pick from...

1.) Use a verse from a bad translation.
2.) Use a verse that is taken out of context.
3.) Not understand how the words were used in the culture they were written in.

And basically that's all trinitarians have. And I mean 100 percent of what they have. They have nothing else.

That's true. Trinitarianism is not formalized in Scripture, but if you take a verse from here, a verse from there, and ignore a ton of other things it's possible to misrepresent Scripture in a variety of different ways. Yet the clear verses about the Father alone being God they reject. Sometimes it looks like the inmates are running the asylum.

 

[Jim]

Where exactly do you see the word water it the following verse?

Acts 2:38
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Where exactly do you see the word saved in that verse?

 

[Peterlag]

Where exactly do you see the word saved in that verse?

Saved happens when you get the gift of the spirit.
ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

 

[charismaticlady]

John mentioned the baptism of fire then immediately after that mentioned burning the chaff with fire. Baptism of fire isn't something you want.

Matthew 3
11I baptize you with water for repentance, but after me will come One more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. 12His winnowing fork is in His hand to clear His threshing floor and to gather His wheat into the barn; but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.”

You are misreading the meaning of fire. It is what happens to the followers of Jesus, so is not the lake of fire. The baptism of fire is the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Jesus was manifest (came to earth) to free us from sin. The parable of the chaff is the removal of the sin in our nature.. This is what the "ministry of the spirit" as opposed to the ministry of death (the two covenants) is about. Jesus writes on our conscience the laws of God so we will be naturally righteous. There are no more sins unto death in our nature once we receive the power of the Holy Spirit. That is the gospel. Romans 1:16-17.

Yes, we will still have immature fruit, but those outbursts and such are not sins unto death, but "sins NOT unto death" - 1 John 5:16-17 and what "revealed from faith to faith" is about. They are what is automatically cleansed in us as we walk in the Spirit, abiding in Jesus, 1 John 1:7. We are already clean. John 15:3.

 

[charismaticlady]

In biblical research and in any other reasonable study. If we have 10 clear verses on a subject and 1 verse that does not fit with the other 10 verses on the same subject. We are not to disregard the 10 clear verses and hold on to the 1 verse and then say we have proof that the 1 verse is well documented. Baptizing in the name of the father, son, and spirit is not taught or practiced anywhere in the book of Acts or in any other part of the New Testament. Nobody carried out such a request that Trinitarians say came from Jesus. So even if 1 John 5:7 and Matthew 28:19 were originally written by the Apostles. It still does not fit with the rest of the Bible because we are immersed in the spirit when we are born again. We get that spirit by confessing the Lord Jesus, and believing that God raised him from the dead. Thus we are immersed in his name.

What changed was the addition of Jesus, not Jesus only.

Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.

So if it is not repeated, you believe it is bogus? Once is enough for me to follow.

 

[Runningman]

You are misreading the meaning of fire. It is what happens to the followers of Jesus, so is not the lake of fire. The baptism of fire is the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Jesus was manifest (came to earth) to free us from sin. The parable of the chaff is the removal of the sin in our nature.. This is what the "ministry of the spirit" as opposed to the ministry of death (the two covenants) is about. Jesus writes on our conscience the laws of God so we will be naturally righteous. There are no more sins unto death in our nature once we receive the power of the Holy Spirit. That is the gospel. Romans 1:16-17.

Yes, we will still have immature fruit, but those outbursts and such are not sins unto death, but "sins NOT unto death" - 1 John 5:16-17 and what "revealed from faith to faith" is about. They are what is automatically cleansed in us as we walk in the Spirit, abiding in Jesus, 1 John 1:7. We are already clean. John 15:3.

Look who John was speaking to though. Just in the verses prior to this, John called them a "brood of vipers" and "every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire." Do you think John was secretly telling these people that fire is a good thing for them in this context?

 

[Peterlag]

What changed was the addition of Jesus, not Jesus only.

Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.

So if it is not repeated, you believe it is bogus? Once is enough for me to follow.

The early church was always baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus until the development of the Trinity doctrine in the 2nd century. The Catholics acknowledge baptism was changed and Scripture such as Matthew 28:19 that was never in the Bible was added by them.

Baptism was changed from the name of Jesus to the words Father, Son and Holy Ghost in the 2nd Century. - Britannica Encyclopedia, 11th Edition, Volume 3, page 365.

The early church baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus until the second century. - Canney Encyclopedia of Religion, page 53.

Christian baptism was administered using the words "in the name of Jesus" page 377. Baptism was always done in the name of Jesus until the time of Justin Martyr, page 389. - Hastings Encyclopedia of Religion, Volume 2.

Here the authors acknowledged that the baptismal formula was changed by their church. - Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume 2, page 263.

The New Testament knows only the baptism in the name of Jesus. - Schaff & Herzog Religious Encyclopedia, Volume 1, page 435.

It must be acknowledged that the three-fold name of Matthew 28:19 does not appear to have been used by the primitive church, but rather in the name of Jesus, Jesus Christ or Lord Jesus. - Hastings Dictionary of Bible, page 88.

 

[Runningman]

The early church was always baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus until the development of the Trinity doctrine in the 2nd century. The Catholics acknowledge baptism was changed and Scripture such as Matthew 28:19 that was never in the Bible was added by them.

Baptism was changed from the name of Jesus to the words Father, Son and Holy Ghost in the 2nd Century. - Britannica Encyclopedia, 11th Edition, Volume 3, page 365.

The early church baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus until the second century. - Canney Encyclopedia of Religion, page 53.

Christian baptism was administered using the words "in the name of Jesus" page 377. Baptism was always done in the name of Jesus until the time of Justin Martyr, page 389. - Hastings Encyclopedia of Religion, Volume 2.

Here the authors acknowledged that the baptismal formula was changed by their church. - Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume 2, page 263.

The New Testament knows only the baptism in the name of Jesus. - Schaff & Herzog Religious Encyclopedia, Volume 1, page 435.

It must be acknowledged that the three-fold name of Matthew 28:19 does not appear to have been used by the primitive church, but rather in the name of Jesus, Jesus Christ or Lord Jesus. - Hastings Dictionary of Bible, page 88.

It's amazing how much they changed to fit their belief system. They couldn't just outright change it all though, they could only get away with a bit here and there. With the Bible being so contradictory to trinitarianism, we are quite lucky to even have it at all anymore while it was held hostage by the Catholics for so long.

 

[Peterlag]

It's amazing how much they changed to fit their belief system. They couldn't just outright change it all though, they could only get away with a bit here and there. With the Bible being so contradictory to trinitarianism, we are quite lucky to even have it at all anymore while it was held hostage by the Catholics for so long.

The Catholics did a lot of damage for millions of people. Much of the Roman Catholic doctrine was assimilated into Protestantism and is still being passed along as Christian groups continue to split off from one another. In a nutshell that is why even the independent church in your neighborhood today most probably believes that there is a trinity, dead people are alive, God is in control of everything that happens, the four gospels are written to Christians, and water baptism is relevant. And then there's everything that you know about our sin nature was taught to you by them.

 

[Runningman]

The Catholics did a lot of damage for millions of people. Much of the Roman Catholic doctrine was assimilated into Protestantism and is still being passed along as Christian groups continue to split off from one another. In a nutshell that is why even the independent church in your neighborhood today most probably believes that there is a trinity, dead people are alive, God is in control of everything that happens, the four gospels are written to Christians, and water baptism is relevant. And then there's everything that you know about our sin nature was taught to you by them.

It's interesting when they suddenly have a spark of realization and they question how potentially billions of people throughout history have been deceived. Trinitarianism got its roots in when it became the state religion of the Roman empire. It became institutional and part of the secular law and order of that time. It was reinforced for centuries until it became cultural and they wouldn't let anyone read the Bible to check it themselves.

Now it's their tradition, not Scripture. Trinitarianism is a highly paganized version of the Christian God. They might call their god some of the same names and titles we do, but they don't have the same God. God takes offense to being misrepresented by them, but nevertheless He is a loving, merciful, and patient God.

 

[mikesw]

It's interesting when they suddenly have a spark of realization and they question how potentially billions of people throughout history have been deceived. Trinitarianism got its roots in when it became the state religion of the Roman empire. It became institutional and part of the secular law and order of that time. It was reinforced for centuries until it became cultural and they wouldn't let anyone read the Bible to check it themselves.

Now it's their tradition, not Scripture. Trinitarianism is a highly paganized version of the Christian God. They might call their god some of the same names and titles we do, but they don't have the same God. God takes offense to being misrepresented by them, but nevertheless He is a loving, merciful, and patient God.

That is pure risk and arrogance. If your arguments were convincing, that might be up for consideration. But you cannot even achieve that, except to your own little clan. It is not like somehow you are some special gnostic group who suddenly finds some new truth and now represent true Christianity. That is not how God works. But we will have to introduce you to the true God for you to even get on the right track.

 

[Runningman]

That is pure idiocy and arrogance. If your arguments were convincing, that might be up for consideration. But you cannot even achieve that, except to your own little clan. It is not like somehow you are some special gnostic group who suddenly finds some new truth and now represent true Christianity. That is not how God works. But we will have to introduce you to the true God for you to even get on the right track.

Uh, your god has been debunked with flying colors using Scripture. John 17:3 buddy, checkmate. You have nothing to teach me at all from Scripture.

 

[mikesw]

Uh, your god has been debunked with flying colors using Scripture. John 17:3 buddy, checkmate. You have nothing to teach me at all from Scripture.

Indeed we have found you quite unteachable as to the message of scripture. John 17:5 helps debunk your attempt to deny the pre-existence of Jesus in 17:5 -- the verse that you keep hiding so it does not prick your heart if you see it.

If you could find a good argument for your view and convince capable scholars and theologians, you might have a bit of basis to accept your new, novel, gnostic belief. No one on his own should be pushing his private doctrines on people when they are so contrary to sound teaching.

 

[Runningman]

Indeed we have found you quite unteachable as to the message of scripture. John 17:5 helps debunk your attempt to deny the pre-existence of Jesus in 17:5 -- the verse that you keep hiding so it does not prick your heart if you see it.

If you could find a good argument for your view and convince capable scholars and theologians, you might have a bit of basis to accept your new, novel, gnostic belief. No one on his own should be pushing his private doctrines on people when they are so contrary to sound teaching.

John 17:1-3 is still there and isn't modified by John 17:5. You are using a non sequitur entirely unrelated to the point about who God is. So you don't have any arguments against God as the Bible provides you no ammo against the Father, who alone is the true God.

 

[mikesw]

John 17:1-3 is still there and isn't modified by John 17:5. You are using a non sequitur entirely unrelated to the point about who God is. So you don't have any arguments against God as the Bible provides you no ammo against the Father, who alone is the true God.

you have really bad memory. Cannot keep sharing the evidence over and over again when you just fail to contest it and even fail to remember it.

 

[Runningman]

you have really bad memory. Cannot keep sharing the evidence over and over again when you just fail to contest it and even fail to remember it.

You're trying to change the topic away from the Father who alone is the true God. The fact that you can't challenge John 17:3 is a testament to how bad the trinity doctrine is.

 

[mikesw]

You're trying to change the topic away from the Father who alone is the true God. The fact that you can't challenge John 17:3 is a testament to how bad the trinity doctrine is.

You forget everything. Jesus's pre-existence is significant in light of John 1. Everything has been shared over and over and over again.
If you could find a good argument for your view and convince capable scholars and theologians, you might have a bit of basis to accept your new, novel, gnostic belief. No one on his own should be pushing his private doctrines on people when they are so contrary to sound teaching.

 

[Runningman]

You forget everything. Jesus's pre-existence is significant in light of John 1. Everything has been shared over and over and over again.
If you could find a good argument for your view and convince capable scholars and theologians, you might have a bit of basis to accept your new, novel, gnostic belief. No one on his own should be pushing his private doctrines on people when they are so contrary to sound teaching.

Jesus didn't pre-exist and if he did it certainly wasn't as God. Jesus could have pre-existed in God's plan and foreknowledge just like many others did, but not literally as a conscious sentient being. So you have a moot point. You have nothing to show how Jesus is different than all of the others who God foreknew.

 

[mikesw]

Jesus didn't pre-exist and if he did it certainly wasn't as God. Jesus could have pre-existed in God's plan and foreknowledge just like many others did, but not literally as a conscious sentient being. So you have a moot point. You have nothing to show how Jesus is different than all of the others who God foreknew.

so you have not yet come out with an argument against how all things were created through Jesus. That just proves you do not have anything to back up your belief system.